Trump tells ex-White House counsel McGahn not to appear before Congress

[riclag]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, he does state that. But no, that does not make it true, which it clearly is not.

And Mr. Barr determines the evidence or lack of it! He and he alone was given the responsibility, the decision to examine the facts of the whole matter! He concluded based on the facts! No obstruction, No collusion!

 You or I don't know the whole matter! Barr does. That's how he came to a logical conclusion. Whether you believe he is lying or its not true is immaterial. 

[Jingthing]

McGahn not showing brings things closer to impeachment. Here is a good snapshot of the current pros vs. cons debate on that --

 

 

[xylophone]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

"ultimate authority for the matter and how it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General".

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/attorney-generals-special-counsel-regulations/

And the problem with that is in asking someone who has basically lied as to the real contents of the report, to open himself and others up to show he is a liar.............rock, hard place comes to mind.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, xylophone said:

And the problem with that is in asking someone who has basically lied as to the real contents of the report, to open himself and others up to show he is a liar.............rock, hard place comes to mind.

Barr will likely be disbarred for lying to congress. Good riddance! 

[riclag]

20 minutes ago, xylophone said:

And the problem with that is in asking someone who has basically lied as to the real contents of the report, to open himself and others up to show he is a liar.............rock, hard place comes to mind.

H

 

24 minutes ago, xylophone said:

And the problem with that is in asking someone who has basically lied as to the real contents of the report, to open himself and others up to show he is a liar.............rock, hard place comes to mind.

Do you know all the facts? Barr does! He concluded no obstruction no collusion! His decision to make! Personally I don't think he should of been transparent! 

"ultimate authority for the matter and how it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General".

[xylophone]

7 minutes ago, riclag said:

H

 

Do you know all the facts? Barr does! He concluded no obstruction no collusion! His decision to make! Personally I don't think he should of been transparent! 

"ultimate authority for the matter and how it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General".

Ah the swamp is just getting murkier........more lies and deceit and more to come methinks!

[riclag]

14 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Ah the swamp is just getting murkier........more lies and deceit and more to come methinks!

yes soon we will hear about the other side of the story of what msm and the dems have been falsely accusing Mr. Trump of

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Seriously?

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/

Looks pretty thin to me. Which one do you think is the strongest?

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Barr will likely be disbarred for lying to congress. Good riddance! 

When do you expect the proceedings to start?

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Looks pretty thin to me. Which one do you think is the strongest?

Big Bertha would look thin to you.

A quote from Howard Dean calling "trump" the most corrupt president in American history and then he said that republicans realize that too.

I totally agree. Everyone knows it. Including inside the white house.

That's the problem. That's the REAL TDS -- "trump" supporters that still try to cover for him no mater what.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

When do you expect the proceedings to start?

I don't have any predictions. I think it's heading in that direction is all. 

[Waterloo]

I predict the Donald is finished even if by some miracle he escapes all the pending legal issues!

He is a so called property developer, to be a success at that he relies on a plentiful supply of credit at reasonable market rates of interest. By all accounts the American banks stopped lending to him years ago leaving him to borrow from the less than reputable Deutsche bank.

Who is going to lend to him now with his documented losses in excess of 1 billion and his well publicized panic to keep the spotlight of his finances.

Their is a better than even chance he is either leveraged to the hilt or has balloon payments pending. 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Big Bertha would look thin to you.

A quote from Howard Dean calling "trump" the most corrupt president in American history and then he said that republicans realize that too.

I totally agree. Everyone knows it. Including inside the white house.

That's the problem. That's the REAL TDS -- "trump" supporters that still try to cover for him no mater what.

Did you read what you linked to? If so, which of the examples of obstruction do you think is the strongest? 

 

A lot of people believe (myself included) Mueller had the evidence he would have come to a conclusion and recommended post-presidency prosecution. He came to a conclusion on the collusion charge.

 

I think Howard Dean is a buffoon.

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I don't have any predictions. I think it's heading in that direction is all. 

I know the dems are doing all they can to stop him. I think it's hilarious 

[chokrai]

8 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Yeah, and ~ 65% of the country, and most others in the world except for Kim, Vladdy, M. Bone-Saw.

 

So yes, he's "great" at something.

 

BTW, you should hear what republicans say about him in private. OK, maybe not.

 

 

 

 

I know what many Republicans say about him and I detest them almost as much as I detest Democrats.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, chokrai said:

I know what many Republicans say about him and I detest them almost as much as I detest Democrats.

I lot of good Democrats out there, they just don't get on TV. 

 

Heard clips of Joe Biden today supporting the wall and opposing sanctuary cities, how funny is that?

[Jingthing]

41 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I know the dems are doing all they can to stop him. I think it's hilarious 

Yeah. Real hilarious.

 

 

[Jingthing]

45 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I lot of good Democrats out there, they just don't get on TV. 

 

Heard clips of Joe Biden today supporting the wall and opposing sanctuary cities, how funny is that?

TODAY he said those things, or today Fox News played very old clips? 

[Jingthing]

58 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Did you read what you linked to? If so, which of the examples of obstruction do you think is the strongest? 

 

A lot of people believe (myself included) Mueller had the evidence he would have come to a conclusion and recommended post-presidency prosecution. He came to a conclusion on the collusion charge.

 

I think Howard Dean is a buffoon.

You are asking the wrong questions.

Why is "trump" obstructing congress?

What's  he hiding?

That is what is driving the "trump" train towards impeachment.

Apparently some of the "trump" fans want that to happen but be careful what you wish for.

Nobody can predict the political outcome of such an impeachment even if it's fair to predict it won't result in removal. 

[Yellowtail]

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

TODAY he said those things, or today Fox News played very old clips? 

 

I don't watch Fox, do you? I heard the clips today, you're right, it's something he used to support.

 

It is amusing how the dems flip-flop on all this stuff and then pretend like they were for it all along. Their base seems to be so indoctrinated they never even notice.

 

If the people flooding the border were going to vote Republican, there would be hundred-foot walls around the New York and California...

 

 

[Yellowtail]

33 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You are asking the wrong questions.

Why is "trump" obstructing congress?

What's  he hiding?

That is what is driving the "trump" train towards impeachment.

Apparently some of the "trump" fans want that to happen but be careful what you wish for.

Nobody can predict the political outcome of such an impeachment even if it's fair to predict it won't result in removal. 

 

So you didn't read it or you don't want to answer because you know they are all weak? Why not answer? I answer your questions. 

 

Again, why did Mueller not reach a conclusion, and (assuming he felt Trump was guilty) recommend bringing charges when Trump left office? I believe it is because the evidence does not support it.

 

I believe Trump is "obstructing" Congress because he believes (in my opinion rightfully) that this has always been politically motivated and there will be no end to it.

 

I also think Chuck and Nancy both know it's all BS as well. 

[Jingthing]

I don't watch Fox, do you? I heard the clips today, you're right, it's something he used to support.
 
It is amusing how the dems flip-flop on all this stuff and then pretend like they were for it all along. Their base seems to be so indoctrinated they never even notice.
 
If the people flooding the border were going to vote Republican, there would be hundred-foot walls around the New York and California...
 
 

So you posted before disingenuously.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Jingthing]

 
So you didn't read it or you don't want to answer because you know they are all weak? Why not answer? I answer your questions. 
 
Again, why did Mueller not reach a conclusion, and (assuming he felt Trump was guilty) recommend bringing charges when Trump left office? I believe it is because the evidence does not support it.
 
I believe Trump is "obstructing" Congress because he believes (in my opinion rightfully) that this has always been politically motivated and there will be no end to it.
 
I also think Chuck and Nancy both know it's all BS as well. 

No obligation to take all your baits.
You can believe what you want.
Mueller did not exonerate 45.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Jingthing said:

No obligation to take all your baits.
You can believe what you want.
Mueller did not exonerate 45.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Asking a legitimate question is baiting? 

 

I will

 

I never said Mueller exonerated Trump.

 

What I said was that Mueller clearly did not have enough evidence to recommend charges, which I think the facts support, even if Anderson Cooper and everyone else at CNN doesn't like it.

[quandow]

9 hours ago, riclag said:

Upon reaching a conclusion of no collusion no obstruction  by Mr. Barr it was all so determined that Mr. Trump campaign did not illegally conspire with Russia.

 

You use the avatar of a known liar, a man who helped cover up Iran Contra.

 

"It is also clear that Reagan and his senior staff, Bush included, understood that the Iran and Contra programs were illegal."

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/171025

 

Instead of providing any logic or evidence of your opinion, you simply repeatedly regurgitate the rhetoric of a known liar. You will respond to my reply with a "laugh" emoticon. I've provided evidence, you deflect and support a horrific man with disastrous, dangerous policies. Does this seem logical?

All Trump does any more is hide his actions. Honest men have nothing to hide.

[quandow]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What I said was that Mueller clearly did not have enough evidence to recommend charges, which I think the facts support, even if Anderson Cooper and everyone else at CNN doesn't like it.

He HAD the evidence. He also realized he most likely could not charge a sitting president from his position, so he carefully laid out the foundation for Congress to charge him. Anyone who says there wasn't enough evidence is either willfully disingenuous or not paying attention.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, quandow said:

He HAD the evidence. He also realized he most likely could not charge a sitting president from his position, so he carefully laid out the foundation for Congress to charge him. Anyone who says there wasn't enough evidence is either willfully disingenuous or not paying attention.

He could not charge a sitting President, but he absolutely could have recommended Trump be charged when he left office, but he did not.

 

I agree he did all he could to be as damaging to Trump as possible. 

 

I am paying attention and I read the document Jingthing linked to, even if no one else did. I saw nothing in it I thought was all serious. Did you read it? if so, what do you think is the strongest evidence of obstruction? 

[user46546545]

WHY?????? Scared the truth may come out

[user46546545]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He could not charge a sitting President, but he absolutely could have recommended Trump be charged when he left office, but he did not.

 

I agree he did all he could to be as damaging to Trump as possible. 

 

I am paying attention and I read the document Jingthing linked to, even if no one else did. I saw nothing in it I thought was all serious. Did you read it? if so, what do you think is the strongest evidence of obstruction? 

I guess that depends if the wool is covering your eyes????

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, IHTE said:

I guess that depends if the wool is covering your eyes????

Condescending insults is all you guys have?

 

Why is it you guys all want to pile on for the attack, but no one ever wants to answer a question with something more thoughtful than "because you're stupid nah-nah-na-nah-nah!!!