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

[Boiler 45,486]

You have to pay for Platinum and it is by invitation.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

7 minutes ago, laylalex said:

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. ❤️ 

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.   

I know what it means, and if you don't really know what it means (since you refuse to say, I can only assume you don't), you'll realize what it means if the Dems ever bring the impeachment to the Senate.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

You have to pay for Platinum and it is by invitation.

I was going to try and get her a comp.  It sure is nice to post without fear of Admin action

[Boiler 45,486]

Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I was going to try and get her a comp.  It sure is nice to post without fear of Admin action

Make sure they include the Off Topic upgrade.

[laylalex 7,284]

9 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

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  😁

LOL blame Alex. He's on vacation now and he got a little miffed that I was like, nooooooooooooooooooo, I have VJ posts to respond to, some of them even substantively! He said, woman, know your place. And that place was apparently propped up in bed while he made me a hot toddy (a bit chilly and damp up here), and then I got a back rub. It was a pretty good place to be.  

6 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I know what it means, and if you don't really know what it means (since you refuse to say, I can only assume you don't), you'll realize what it means if the Dems ever bring the impeachment to the Senate.

So what does it mean? I asked first.  

[Boiler 45,486]

Just now, laylalex said:

LOL blame Alex. He's on vacation now and he got a little miffed that I was like, nooooooooooooooooooo, I have VJ posts to respond to, some of them even substantively! He said, woman, know your place. And that place was apparently propped up in bed while he made me a hot toddy (a bit chilly and damp up here), and then I got a back rub. It was a pretty good place to be.  

-10f this morning and fresh snow. Yuck.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

Former White House counsel Don McGahn gets temporary pause on testimony from judge

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/27/politics/don-mcgahn-pause-testimony-judge/index.html

[Dashinka 24,492]

46 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.

Hmm, did you hear his “parody” of the phone call?  Of course that was before Trump released the call summary.  For two years, Schiff has been telling anyone who would listen that he has the goods regarding Trump/Russian collusion, then he made it known it was all about the Don Jr. meeting at Trump Tower.  When the GOP controlled the House and the Intel committee was going to release information, he would constantly complain that it would expose intel methods which was totally untrue.  Schiff continues to lie when he says that Trump is obstructing justice when the WH won’t clear folks to testify when he, Schiff, hasn’t issued any subpoenas.  I can go on and on, but anything out of his mouth is a pack of partisan lies.  Heck, even now, he says he has all the goods based on the parade of opinion and assumption Interagency witnesses.  I understand that impeachment is not a criminal trial, but to impeach over hearsay and assumption (made up) testimony just looks silly.

[laylalex 7,284]

Just now, Boiler said:

-10f this morning and fresh snow. Yuck.

We're lucky not to be getting slammed by the HUGE storm north of us. It's about 50 right now, light rain. Sorry about the snow -- I love it, because I never grew up with it. 

[Dashinka 24,492]

55 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.

Based on what Ford said, it means anything politically.  So as I have said many times, get on with this completely partisan impeachment.  Time for the Dems to put up or shut up and send this over to the Senate.  I cannot wait for the next partisan impeachment.

[Dashinka 24,492]

54 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

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

Did you mean to say this?  It just sounds silly.  To my knowledge, courts are not in the habit of trying people  for OoJ when a crime has not been committed.  But hey, if thought crimes are now going to be prosecuted, then the courts will be even busier.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Did you mean to say this?  It just sounds silly.  To my knowledge, courts are not in the habit of trying people  for OoJ when a crime has not been committed.  But hey, if thought crimes are now going to be prosecuted, then the courts will be even busier.

Yes I meant to say this.

[Dashinka 24,492]

Just now, 90DayFinancier said:

Yes I meant to say this.

So time for the star chamber to re-emerge.

[90DayFinancier 910]

9 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So time for the star chamber to re-emerge.

Kindof a lame dig, don't you think?

 

1. The Mueller investigation had crimes and convictions, lots of them. You don't need to be convicted or targeted to interfere with the course of Justice

2. Yes obstruction alone is enough. A crime is a crime. Didn't Clinton run afowl with perjury?

 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,492]

7 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Kindof a lame dig, don't you think?

 

1. The Mueller investigation had crimes and convictions, lots of them. You don't need to be convicted or targeted to interfere with the course of Justice

2. Yes obstruction alone is enough. A crime is a crime. Didn't Clinton run afowl with perjury?

 

 

 

When did President Trump interfere with any of the prosecutions the Mueller team conducted?   Clinton lied under oath during an investigation similar to what Flynn was charged with.