Don McGahn must testify about time as White House lawyer, judge rules

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Glass houses.  I will ask the question again, what crime is Lying Schiff investigating?

Dude, I told you to quit wasting bandwidth asking questions like this.  You won't get an answer.

 

 

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Back to your question:

I would explain to you in plain terms what the allegations are and why it matters. But the truth is , some no longer care about the truth. I really have no idea, but I know better than to type words that can be argued and quickly shown to be false.

There, fixxored for ya.  No charge, either.

[Dashinka 24,504]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Look, going around and around with facts that are in the public record is a waste of time. You obviously can read from reliable media but choose to believe "alternative" reactionary sources. That is your right.

 

Feel free to read whatever conspiracy postings about pedophile politicians abusing children under pizzerias , deep state conspiracies, mail servers in the Ukraine, how medical experts are lying about vaccination or that  CO2 is actually a benefit to mankind.  

 

In this forum I regularly see institutions like the New York Times, SPLC, the FBI, the scientific community, the Intelligence community,  and Federal Investigators slammed as biased, bought or bent. It's just like the President's lawyer said. "The truth is not the truth".

 

Back to your question:

I would explain to you in plain terms what the allegations are and why it matters. But the truth is , some no longer care about the truth.

Interesting deflection regarding my question.  It really is not that hard to answer.  As to all the other stuff, I am simply using the same logic the Dems, their media allies, and the Left are using when they initiated narratives such as Trump Russian collusion, or this latest fiasco.  Of course those folks do ignore when their own side collides with a foreign actor and indirectly the Russians.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Interesting deflection regarding my question.  It really is not that hard to answer.  As to all the other stuff, I am simply using the same logic the Dems, their media allies, and the Left are using when they initiated narratives such as Trump Russian collusion, or this latest fiasco.  Of course those folks do ignore when their own side collides with a foreign actor and indirectly the Russians.  

To get to where they are in the political and financial world, people have to get their hands dirty. A sad truth that so many of the motivated people drawn to this level of power and influence are motivated by ill means, and many who aren't necessarily motivated by ill means wind up realizing how this system is, and by nature of their lifelong investment, capitulate (see: Milgram authority/obedience psychological experiments), or just do something else. 

 

Getting their hands dirty exposes them to vulnerability and is a way they demonstrate to others they are part of the group, which tends to facilitate in-group bias and relationships, like the "MAD" theory, if you have a viewed mutually assured destruction, you're more willing to compromise, even harmoniously. It's a paradoxically stable relationship by facilitating instability.

 

Corruption is so rampant in both parties, but via those relationships, which is why they use this specter of corruption and mistrust to help facilitate football team mentality to political parties. In a relationship paradigm, it transfers power from the voter to the voted, because unlike football teams, lawmakers have power over everyone, and the voter is supposed to be a check against them, rather than a sports fan.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

21 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Interesting deflection regarding my question.  It really is not that hard to answer.  As to all the other stuff, I am simply using the same logic the Dems, their media allies, and the Left are using when they initiated narratives such as Trump Russian collusion, or this latest fiasco.  Of course those folks do ignore when their own side collides with a foreign actor and indirectly the Russians.  

 

 

1. This thread is not about the Impeachment. McGhan has been avoiding testifying on potential obstruction of Justice by the President and this legal battle is almost a year old.

2. If you would ask a straight forward question with suppositions like " what are the allegations against the president?" I would answer. Your questions read like "when did you stop beating your wife? An example is the term again, show me where you asked me for the allegations the first time?

 

 

Here is the gist of the questions:

1. Did Trump ask Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter?
2. Did Trump withhold military aid to pressure the Ukrainians into opening an investigation into the Bidens? 
3. Did the Trump administration try to cover up Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine? 

 

 

•  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

What relevance do those questions have to Trump committing a crime? The point of impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. Asking to investigate someone isn't inherently a crime. Withholding military aid isn't inherently a crime. "Covering up" of course is a crime, but that assumes #1 and #2 happened in a criminal fashion, of which there's no proof for.

 

The way this was set up was not to facilitate understanding of crime or no crime. It's entirely theater aimed at smearing someone, or a hail mary throw at somehow soliciting information that might be used for some future impeachment effort. Unfortunate that some, for obvious reasons, wish to conflate this with "the truth".

Edited November 27, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,284]

9 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Glass houses.  I will ask the question again, what crime is Lying Schiff investigating?

What is Schiff lying about in particular? Also, Schiff and the intel committee are investigating whether there is sufficient evidence to support articles of impeachment. This isn't a criminal investigation -- that's not in his powers. 

 

6 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

I'll bet you won't get an answer.  Again.

Ummmmm, am I not allowed to have an evening and a morning where I'm posting on here? I'm not paid to be here. I don't respond on command.

[laylalex 7,284]

6 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

What relevance do those questions have to Trump committing a crime? The point of impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. Asking to investigate someone isn't inherently a crime. Withholding military aid isn't inherently a crime. "Covering up" of course is a crime, but that assumes #1 and #2 happened in a criminal fashion, of which there's no proof for.

 

The way this was set up was not to facilitate understanding of crime or no crime. It's entirely theater aimed at smearing someone, or a hail mary throw at somehow soliciting information that might be used for some future impeachment effort. Unfortunate that some, for obvious reasons, wish to conflate this with "the truth".

Do you even know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means? Hint: it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Even my MAGA dad knows that.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Do you even know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means? Hint: it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Even my MAGA dad knows that.

Feel free to specify the high crime and misdemeanor here, and what evidence there is to justify the accusation.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

9 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

What relevance do those questions have to Trump committing a crime? The point of impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. Asking to investigate someone isn't inherently a crime. Withholding military aid isn't inherently a crime. "Covering up" of course is a crime, but that assumes #1 and #2 happened in a criminal fashion, of which there's no proof for.

 

The way this was set up was not to facilitate understanding of crime or no crime. It's entirely theater aimed at smearing someone, or a hail mary throw at somehow soliciting information that might be used for some future impeachment effort. Unfortunate that some, for obvious reasons, wish to conflate this with "the truth".

Show me where obstuction of Justice is dependent upon a crime being committed or proven.

[laylalex 7,284]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

Feel free to specify the high crime and misdemeanor here.

That's not my job.  It's not yours either. 😘

 

But do you know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means? 

[Boiler 45,519]

 

3 minutes ago, laylalex said:

That's not my job.  It's not yours either. 😘

 

But do you know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means? 

Beating Hillary?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Ummmmm, am I not allowed to have an evening and a morning where I'm posting on here? I'm not paid to be here. I don't respond on command.

Pretty sure no one was talking to or about you.  Except you.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

18 minutes ago, laylalex said:

That's not my job.  It's not yours either. 😘

 

But do you know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means? 

Sounds like it means you don't know what it means, especially in this context, hence why you can't describe the high crimes and misdemeanors. 😘

[laylalex 7,284]

22 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Pretty sure no one was talking to or about you.  Except you.

No, pretty sure someone asked me to respond, because the post I was responding to quoted me. And I hadn't yet. And then there was something along the lines of, well, you won't hear anything. But I did post. I just was off having a life.  No need to be snippy with me. ❤️ 

10 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Sounds like it means you don't know what it means, especially in this context, hence why you can't describe the high crimes and misdemeanors. 😘

Oh no, I do. I just want you to tell me what YOU think it means, since "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't necessarily mean that there has been a crime. Or a misdemeanor.   

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

33 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What is Schiff lying about in particular? Also, Schiff and the intel committee are investigating whether there is sufficient evidence to support articles of impeachment. This isn't a criminal investigation -- that's not in his powers. 

 

Ummmmm, am I not allowed to have an evening and a morning where I'm posting on here? I'm not paid to be here. I don't respond on command.

No we either need you to commit or not to commit to overwhelming us with off topic posts on an hourly basis. If you want the platinum plan you have got to appease us  😁