Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Are you not cognizant of what happened to General Flynn?
Are you not cognizant of what happened to General Flynn?
#RESIST
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
-All views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of the author's employer-
Problem is, "Meet the new boss... same as the old boss." The guy doing the strangling just takes up a new title, and is even worse than the people he replaced, as the history of the 20th century has shown."Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Machiavelli pointed out the problem, and recommended just putting up with it, and let time take care of things. Often times, any attempt to fix things just makes things a literal hell of a lot worse.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Unfortunately Volume II of the report makes the case, that if President Trump was not the sitting President, that he would be indicted and the report specifically addresses the possibility that he could be indicted for obstruction of justice once he leaves office. The report is pretty damming in making the case that President Trump tried to do what he could, using two different tactics, to stop the investigation. The report also details that multiple members, including White House Counsel Donald McGahn and Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland, of the Trump Administration did not follow the President's orders, believing them to be immoral at best and illegal at worst.
Here is a nice snippet from page 97 of Volume II.
As previously described, see Volume II, Section II.B, supra, the President knew that the Russia investigation was focused in part on his campaign, and he perceived allegations of Russian interference to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his election. The President further knew that the investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice. Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel's jurisdiction were limited to future election interference only. The timing and circumstances of the President's actions support the conclusion that he sought that result.
Last edited by farscott; 05-15-2019 at 05:52 AM.
It doesn't paint a rosy picture that we, as Americans, can or should be proud of. I am no fan of the Dem agenda, by and large, and haven't voted for one in some time. That doesn't mean that I cannot be equally critical of the Republicans for their actions. (And I am not affiliated with either, or actually any party.)
I've been down the road of refusing unlawful orders during my past career in LE. It was unpleasant at best, but it ultimately worked out in the end. I greatly respect those who are willing to take such a stand and damn the fallout. The health of the country depends on such, imho.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Looks like the finger pointing and throwing under the bus is just beginning: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dis...conduct-begins
There is also a great deal of evidence that the President felt there were conflicts of interest, motivating him to want those with a conflict to be replaced (fired?). This isn't obstruction, it is looking for a fair investigation.
You have to ask yourself whether a person that was innocent of collusion would obstruct an investigation that would prove it, and would that person be pissed about the investigation that was not warranted and was raging around about it.
If the President really wanted to fire someone, McGahn and McFarland wouldn't be able to stop him. That this is twisted into an obstruction charge is pathetic.
The Democrats say that each instance of "possible obstruction" can be explained. But when you add them up, you have something. Well, if you add zeros up, you still get zero as a sum.
Wonder what else the Democrats can throw out to obstruct Barr from finding out what really happened. Talk about obstruction, impeach Barr?
With liberty and justice for all...must be 18, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, not available in all states.
Asking staffers to write memos that stated the author witnessed an act that the author did not witness and having the "author" decide to resign is something. Ordering the White House Counsel to fire the Special Counsel and said Counsel submitting his resignation to the Chief of Staff because he believed the order was unlawful is something. Trying to limit the investigation to future elections is something.
I do not care what the Democrats or the Republicans say; I care about what the evidence in the report says. It does not paint a rosy picture. Whether it rises to the level of impeachment, I cannot say. The practical part of me says that as long as the Republicans have the Senate majority, the House will not vote to impeach. So the 2020 election will be big. If the President wins the election, the Democrats retain control of the House, and the Democrats take control of the Senate, then we have an interesting political issue aka "Will the House vote to impeach and the Senate to convict a President who just won reelection?" If the 2020 election ends up different, there will be no impeachment as it will not be necessary and/or practical.
Meanwhile Nadler and his henchmen are trying to hold AG Barr in Contempt of Congress for refusing to violate the law. If that's not criminal, I just know we're totally fooked. I just don't know how they expect us to place any credibility in what they do or say about anything, especially Trump obstructing and needing impeached.
They are worried about "obstruction"? Do they have a fecking mirror?
The fit is about to hit the shan. Looks like Durham has been working with Horowitz on the investigation for weeks
#RESIST
Reply With Quote
