The Start of the Russian Hoax

[Guest]

@SFVikeFan said:

@PSBLAKE said:

@A1Janitor said:
LOL We will see 

seems as though the last desperate ploy the politicians use in  these investigations is “obstruction of justice”. No original crime found but the accused has made the process  difficult because the accused has plead their lack of guilt and because of this  he is obviously obstructing.  this is all a waste of time.

You can be willfully ignorant about the fact Trump refuses to allow any of his administration to testify or to provide evidence that would corroborate the testimony of multiple witnesses who DID testify under oath but doesn’t change the fact it is in fact obstructing the investigation.

”Most transparent administration ever”

LOL

Unless we are caught trying to cover up crimes, then suddenly we change our minds about transparency

love your talking points that you repeat over and over none of them are impeachable.  Normal behavior between branches.  You should vote for another candidate in the next election because that will be your only recourse.  

[Guest]

@PSBLAKE said:

@SFVikeFan said:

@PSBLAKE said:

@A1Janitor said:
LOL We will see 

seems as though the last desperate ploy the politicians use in  these investigations is “obstruction of justice”. No original crime found but the accused has made the process  difficult because the accused has plead their lack of guilt and because of this  he is obviously obstructing.  this is all a waste of time.

You can be willfully ignorant about the fact Trump refuses to allow any of his administration to testify or to provide evidence that would corroborate the testimony of multiple witnesses who DID testify under oath but doesn’t change the fact it is in fact obstructing the investigation.

”Most transparent administration ever”

LOL

Unless we are caught trying to cover up crimes, then suddenly we change our minds about transparency

love your talking points that you repeat over and over none of them are impeachable.  Normal behavior between branches.  You should vote for another candidate in the next election because that will be your only recourse.  

Obstruction of justice isn’t an impeachable offense??

LMAO

Bill Clinton says hi

25 years ago Republicans thought differently. Now the shoe is on other foot and suddenly Republicans have done a complete 180 on family values, obstruction, and every platform of values and morals they used as an excuse to impeach Clinton just so they can justify Trump doing the same shit but 1000x worse.

[Guest]

Clinton:

Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:[32]

1. the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
2. prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
3. prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
4. his attempts to tamper with witnesses

Article II charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[33]

1. encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
2. encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
3. concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
4. attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
5. permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
6. attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Currie
7. making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

Trump obstruction?  Claiming executive privilege.  

Hahahahahahaha

[Guest]

“The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury,” -- Lindsey Graham, 1999


Interesting how Lindsey Graham in 2019 has done a complete 180 on his view of Congressional subpoenas .... because the Republicans have become the biggest fucking hypocrites and a laughingstock to the rest of the world.

[Guest]

@SFVikeFan said:
“The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury,” -- Lindsey Graham, 1999


Interesting how Lindsey Graham in 2019 has done a complete 180 on his view of Congressional subpoenas .... because the Republicans have become the biggest fucking hypocrites and a laughingstock to the rest of the world.

Good one you are so right I would advise NOT voting for Trump or Graham in the next election.  People who act this way and flip flop on their opinions when dealing with party politics should be voted out of office for sure! 

[Guest]

One more time ... there was a criminal investigation by a special prosecutor.  They went to the SC and it ruled:

The Court's opinion found that the courts could indeed intervene on the matter and that Special Counsel Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment". While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist, the Court would also directly reject President Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
The Court held that a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial cannot override the needs of the judicial process if that claim is based, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality. Nixon was then ordered to deliver the subpoenaed materials to the District Court.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This was over subpoenas in an executive branch FOR TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS in a criminal investigation where they already had proof of crimes by Nixon.
1.  There was no criminal case against Trump. 
2.  The SC ruled Nixon had to turn them over to the prosecutor.  Not Congress.  
3.  The House declined to appeal to the SC in Trump’s case. 
The articles of impeachment against Nixon were for obstructing the investigators in Special Counsel not Congress. 

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:
One more time ... there was a criminal investigation by a special prosecutor.  They went to the SC and it ruled:

The Court's opinion found that the courts could indeed intervene on the matter and that Special Counsel Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment". While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist, the Court would also directly reject President Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
The Court held that a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial cannot override the needs of the judicial process if that claim is based, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality. Nixon was then ordered to deliver the subpoenaed materials to the District Court.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This was over subpoenas in an executive branch FOR TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS in a criminal investigation where they already had proof of crimes by Nixon.
1.  There was no criminal case against Trump. 
2.  The SC ruled Nixon had to turn them over to the prosecutor.  Not Congress.  
3.  The House declined to appeal to the SC in Trump’s case. 
The articles of impeachment against Nixon were for obstructing the investigators in Special Counsel not Congress. 

I bet this information does not change anyones mind because Orange man bad!   I did notice the partisan Democrats did not impeach Trump for obstruction of justice, as some of the very neutral legal experts on this board insist happened, but obstruction of congress.  Guess those morons in the house didn’t consult with any of our legal experts on this board who see clear evidence of obstruction of justice.

[Guest]

Here is a fantastic journalist that we can all agree is a credible.

It is all over.  

https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/12/obama-era-surveillance-timeline/

[Guest]

And when you are done with that one - read this:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/25/source-identified-ig-fisa-report-identifies-one-confidential-human-source-leading-to-audit-of-fbi-activity/

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:
Here is a fantastic journalist that we can all agree is a credible.

It is all over.  

https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/12/obama-era-surveillance-timeline/

YOU can agree on.

Credible?  Sometimes, earluer in her career more so.  Impartial?  Fuck no.

She Left CBS because she was pushing purely partisan narratives, was angry they didn’t give more time to her story on Benghazi.  You know, the dozen investigations by Republicans that found no wrongdoing and that budget cuts by Republicans were the reason for the fiasco?  She also sued AG Holder claiming she was under surveillance but had zero proof, her case was thrown out of court.  Since leaving CBS She has gone further right with an agenda to grind against anyone and anything left .  Spouts anti-vaxer conspiracy theories.  Uses links from Infowars to claim media bias.  


But I can see why you are obviously a fan ...

So you are saying the journalist who was angry at CBS for not giving her more airtime for Benghazi investigations story, who was angry at Obama and accused him and his AG of spying on her and having her case thrown out by a federal judge for lack of evidence .... wrote a huge anti-Obama rant that you want me to read?  


I am SHOCKED

LOL

Sounds totally impartial to me ...

Wake me when you have something interesting.  I know what is really interesting:

Rudy G claiming he is more Jewish than holocaust survivor George Soros, and Rudy’s ties to 2 Ukrainian mobsters knee deep in legal trouble in a pay to play scheme involving an Ukrainian energy company that they promised to another potential investor they will remove Maria Yovanovitch as part of the scheme ... and lo and behold guess who Rudy publicly admitted to wanting her thrown out and told Trump to fire her?

You remember your outrage about pay to play schemes, right A1?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL