• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Asked McGahn to Declare Trump Never Obstructed Justice

lwf said:
Ok, fine. Your media says there was no obstruction during the investigation. The publicly available report of said investigation says there is, by way of a White House lawyer who reported to investigators obstructive behavior from Trump. This is a contradiction. This White House lawyer is still alive and could solve this contradiction. What does your media say about why he would refuse to do so?
Click to expand...

Why cooperate any more with the left when Mueller already concluded his investigation? What are we investigating now, except the complicity in treason and an attempted coup by the Obama Administration?
 
lurchadams said:
See my signature.
Click to expand...

See the results of the Muller report:

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
 
Common Sense 1 said:
See the results of the Muller report:

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
Click to expand...

What page of the report is that on? I can't seem to find it.
 
SLC said:
McGahn has already testified for 30 hours and Trump and McGahn has attorney client privilege. If the client {Trump} doesn't want to release McGahn to testify then McGahn should not testify. The Dems are just trying to score TV points and Trump should not help them. Mueller has already did all the investigating that is needed. Trump didn't have to let McGahn testify to Mueller in the first place.


Lurch Lurch Lurch. I'm truly disappointed that you would say the Mueller report is heavily redactedI think you and I both know that isn't true. And Barr is refusing to hand over unredacted Grand Jury testimony AS HE IS REQUIRED to do by the law. If Congress wants the Grand Jury testimony then they should take to court and try to get it. But asking Barr to break the law is nuts and unethical. Also Barr has a minimally redacted version that 6 republicans and 6 democrats [Nadler is one of them] and 5 Republicans have viewed it a NO Democrat has viewed if yet. So they don't want to know what the redactions are they just want to bitch about it.
Click to expand...

I saw the pages of the report, my friend. Whole sections were redacted. Regardless of how anyone feels about "McGahn already testifying for 30 hours", how many times did Hillary testify for the right-wing Benghazi witch hunt?

How would conservatives have felt if Hillary said, "I already testified before congress once and I'm not doing it again"?
 
smallvoice said:
Sounds like he "should" have indicted. I would think that some agency's "policy" wouldn't hold much water if it were true. So it must not be true.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong. The DOJ's policy is the only thing that matters. If the DOJ says a sitting president cannot be indicted, Donald Trump could commit murder on national television and the DOJ would be incapable of prosecuting him while he is the sitting president. This is why Mueller said the decision is Congress' not the DOJ's. Mueller outlined the behavior he discovered in his investigation in his report and left what to do about it to Congress. More than 800 well-known prosecutors who have read the Mueller report agree that if Trump were not the sitting president, he would have been indicted based solely on what is contained in the Mueller report.
 
Virgil Jones said:
Why cooperate any more with the left when Mueller already concluded his investigation? What are we investigating now, except the complicity in treason and an attempted coup by the Obama Administration?
Click to expand...

We're investigating the criminal behavior outlined in the Mueller Report in order to determine if Congress should start impeachment proceedings.
 
lwf said:
We're investigating the criminal behavior outlined in the Mueller Report in order to determine if Congress should start impeachment proceedings.
Click to expand...

You already lost that battle. Now we will see how many on your side go to prison. This will be great fun now that your half of the investigation is over, and our half has begun.
 
Virgil Jones said:
You already lost that battle. Now we will see how many on your side go to prison. This will be great fun now that your half of the investigation is over, and our half has begun.
Click to expand...

Sorry to inform you, but Trump asked WH staff to lie and create false documents. Do you feel proud. You may excuse Trumps behaviour in exchange for Conservative judges, that is your prerogative. But dont expect everyone else to hand wave away obvious obstruction and unethical behavior from the President. I dont give a rats arse about Conservative judges, but I do care when a President commits crimes. How low do your leadership standards sink to make allowances for Trump?
 
Mycroft said:
Actually, this is not a recurring theme with Trump. It's a recurring theme with the NYT and other Trump hating news organizations: Passing off rumors as if they were facts.

Of course, the useful idiots will believe anything, won't they?
Click to expand...

The Wall Street Journal carried the same story. Pretending the Times is your enemy isn't an argument.
 
tres borrachos said:
The Wall Street Journal carried the same story. Pretending the Times is your enemy isn't an argument.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you didn't read all of my post (even though you quoted it) "...and other Trump hating news organizations".

Rumors are a recurring theme for the WSJ, as well.
 
Mycroft said:
Perhaps you didn't read all of my post (even though you quoted it) "...and other Trump hating news organizations".

Rumors are a recurring theme for the WSJ, as well.
Click to expand...

The WSJ hates Trump? Does Kimberley Strassel know this?
 
americanwoman said:
What investigation has begun and who exactly is leading it?
Click to expand...

First of all the IG and now Barr, the investigation is to why democrats and their media (I repeat myself) investigated Trump without any evidence of cooperation between Trump and the Russians. Meanwhile the one little bit of moronic evidence (the pee pee report) was paid for by Hillary, and used by the Obama administration as evidence to a FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign and launch this entire idiotic BS to start with.
 
Virgil Jones said:
You already lost that battle. Now we will see how many on your side go to prison. This will be great fun now that your half of the investigation is over, and our half has begun.
Click to expand...

How do you conclude that the battle has been lost? The Mueller report is in. Mueller outlined the evidence and specifically stated he was leaving it to Congress to use that evidence to determine if a crime had been committed. Now Congress is using its subpoena power to get all of its ducks in a row before it makes that decision.

The narrative that Trump has been "exonerated" is conservative propaganda. In fact, the Mueller Report states in no uncertain terms that the investigation attempted to exonerate the president and failed. Mueller even said he would have exonerated Trump if he could. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anyone in involved in the Russia probe to go to prison.
 
Last edited:
lwf said:
How do you conclude that the battle has been lost? The Mueller report is in. Mueller outlined the evidence and specifically stated he was leaving it to Congress to use that evidence to determine if a crime had been committed. Now Congress is using its subpoena power to get all of its ducks in a row before it makes that decision.

The narrative that Trump has been "exonerated" is conservative propaganda. In fact, the Mueller Report states in no uncertain terms that the investigation attempted to exonerate the president and failed. Mueller even said he would have exonerated Trump if he could. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anyone in involved in the Russia probe to go to prison.
Click to expand...

There is no way the Congress (which is a group of baboons by definition) will ever have during Trump's presidency the right to investigate him again.
 
Virgil Jones said:
There is no way the Congress (which is a group of baboons by definition) will ever have during Trump's presidency the right to investigate him again.
Click to expand...

Investigating the president is Congress' job. There is nothing Trump can do to stop them.
 
The President asking staff to lie, and to present a false affidavit, were is the Rights outrage, instead we get diversions and attempts to hand wave it away. I suppose its easier then admitting Trumps unethical behavior.
 
Virgil Jones said:
First of all the IG and now Barr, the investigation is to why democrats and their media (I repeat myself) investigated Trump without any evidence of cooperation between Trump and the Russians. Meanwhile the one little bit of moronic evidence (the pee pee report) was paid for by Hillary, and used by the Obama administration as evidence to a FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign and launch this entire idiotic BS to start with.
Click to expand...

You do not mind the President asking staff to lie to a Federal Investigation?
 
yankintx said:
The President asking staff to lie, and to present a false affidavit, were is the Rights outrage, instead we get diversions and attempts to hand wave it away. I suppose its easier then admitting Trumps unethical behavior.
Click to expand...

That would be about the only noteworthy thing.
And it can also be explained as 'he said, he said' months after the alleged event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom