4 hours ago, Ahab said:

So in your world talking about something (with your lawyer) is now equal to committing the crime. I am glad I do not live in that world. I would be in prison multiple times over for saying I wanted to kill some idiot driver on the roads. I would be guilty of conspiracy to murder.

Discussing committing obstruction with justice with your lawyer is definitely a crime.

 

Now enlighten me who was the Trump lawyer you are referring to?

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Discussing committing obstruction with justice with your lawyer is definitely a crime.

 

Now enlighten me who was the Trump lawyer you are referring to?

Discussing firing someone (that you have a 100% right to fire) with your lawyer is definitely NOT a crime. If it was Mueller would have said a crime had been committed, which he did not. The lawyer was the White house counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

7 hours ago, Tug said:

Hey be patient lol they are working on it just lining up their little ducky’s Nancy is waaaaay smarter than Donald she won’t react on a gut like Donald lol

That is funny. While I will admit Nancy Pelosi is a skilled politician, I have seen bags full of hammers that are smarter than she is.

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Discussing firing someone (that you have a 100% right to fire) with your lawyer is definitely NOT a crime. If it was Mueller would have said a crime had been committed, which he did not. The lawyer was the White house counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

McGahn wasn’t ever Trump’s lawyer and he’s about to testify before Congress.

 

Trump has three problems with this.

 

1. There is no client attorney privilege between Trump and McGahn.

 

2. Trump was apparently unaware that McGahn was not his lawyer and was perhaps (almost certainly) less guarded in what he had to say to McGahn than was wise.

 

3. Trump destroyed his Executive Privilege wrt to his communications with McGahn when he, Trump, fires off tweets discussing his communications with McGahn.

 

 

You can’t fix stupid.

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That is funny. While I will admit Nancy Pelosi is a skilled politician, I have seen bags full of hammers that are smarter than she is.

Well she has Trump nailed.

56 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well she has Trump nailed.

We will see.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

McGahn wasn’t ever Trump’s lawyer and he’s about to testify before Congress.

 

Trump has three problems with this.

 

1. There is no client attorney privilege between Trump and McGahn.

 

2. Trump was apparently unaware that McGahn was not his lawyer and was perhaps (almost certainly) less guarded in what he had to say to McGahn than was wise.

 

3. Trump destroyed his Executive Privilege wrt to his communications with McGahn when he, Trump, fires off tweets discussing his communications with McGahn.

 

 

You can’t fix stupid.

I would have thought the "White House counsel" would fall under the Executive Branch and this could also fall under executive privilege (if desired by the White House). I said nothing about attorney-client privilege. Who's lawyer is the White House Counsel if not the President of the United States?

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would have thought the "White House counsel" would fall under the Executive Branch and this could also fall under executive privilege (if desired by the White House). I said nothing about attorney-client privilege. Who's lawyer is the White House Counsel if not the President of the United States?

You thought wrong.

 

Watch and learn.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Discussing firing someone (that you have a 100% right to fire) with your lawyer is definitely NOT a crime. If it was Mueller would have said a crime had been committed, which he did not. The lawyer was the White house counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

It wasn't a discussion, it was an order.  Ordering a lawyer, or anyone else, to fire Mueller was a clear attempt at obstruction of justice.  The reason Mueller did not charge Trump has been explained repeatedly in this forum.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

That is funny. While I will admit Nancy Pelosi is a skilled politician, I have seen bags full of hammers that are smarter than she is.

Perhaps you think you are smarter than Nancy Pelosi?  And yet you clearly demonstrate you don't understand what is going on with the next post. 

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would have thought the "White House counsel" would fall under the Executive Branch and this could also fall under executive privilege (if desired by the White House). I said nothing about attorney-client privilege. Who's lawyer is the White House Counsel if not the President of the United States?

It's called the rule of law.  The White House Counsel represents the office of the President, not the President.  The White House Counsel will defend the privileges and duties of the office, he/she will not defend the individual who is currently President with personal legal problems.  That is why there is no attorney/client privilege between Trump and the White House Counsel.  The President of the United States should know this.

 

Executive privilege was waived when Trump agreed to let McGahn be interviewed by Mueller.  Trump can't waive executive privilege then change his mind.  A criminal can't waive his right to remain silent then insist that what he said to the police can't be used in court.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Discussing committing obstruction with justice with your lawyer is definitely a crime.

 

Now enlighten me who was the Trump lawyer you are referring to?

nonsense more dem talking points

 

No obstruction was committed No obstruction of justice either

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well said. Something some of the posters on here fail to understand with their calls for impeachment.

I want them to impeach him so he can get off in the senate and then use it to win the next election.

Pelosi realizes that the bar for impeachment is higher than it has ever been.  She is waiting for the results of the numerous investigations of Trump to reveal crimes that even the Republican lap-dogs in the Senate will have to acknowledge qualifies as a "high crime".

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

nonsense more dem talking points

 

No obstruction was committed No obstruction of justice either

Obstruction of justice was clearly attempted.  The reason no charges were filed has been explained repeatedly. 

Clearly there are people on this topic who think that Trump's clear direction to fire Mueller was only a suggestion.

 

I assume these people also think that the Ten Commandments are really just ten suggestions.

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 5:30 PM, stevenl said:

Yes, filed no charges of obstruction, that is a fact. Whether or not they found crimes you and I don't know.

There is a big difference between 'filed no charges' and 'there was no obstruction'.

It's insanely trivial crap like this that's going to put Trump back in office. But....but.....but....

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Discussing firing someone (that you have a 100% right to fire) with your lawyer is definitely NOT a crime. If it was Mueller would have said a crime had been committed, which he did not. The lawyer was the White house counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.

Mueller served at the pleasure of a POTUS! NO obstruction ,No obstruction of Justice to talk or commit to firing Mueller! He could of done it himself and it would of been within the offices right.

 

 Conclusion: by Mr. Barr, No Obstruction , No Obstruction of Justice

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Mueller served at the pleasure of a POTUS! NO obstruction ,No obstruction of Justice to talk or commit to firing Mueller! He could of done it himself and it would of been within the offices right.

 

 Conclusion: by Mr. Barr, No Obstruction , No Obstruction of Justice

Or we can simply read Mueller’s report in which are detailed multiple incidents of obstruction of justice.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or we can simply read Mueller’s report in which are detailed multiple incidents of obstruction of justice.

Mueller served at the pleasure of a POTUS! NO obstruction ,No obstruction of Justice to talk or commit to firing Mueller! He could of done it himself and it would of been within the offices right.

 

 Conclusion: by Mr. Barr, No Obstruction , No Obstruction of Justice

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

Mueller served at the pleasure of a POTUS! NO obstruction ,No obstruction of Justice to talk or commit to firing Mueller! He could of done it himself and it would of been within the offices right.

 

 Conclusion: by Mr. Barr, No Obstruction , No Obstruction of Justice

So your answer to a post is posting the original post again, the one that was answered. 

With again an incorrect conclusion. 

 

Please stop trolling.

Conclusion by Mr. Barr the AG of Mueller, no obstruction,no obstruction of justice ,no conspiracy by the POTUS

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So your answer to a post is posting the original post again, the one that was answered. 

With again an incorrect conclusion. 

 

Please stop trolling.

I must admit it appears to be very frustrating for some people that don't understand the Conclusion of the Mueller report was finalized by Mr. Barr! While knowing there is no evidence to prove guilt especially whether he talked about it or did it they determined to leave it all in Barr's hands, hence the no obstruction or no obstruction of justice .  

Edited April 29, 20197 yr by riclag

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

Conclusion by Mr. Barr the AG of Mueller, no obstruction,no obstruction of justice ,no conspiracy by the POTUS

Here’s a problem for you, Barr and Trump.

 

Mueller states, instruction to part 2 of his report that he takes the DoJ guideline that a sitting President cannot be indicted as the basis of his report and investigation.

 

He adds, footnote 2 to that statement that criminal proceedings against a sitting President must be dealt through impeachment.

 

Barr clearly agrees with this, he wrote at length on the matter which is why he landed the AG job.

 

So accusations of criminal behaviour against a sitting President can not be a matter of criminal action through the courts but are the purview of Congress and the Senate.

 

Can you please explain what role the AG has in deciding what Congress May consider for investigation and possible impeachment?

 

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here’s a problem for you, Barr and Trump.

 

Mueller states, instruction to part 2 of his report that he takes the DoJ guideline that a sitting President cannot be indicted as the basis of his report and investigation.

 

He adds, footnote 2 to that statement that criminal proceedings against a sitting President must be dealt through impeachment.

 

Barr clearly agrees with this, he wrote at length on the matter which is why he landed the AG job.

 

So accusations of criminal behaviour against a sitting President can not be a matter of criminal action through the courts but are the purview of Congress and the Senate.

 

Can you please explain what role the AG has in deciding what Congress May consider for investigation and possible impeachment?

 

 

 Congress can investigate and  impeach The Ag  report on mueller was concluded no obstruction, no obstruction of justice

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Congress can investigate and  impeach The Ag  report on mueller was concluded no obstruction, no obstruction of justice

Congress can indeed.

 

And they are in the process of hauling Barr before them to explain himself.

 

He seems confident, not, since he’s now trying to avoid being questioned.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Congress can indeed.

 

And they are in the process of hauling Barr before them to explain himself.

 

He seems confident, not, since he’s now trying to avoid being questioned.

 

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

I haven't seen or heard of Barr's avoidance 

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

I haven't seen or heard of Barr's avoidance 

He seems to believe that witnesses called before Congress get to control the hearing.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/us/politics/william-barr-testify-congress.html

 

 

He seems to believe that witnesses called before Congress get to control the hearing.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/us/politics/william-barr-testify-congress.html
 
 

What should we expect? He turned out be 45's Roy Cohn. Completely disgraceful behavior for an AG.

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

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He seems to believe that witnesses called before Congress get to control the hearing.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/us/politics/william-barr-testify-congress.html

 

 

I don't have access to the NYT . Perhaps you can dig out 3 lines with what Mr. Barr's reasoning is

6 minutes ago, riclag said:

I don't have access to the NYT . Perhaps you can dig out 3 lines with what Mr. Barr's reasoning is

The dispute is about Barr refusing to allow follow up questions by lawyers.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The dispute is about Barr refusing to allow follow up questions by lawyers.

And Nadler has stated “The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period,”

20 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The dispute is about Barr refusing to allow follow up questions by lawyers.

Not being able see the reasoning of Mr. Barr and the DOJ ,I'm gonna have to guess he wants to stick to  what he has said all along .Nobody gets to see the  redactions  or if any the gang of 8 I believe

Edited April 29, 20197 yr by riclag