Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

If you fire the head of an investigation it delays the investigation as the new person heading it up has to reorient themselves into continuing the investigation. It was designed to be a stall tactic. You don't have to end something to obstruct it. Trump in business would stall things out with lawsuits and other methods of dragging things out. This is exactly what he was trying to do with this investigation. 

Bullshite. He didn’t do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I get that, and I'm not trying to drag you over the coals, but you're basing that belief entirely on a supposition made by proven liars. 

 

Not evidence. 

 

And if he committed a crime, they would have charged him. They have been actively trying to charge him with ANYTHING they can find for three years -- and the entire SCO investigation was designed to be an obstruction trap to get exactly that result... 

 

And they still didn't get it. 

 

Because he didn't commit a crime.

 

You are being purposefully dense. I am not saying that Trump was convicted of a crime. I am saying he committed it. Did Bill Clinton commit perjury despite the fact he was never charged with that crime. This is a message board not a court of law. I don't think it is a stretch to look at the Muller report confirming the story of Trump ordering McGahn to fire Muller as Trump attempting to obstruct an investigation. There is no other supposition to make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

You can't charge a sitting president.

 

This is not true, and another talking point pushed by the narrative engineers. 

 

The OLC memo is not binding. They absolutely COULD charge a sitting president with a crime. If they had found anything to back up the collusion claims, he would have been charged. 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The reason I believe Russia Gate to be non-sense is that the media narrative of Trump being a Manchurian candidate doesn't jive with Trump's actions on Russia. He literally pulled out of the nuclear treaty that ended the Cold War. In fact that narrative has pushed Trump to push harder on Russia and has escalated tensions. Obama made fun of Romeny for stating that we were in a new Cold War and I agreed with that being stupid and based in the 1980's. 

 

However there isn't a debate that Trump did trying and obstruct the investigation. Is it enough to remove him from office? No, I look at this (once again based off of what we know so far) as illegal but not enough to remove someone from office over. I don't even get why you would object that much over this assertion. Also this isn't a supposition either. This is literally a man firing the man leading the investigation of him. In a court of law you don't need to have him literally say "I did this for X reason." Your burden of proof is as high as Dave Chappelle's was for R.Kelly in that hilarious bit. 

 

So Trump allegedly obstructed an investigation into something even you admit was nonsense?  And for that he should be impeached?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

You are being purposefully dense. I am not saying that Trump was convicted of a crime. I am saying he committed it. 

 

You're saying he committed a crime -- but basing that statement entirely on the supposition of Weissman who is a proven liar. 

 

I'm not the one being dense. Your cognitive dissonance is preventing you from realizing your flawed logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

It is still a crime to obstruct an investigation into yourself. However the reason as to why I think this crime (similar to Clinton's crime of perjuring himself) wouldn't qualify as being enough to remove him from office (based on what we know so far) is due to the fact that the underlying investigation wasn't that valid. However all I am saying is that technically Trump did commit a crime. That's all, that's all I am saying. 

and there are valid legal arguments that would say your nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

If you fire the head of an investigation it delays the investigation as the new person heading it up has to reorient themselves into continuing the investigation. It was designed to be a stall tactic. You don't have to end something to obstruct it. Trump in business would stall things out with lawsuits and other methods of dragging things out. This is exactly what he was trying to do with this investigation. 

 

You can't charge a sitting president. You present the evidence to Congress. That's what Muller did. Congress didn't think it was strong enough to warrant removal because while a crime was committed it wasn't strong enough in nature to warrant the political will to justify it. 

 

Your continued stating a crime was committed does not make it so.  The committing of a crime to obstruct the investigation into an accusation that has now been proven not to have occurred in 2-4 forums (whether you include the House and Senate investigations that were run under Republican leadership will effect whether you count them as 2 or 4 investigations) has been alleged but not proven.

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

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

Bullshite. He didn’t do it. 

 

He ordered someone to do it. Someone not listing to you ordering them to commit a crime doesn't absolve you of it. 

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So Trump allegedly obstructed an investigation into something even you admit was nonsense?  And for that he should be impeached?

 

No I don't think he should be impeached over it. My only point was that he technically committed a crime 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

He ordered someone to do it. Someone not listing to you ordering them to commit a crime doesn't absolve you of it. 

What if Trump actually fired him for being incompetent and the AG appointed a very competent SC instead? Would that be obstruction of justice? Mueller did not appear to be very competent in his hearing. Should Trump possibly be charged with obstruction of justice for not firing him? 

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

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

He ordered someone to do it. Someone not listing to you ordering them to commit a crime doesn't absolve you of it. 

 

No I don't think he should be impeached over it. My only point was that he technically committed a crime 

Ridiculous!  
if you were my report and I said to you, go steal some beer at the corner store. And then you didn’t do it, you’re saying I “committed a crime?”  
 

You’re an idiot to think that. 

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

13 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Ridiculous!  
if you were my report and I said to you, go steal some beer at the corner store. And then you didn’t do it, you’re saying I “committed a crime?”  
 

You’re an idiot to think that. 

What if I jokingly asked Russia (in front of millions of people) to locate 33,000 emails that were illegally erased to avoid prosecution of HRC? Does that warrant my prosecution? 

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

39 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

If you fire the head of an investigation it delays the investigation as the new person heading it up has to reorient themselves into continuing the investigation. It was designed to be a stall tactic. You don't have to end something to obstruct it. Trump in business would stall things out with lawsuits and other methods of dragging things out. This is exactly what he was trying to do with this investigation. 

 

You are aware we've already seen how that movie ends...right?  To recap for you in case you didn't DVR it, Mueller found that Trump didn't collude with Russia.  So, you're saying that Trump, the target of the investigation, didn't already know he was actually innocent?  Ha! He had to wait for Bob Mueller to tell him so?  Good God man!

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

30 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

He ordered someone to do it. Someone not listing to you ordering them to commit a crime doesn't absolve you of it. 

 

He ordered the Code Red?  

 

You still haven't addressed the question of: what crime?  Yes, "obstruction of justice."  But what statute was violated?  

 

(And he actually asked, not ordered, according to McGann's testimony.  Which nit I pick only to demonstrate how you're hearing what you wish to hear.)

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

Just now, row_33 said:

why are you bothering, bf89 thinks its funny to contradict everything you post on here.

 

 

 

It's a different experience, discussing it with someone who at least superficially maintains the discussion. 

 

As opposed to dealing with a mouth-breathing mongrel that responds "I know you are but what am I?" and dumps a bowl of spaghetti over his head.

  • Haha (+1) 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

You are being purposefully dense. I am not saying that Trump was convicted of a crime. I am saying he committed it. Did Bill Clinton commit perjury despite the fact he was never charged with that crime. This is a message board not a court of law. I don't think it is a stretch to look at the Muller report confirming the story of Trump ordering McGahn to fire Muller as Trump attempting to obstruct an investigation. There is no other supposition to make. 

 

..so why are you HERE instead of THERE?.....you must have evidence to support your crime assertion....and your message board statement is woefully contradictory as you have appointed yourself as Judge, Jury & Executioner, correct?...just askin'.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

..so why are you HERE instead of THERE?.....you must have evidence to support your crime assertion....and your message board statement is woefully contradictory as you have appointed yourself as Judge, Jury & Executioner, correct?...just askin'.....

 

"This board is not a court of law, so stop arguing with me when I make legal arguments!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...