LaxPower Back-Up Stick

a fan wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:07 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 12:04 am A political investigation in search of a crime :

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... ing-to-end

Questions & contacts worthy of attention in the Horowitz, Huber & Barr inquiries & investigations :
(lots of former FBI assets involved, ...not to mention Azra Turk & Josef Mifsud).

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/23/7- ... edibility/

So you and the Federalist author are complaining about a political investigation in search of a crime.

And in response to this, you are calling for a political investigation in search of a crime.

CU88 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 am r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

OCanada wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:54 am There is zero ambiguous on obstruction. Zero

old salt wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 4:01 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:07 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 12:04 am A political investigation in search of a crime :

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... ing-to-end

Questions & contacts worthy of attention in the Horowitz, Huber & Barr inquiries & investigations :
(lots of former FBI assets involved, ...not to mention Azra Turk & Josef Mifsud).

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/23/7- ... edibility/

So you and the Federalist author are complaining about a political investigation in search of a crime.

And in response to this, you are calling for a political investigation in search of a crime.

It's not a SC or even a criminal investigation. It's an internal govt review.

Maybe everybody will get their jobs reinstated, with back pay & pensions restored.

get it to x wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:11 pm And I can almost guarantee Bob Barr isn't meeting Don, Jr. on some random tarmac.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:52 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 am r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

Seriously, after 30 hours of testimony for Mueller Report that leaves "obstruction" ambiguous at best, why should he testify further?

"Former White House counsel Don McGahn is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, deferring to a last-minute instruction from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... na-1308802

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:33 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:52 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 am r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

Seriously, after 30 hours of testimony for Mueller Report that leaves "obstruction" ambiguous at best, why should he testify further?

"Former White House counsel Don McGahn is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, deferring to a last-minute instruction from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... na-1308802

Actually, tech37, it's now more than 800 former federal prosecutors who don't think it's 'ambiguous'. The number keeps going up and up, both R's and D's.

But your logic that McGahn met with the Mueller team for more than 30 hours, so now he shouldn't testify in front of Congress is quite specious. He's at the heart of the second volume (again, which 800 former fed prosecutors, both R's and D's say would be prosecuted). It's estimated that less than 3% of Americans have actually read the report (and clearly you haven't) so having him testify allows the American people at much larger scale to see him answer questions, assess his credibility, and listen to how Trump acted at various points in time. McGahn is a Republican, not a political enemy. First hand knowledge.

And, now we learn that Trump and co have twice more asked McGahn to publicly state that he didn't see Trump's actions as 'obstruction' and McGahn has again refused. So...what does he think is undoubtedly a question worth asking.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:54 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:33 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:52 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 am r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

Seriously, after 30 hours of testimony for Mueller Report that leaves "obstruction" ambiguous at best, why should he testify further?

"Former White House counsel Don McGahn is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, deferring to a last-minute instruction from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... na-1308802

Actually, tech37, it's now more than 800 former federal prosecutors who don't think it's 'ambiguous'. The number keeps going up and up, both R's and D's.

But your logic that McGahn met with the Mueller team for more than 30 hours, so now he shouldn't testify in front of Congress is quite specious. He's at the heart of the second volume (again, which 800 former fed prosecutors, both R's and D's say would be prosecuted). It's estimated that less than 3% of Americans have actually read the report (and clearly you haven't) so having him testify allows the American people at much larger scale to see him answer questions, assess his credibility, and listen to how Trump acted at various points in time. McGahn is a Republican, not a political enemy. First hand knowledge.

And, now we learn that Trump and co have twice more asked McGahn to publicly state that he didn't see Trump's actions as 'obstruction' and McGahn has again refused. So...what does he think is undoubtedly a question worth asking.

Would that not mean that all of these folks are interfering with an on going investigation? What does their 2 cents matter as opposed to the average joe/Jane? Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:54 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:33 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:52 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 am r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

Seriously, after 30 hours of testimony for Mueller Report that leaves "obstruction" ambiguous at best, why should he testify further?

"Former White House counsel Don McGahn is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, deferring to a last-minute instruction from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... na-1308802

Actually, tech37, it's now more than 800 former federal prosecutors who don't think it's 'ambiguous'. The number keeps going up and up, both R's and D's.

But your logic that McGahn met with the Mueller team for more than 30 hours, so now he shouldn't testify in front of Congress is quite specious. He's at the heart of the second volume (again, which 800 former fed prosecutors, both R's and D's say would be prosecuted). It's estimated that less than 3% of Americans have actually read the report (and clearly you haven't) so having him testify allows the American people at much larger scale to see him answer questions, assess his credibility, and listen to how Trump acted at various points in time. McGahn is a Republican, not a political enemy. First hand knowledge.

And, now we learn that Trump and co have twice more asked McGahn to publicly state that he didn't see Trump's actions as 'obstruction' and McGahn has again refused. So...what does he think is undoubtedly a question worth asking.

Would that not mean that all of these folks are interfering with an on going investigation? What does their 2 cents matter as opposed to the average joe/Jane? Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

Glib retort, without substance.

No, your initial question is flat dumb.
There's zero interference in the expression of an opinion, based upon professional judgment and experience.

These are folks, both R's and D's, who have actually made these sorts of prosecutorial judgments, and, based upon their actual reading of the Mueller Report, they are indicating that, given the facts presented in the Report they would prosecute (and thus expect to win) a case of obstruction of justice. But that's after Trump leaves office.

They have no authority, no power, other than the persuasion of their personal and collective credibility.

And, yeah, they have enormously more knowledge and insight into the law than knuckleheads with no such experience and who haven't even bothered to read the Report.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:20 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:54 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:33 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:52 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 am r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

Seriously, after 30 hours of testimony for Mueller Report that leaves "obstruction" ambiguous at best, why should he testify further?

"Former White House counsel Don McGahn is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, deferring to a last-minute instruction from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... na-1308802

Actually, tech37, it's now more than 800 former federal prosecutors who don't think it's 'ambiguous'. The number keeps going up and up, both R's and D's.

But your logic that McGahn met with the Mueller team for more than 30 hours, so now he shouldn't testify in front of Congress is quite specious. He's at the heart of the second volume (again, which 800 former fed prosecutors, both R's and D's say would be prosecuted). It's estimated that less than 3% of Americans have actually read the report (and clearly you haven't) so having him testify allows the American people at much larger scale to see him answer questions, assess his credibility, and listen to how Trump acted at various points in time. McGahn is a Republican, not a political enemy. First hand knowledge.

And, now we learn that Trump and co have twice more asked McGahn to publicly state that he didn't see Trump's actions as 'obstruction' and McGahn has again refused. So...what does he think is undoubtedly a question worth asking.

Would that not mean that all of these folks are interfering with an on going investigation? What does their 2 cents matter as opposed to the average joe/Jane? Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

Glib retort, without substance.

No, your initial question is flat dumb.
There's zero interference in the expression of an opinion, based upon professional judgment and experience.

These are folks, both R's and D's, who have actually made these sorts of prosecutorial judgments, and, based upon their actual reading of the Mueller Report, they are indicating that, given the facts presented in the Report they would prosecute (and thus expect to win) a case of obstruction of justice. But that's after Trump leaves office.

They have no authority, no power, other than the persuasion of their personal and collective credibility.

And, yeah, they have enormously more knowledge and insight into the law than knuckleheads with no such experience and who haven't even bothered to read the Report.

Do you remember the letter signed by all of those PhD scientists that don't agree with gw/cc? They also have enormous knowledge on the subject of gw/cc? I understand you are some kind of Republican that does not require you to keep your head stuck in the sand. Can you tell me what intimate knowledge ANY of these people have with the the investigation? I know you are a Republican but I am sure you understand what an opinion is.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:20 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:54 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:33 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:52 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 am r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

Seriously, after 30 hours of testimony for Mueller Report that leaves "obstruction" ambiguous at best, why should he testify further?

"Former White House counsel Don McGahn is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, deferring to a last-minute instruction from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... na-1308802

Actually, tech37, it's now more than 800 former federal prosecutors who don't think it's 'ambiguous'. The number keeps going up and up, both R's and D's.

But your logic that McGahn met with the Mueller team for more than 30 hours, so now he shouldn't testify in front of Congress is quite specious. He's at the heart of the second volume (again, which 800 former fed prosecutors, both R's and D's say would be prosecuted). It's estimated that less than 3% of Americans have actually read the report (and clearly you haven't) so having him testify allows the American people at much larger scale to see him answer questions, assess his credibility, and listen to how Trump acted at various points in time. McGahn is a Republican, not a political enemy. First hand knowledge.

And, now we learn that Trump and co have twice more asked McGahn to publicly state that he didn't see Trump's actions as 'obstruction' and McGahn has again refused. So...what does he think is undoubtedly a question worth asking.

Would that not mean that all of these folks are interfering with an on going investigation? What does their 2 cents matter as opposed to the average joe/Jane? Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

Glib retort, without substance.

No, your initial question is flat dumb.
There's zero interference in the expression of an opinion, based upon professional judgment and experience.

These are folks, both R's and D's, who have actually made these sorts of prosecutorial judgments, and, based upon their actual reading of the Mueller Report, they are indicating that, given the facts presented in the Report they would prosecute (and thus expect to win) a case of obstruction of justice. But that's after Trump leaves office.

They have no authority, no power, other than the persuasion of their personal and collective credibility.

And, yeah, they have enormously more knowledge and insight into the law than knuckleheads with no such experience and who haven't even bothered to read the Report.

Do you remember the letter signed by all of those PhD scientists that don't agree with gw/cc? They also have enormous knowledge on the subject of gw/cc? I understand you are some kind of Republican that does not require you to keep your head stuck in the sand. Can you tell me what intimate knowledge ANY of these people have with the the investigation? I know you are a Republican but I am sure you understand what an opinion is.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:48 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:20 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:54 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:33 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:52 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 am r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

Seriously, after 30 hours of testimony for Mueller Report that leaves "obstruction" ambiguous at best, why should he testify further?

"Former White House counsel Don McGahn is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, deferring to a last-minute instruction from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... na-1308802

Actually, tech37, it's now more than 800 former federal prosecutors who don't think it's 'ambiguous'. The number keeps going up and up, both R's and D's.

But your logic that McGahn met with the Mueller team for more than 30 hours, so now he shouldn't testify in front of Congress is quite specious. He's at the heart of the second volume (again, which 800 former fed prosecutors, both R's and D's say would be prosecuted). It's estimated that less than 3% of Americans have actually read the report (and clearly you haven't) so having him testify allows the American people at much larger scale to see him answer questions, assess his credibility, and listen to how Trump acted at various points in time. McGahn is a Republican, not a political enemy. First hand knowledge.

And, now we learn that Trump and co have twice more asked McGahn to publicly state that he didn't see Trump's actions as 'obstruction' and McGahn has again refused. So...what does he think is undoubtedly a question worth asking.

Would that not mean that all of these folks are interfering with an on going investigation? What does their 2 cents matter as opposed to the average joe/Jane? Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

Glib retort, without substance.

No, your initial question is flat dumb.
There's zero interference in the expression of an opinion, based upon professional judgment and experience.

These are folks, both R's and D's, who have actually made these sorts of prosecutorial judgments, and, based upon their actual reading of the Mueller Report, they are indicating that, given the facts presented in the Report they would prosecute (and thus expect to win) a case of obstruction of justice. But that's after Trump leaves office.

They have no authority, no power, other than the persuasion of their personal and collective credibility.

And, yeah, they have enormously more knowledge and insight into the law than knuckleheads with no such experience and who haven't even bothered to read the Report.

Do you remember the letter signed by all of those PhD scientists that don't agree with gw/cc? They also have enormous knowledge on the subject of gw/cc? I understand you are some kind of Republican that does not require you to keep your head stuck in the sand. Can you tell me what intimate knowledge ANY of these people have with the the investigation? I know you are a Republican but I am sure you understand what an opinion is.

They read the Report, cradle, as have I.

They are expressing their professional judgment, based upon the facts presented in the Report. They're saying that those facts support an obstruction charge(s). Hands down, they would prosecute. The standard for a prosecution is the professional, informed belief, based on facts and law, that a jury would be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the indicted party.

Mueller lays out a very clear case, both of facts and law, including several instances in which he found that the provable facts met all 3 elements necessary for successful prosecution.

He specifically notes that, based on the OLC, he chose not to prosecute given Trump's current status as POTUS, but he immediately notes that his intent is to preserve a record of the investigation's findings and that a President can be prosecuted after leaving office.

These 800+ former federal prosecutors have read the detailed recitation of the evidence and agree that in at least some instances (as Mueller does) all elements are met and a prosecution would be merited (as Mueller implies).

Obstruction of justice is not an area of the law that is outside the normal practice of a federal prosecutor (unlike a PhD of one area of science opining on an area outside their expertise). If this was say 800+ real estate lawyers opining, or perhaps 800+ insurance adjusters opining, sure you'd have an argument, but these are are all guys and gals who actually faced and prosecuted obstruction of justice. Both R's and D's.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:48 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:20 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:54 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:33 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:52 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 8:13 am r hero Liar in Chief:

@realDonaldTrump

I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan!

Not only did he avoid testimony under oath, he is calling McGanh a Liar and is PREVENTING McGhan from testifying in front of Congress.

Deplorable

Seriously, after 30 hours of testimony for Mueller Report that leaves "obstruction" ambiguous at best, why should he testify further?

"Former White House counsel Don McGahn is refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, deferring to a last-minute instruction from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... na-1308802

Actually, tech37, it's now more than 800 former federal prosecutors who don't think it's 'ambiguous'. The number keeps going up and up, both R's and D's.

But your logic that McGahn met with the Mueller team for more than 30 hours, so now he shouldn't testify in front of Congress is quite specious. He's at the heart of the second volume (again, which 800 former fed prosecutors, both R's and D's say would be prosecuted). It's estimated that less than 3% of Americans have actually read the report (and clearly you haven't) so having him testify allows the American people at much larger scale to see him answer questions, assess his credibility, and listen to how Trump acted at various points in time. McGahn is a Republican, not a political enemy. First hand knowledge.

And, now we learn that Trump and co have twice more asked McGahn to publicly state that he didn't see Trump's actions as 'obstruction' and McGahn has again refused. So...what does he think is undoubtedly a question worth asking.

Would that not mean that all of these folks are interfering with an on going investigation? What does their 2 cents matter as opposed to the average joe/Jane? Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and every one else's stinks.

Glib retort, without substance.

No, your initial question is flat dumb.
There's zero interference in the expression of an opinion, based upon professional judgment and experience.

These are folks, both R's and D's, who have actually made these sorts of prosecutorial judgments, and, based upon their actual reading of the Mueller Report, they are indicating that, given the facts presented in the Report they would prosecute (and thus expect to win) a case of obstruction of justice. But that's after Trump leaves office.

They have no authority, no power, other than the persuasion of their personal and collective credibility.

And, yeah, they have enormously more knowledge and insight into the law than knuckleheads with no such experience and who haven't even bothered to read the Report.

Do you remember the letter signed by all of those PhD scientists that don't agree with gw/cc? They also have enormous knowledge on the subject of gw/cc? I understand you are some kind of Republican that does not require you to keep your head stuck in the sand. Can you tell me what intimate knowledge ANY of these people have with the the investigation? I know you are a Republican but I am sure you understand what an opinion is.

They read the Report, cradle, as have I.

They are expressing their professional judgment, based upon the facts presented in the Report. They're saying that those facts support an obstruction charge(s). Hands down, they would prosecute. The standard for a prosecution is the professional, informed belief, based on facts and law, that a jury would be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the indicted party.

Mueller lays out a very clear case, both of facts and law, including several instances in which he found that the provable facts met all 3 elements necessary for successful prosecution.

He specifically notes that, based on the OLC, he chose not to prosecute given Trump's current status as POTUS, but he immediately notes that his intent is to preserve a record of the investigation's findings and that a President can be prosecuted after leaving office.

These 800+ former federal prosecutors have read the detailed recitation of the evidence and agree that in at least some instances (as Mueller does) all elements are met and a prosecution would be merited (as Mueller implies).

Obstruction of justice is not an area of the law that is outside the normal practice of a federal prosecutor (unlike a PhD of one area of science opining on an area outside their expertise). If this was say 800+ real estate lawyers opining, or perhaps 800+ insurance adjusters opining, sure you'd have an argument, but these are are all guys and gals who actually faced and prosecuted obstruction of justice. Both R's and D's.