B-Man Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Rand Paul: More Democrats to oppose impeachment, rips Schiff on phone logs. “Portraying the removal drive against President Trump as ‘purely partisan,’ Sen. Rand Paul believes more Democrats will oppose impeachment in the House vote next week, and at least two Democratic senators may vote against conviction.” And, humiliatingly: Top 2020 stories: Jussie Smollett hoax, Epstein death eclipsed impeachment. “Even with most of the media promoting their case against President Trump, Democrats still failed to make impeachment the top story in 2020.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 13 hours ago, Rob's House said: They'd never throw Hillary under the bus like that. ...and expect to survive the suicide attempt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Michael Atkinson, the current IG of the Intelligence Agency that turned over the "whistleblower" complaint against Trump for the Ukraine call, was the general counsel for the FBI National Security Division in 2016 through late 2017. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Hedge said: Heh, like they'll have a majority in the House anytime in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 so the second whistleblower neve existed? and what happened to the first one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 30 minutes ago, row_33 said: so the second whistleblower neve existed? and what happened to the first one? The second whistleblower was too busy to testify, as they were putting a second door in their home due to trauma suffered from Brett Kavanaugh's attempted rape 45 years ago. The first one, much like Epstein, did not kill themselves. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 46 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: To not follow up on it, probably would have been dereliction of duty. To use it as a basis for multiple FISA warrants, certainly seems to be a far grosser dereliction of duty; especially as we now know that they had proof it was bogus by the time they requested the 1st renewal at the latest, and likely much sooner than that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 17 hours ago, DC Tom said: That's not illegal. Stupid and childish, but not illegal. It literally is illegal. Incompetence doesn't absolve you of a crime. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 minute ago, billsfan89 said: It literally is illegal. Incompetence doesn't absolve you of a crime. The AG has the authority under law to terminate a Special Counsel for cause, and it is not illegal for the President to ask the AG to fire a Special Counsel. CFR 28 VI 600.7(d). No matter how much you want to pretend it's illegal, it literally isn't. You're making up a federal regulation that doesn't exist. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: The AG has the authority under law to terminate a Special Counsel for cause, and it is not illegal for the President to ask the AG to fire a Special Counsel. CFR 28 VI 600.7(d). No matter how much you want to pretend it's illegal, it literally isn't. You're making up a federal regulation that doesn't exist. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Just now, 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. the President can fire at will has NOTHING to do with the rest of your whining there it can be a very UNWISE decision to do so, that's about the only restraint gee, if there was only a precedent to refer to, so that lazy people could look it up.... (hint Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre...) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Just now, row_33 said: the President can fire at will has NOTHING to do with the rest of your whining there it can be a very UNWISE decision to do so, that's about the only restraint 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Just now, 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 not disagreeing there.... but that's how it is deal with it! and see my comment added after your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 minute 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 What!? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 billsfan89 is going to learn that life is unfair and doesn't make sense (as he/she dictates it be) that's cute and sweet oh wait, billsfan89 is the first to discover this crazy part of the Law of the Land.... ignore that it's been fought over since the late 1700s and written on about 125,000 times and Nixon did it and it hurt him big-time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts