Chomper Higgot Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahab Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahab Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahab Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 56 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Well she has Trump nailed. We will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ahab Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVENKEEL Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 Conclusion by Mr. Barr the AG of Mueller, no obstruction,no obstruction of justice ,no conspiracy by the POTUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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,” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riclag Posted April 29, 2019 Share Posted April 29, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.