Jump to content

The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

If you are doing something you have authority to do under the guise of obstructing an investigation into yourself is still obstruction of justice regardless of wither or not you have the authority to do so. Laws work in context. You are being purposefully dense in your interpretation of the letter and intent of a law and how context works in terms of determining crimes. Selling stocks is not illegal but it is the context as to when and why you sell or buy stocks that determines wither or not insider trading has occurred. 

Is that why Cuomo is now in jail for terminating the Moreland Commission?

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


What!? :blink:

 

It’s almost as if laws are done in context and situational. Your boss has the authority to fire you, but the context to which they do so determines wrongful termination. 

Just now, GG said:

Is that why Cuomo is now in jail for terminating the Moreland Commission?

 

Fine throw him in jail. I am not a partisan hack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical. This is working backwards from your conclusion and then looking to an echo chamber to justify rather dense and bad framing

 

Was Mueller fired? 

 

Nope. 

 

Was he interfered with or denied the ability to do his job? 

 

Nope. Mueller testified to this.

 

You're literally pushing a falsehood as fact because you're living in fantasy land rather than reality. 

Just now, billsfan89 said:

Fine throw him in jail. I am not a partisan hack.

 

And yet you're blindly parroting a partisan talking point without any sense of irony.

 

Have you stopped to ask yourself why that is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like a partisan hack has never denied being one.

 

?‍?

------------------------------------

 

so the media is hopefully able to guide the populace on the actions by the President

 

unfortunately all it does is attack the GOP and suck on the Dems the whole time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

It’s almost as if laws are done in context and situational. Your boss has the authority to fire you, but the context to which they do so determines wrongful termination.

 

It's almost as if at-will employees are subject to termination at the will of the employer.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical.

 

No, the regulation that says he can do it makes it legal.

 

Ethical, no...but that's not the same as "legal."

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Was Mueller fired? 

 

Nope. 

 

Was he interfered with or denied the ability to do his job? 

 

Nope. Mueller testified to this.

 

You're literally pushing a falsehood as fact because you're living in fantasy land rather than reality. 

 

And yet you're blindly parroting a partisan talking point without any sense of irony.

 

Have you stopped to ask yourself why that is?

 

All my point was that Trump much like Bill Clinton did technically commit a crime on two fronts, one is obstruction in the Russia probe and the other was a campaign finance law violation soliciting political help from Ukraine outside of the Justice Department. But much like the Clinton Impeachment Trump's crimes do not (Based off what we know so far, I would love to see Bolton and others testify before making a definitive conclusion) rise to the levels of being removed from office.

 

But you guys are such a sycophantic echo chamber in the pocket of Trump that any mild criticism of the dear leader and criticism of Republicans comes with an onslaught of purposefully dense thinking, whataboutisms. bad faith interpretations and hack right wing Trump defense talking points. 

 

You go around calling everyone NPC's yet 80% of people here think exactly the same. 

22 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

It's almost as if at-will employees are subject to termination at the will of the employer.

 

Yes because at will employees can be fired based off their race? It's not like there are regulations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

All my point was that Trump much like Bill Clinton did technically commit a crime on two fronts, one is obstruction in the Russia probe and the other was a campaign finance law violation soliciting political help from Ukraine outside of the Justice Department.

 

Trump did not "technically commit a crime". He was not charged with a crime, there was no "proof" he committed obstruction. You're again pushing a partisan talking point that has no basis in law or reality. None. 

 

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

You go around calling everyone NPC's yet 80% of people here think exactly the same. 

 

I call people who refuse to think for themselves NPCs. You are pushing a falsehood as fact -- because proven liars and manipulators in the media whom you obviously rely on for your information have misled you badly. It's been pointed out, with evidence to back it up, how you're misinformed but rather than deal with that information, you double down on talking points. 

 

Because you're programmed. Your mind was made up heading into this.

 

That makes you an NPC until you prove otherwise.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Trump did not "technically commit a crime". He was not charged with a crime, there was no "proof" he committed obstruction. You're again pushing a partisan talking point that has no basis in law or reality. None. 

 

 

I call people who refuse to think for themselves NPCs. You are pushing a falsehood as fact -- because proven liars and manipulators in the media whom you obviously rely on for your information have misled you badly. It's been pointed out, with evidence to back it up, how you're misinformed but rather than deal with that information, you double down on talking points. 

 

Because you're programmed. Your mind was made up heading into this.

 

That makes you an NPC until you prove otherwise.

 

Once again do you ever find it weird that the only people that you feel think for themselves agree with you? I looked at the facts, Trump attempted obstruction of Justice, there can be no denying that unless you are purposefully dense and stating that events that were testified to have happened did not happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Once again do you ever find it weird that the only people that you feel think for themselves agree with you? I looked at the facts, Trump attempted obstruction of Justice, there can be no denying that unless you are purposefully dense and stating that events that were testified to have happened did not happen. 


The evidence you looked at to reach that conclusion were never tested under cross or investigation. 
 

So you’re basing your entire opinion on a supposition made about obstructing a crime we now know for certain never happened. 
 

Isn’t it more effective to examine PROVEN evidence rather than supposition when forming your opinion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:


The evidence you looked at to reach that conclusion were never tested under cross or investigation. 
 

So you’re basing your entire opinion on a supposition made about obstructing a crime we now know for certain never happened. 
 

Isn’t it more effective to examine PROVEN evidence rather than supposition when forming your opinion? 

 

Is the Muller Report not Proven evidence? You seem happy that it (rightfully) disproved the Russia Gate conspiracy theory but when it goes against what you want to think you become purposefully dense. McGahn himself (firsthand) confirmed the accuracy of the media reports surrounding Trump's request to have McGahn fire Muller and then cover up the fact that he asked McGahn to do so. 

Edited by billsfan89
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

OK so you don't see any issue with firing someone investigating you? Having the authority to do so doesn't make it legal or ethical. This is working backwards from your conclusion and then looking to an echo chamber to justify rather dense and bad framing

i'll do the honors here...

 

you're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Is the Muller Report not Proven evidence? 

 

Volume 2 has NO PROVEN EVIDENCE. None. Because none of it was tested under cross or allowed to be investigated. That's what I'm pointing out. That's the "facts" you're relying on to form your opinion, and it's entirely based on SUPPOSITION. 

 

You've been BADLY misled for three years about this very matter. And rather than realize that, and step back and reassess, you're doubling down on buying into the narrative pushed on you by proven liars. 


Why?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Is the Muller Report not Proven evidence? You seem happy that it (rightfully) disproved the Russia Gate conspiracy theory but when it goes against what you want to think you become purposefully dense. McGahn himself (firsthand) confirmed the accuracy of the media reports surrounding Trump's request to have McGahn fire Muller and then cover up the fact that he asked McGahn to do so. 

 

Please identify the exact statute which qualifies as "obstruction" by doing something that he is legally entitled to do.

 

By the way, does it not strike you as odd that this "proven" obstruction somehow didn't make it into the Articles of Impeachment. You know, since it's "proven" obstruction and all...

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Please identify the exact statute which qualifies as "obstruction" by doing something that he is legally entitled to do.

 

By the way, does it not strike you as odd that this "proven" obstruction somehow didn't make it into the Articles of Impeachment. You know, since it's "proven" obstruction and all...

 

Once again you are being purposefully dense to state that context to which allowable actions are conducted are irrelevant. Once again, laws are done under context of actions. You are allowed to fire someone, can you fire them for being Asian? There are laws and regulations to which you can use your authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Once again you are being purposefully dense to state that context to which allowable actions are conducted are irrelevant. Once again, laws are done under context of actions. You are allowed to fire someone, can you fire them for being Asian? There are laws and regulations to which you can use your authority. 

 

I really have nothing against you, billsfan89. Truly. I just do not understand why you keep twisting things to fit the narrative of people who lied to your face for three years without compunction. Why keep drinking their swill? Aren't you offended that the majority of the corporate media spent three years sowing division in this country by pushing a false narrative that we now know THEY knew to be fake since January of 2017? 

 

Doesn't any of that give you pause to at least consider the possibility that you were misled? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Once again you are being purposefully dense to state that context to which allowable actions are conducted are irrelevant. Once again, laws are done under context of actions. You are allowed to fire someone, can you fire them for being Asian? There are laws and regulations to which you can use your authority. 

If their job is driving a vehicle on public streets then it is the only responsible thing to do to can their asses. 

Edited by 3rdnlng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Once again you are being purposefully dense to state that context to which allowable actions are conducted are irrelevant. Once again, laws are done under context of actions. You are allowed to fire someone, can you fire them for being Asian? There are laws and regulations to which you can use your authority. 

Many of you need a civics class. There are three branches of government.  The President does NOT work for the Congress. If there is a dispute between two of the branches, the third one breaks the tie. In this particular case, the congress doesn't want to ask the third branch: the Court. They know they are supposed to ask the Court, but Nancy has refused.  If anyone is abusing their power, it's the Congress.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...