Democrats fume as McGahn skips House hearing: 'Our subpoenas are not optional'

[OpportunityCost]

Sure you do. You love lies. How can you not? You're one of the biggest advocates here for the Liar in Chief. The most prolific liar in American political and Presidential history. 'Barr' none.

When all you have is smears by association, I suppose that is what you have to go with.

Find an argument. Try again.

 

[slick]

Its bad for his law firm's business. The House must feel like a lonely outpost of freedom and democracy at this point.

Care to speculate on why Trump wants to muzzle him - not that he can keep him from appearing.

Because it's even in the Mueller report that McGahn revealed to the Mueller panel that he did not believe that Trump had obstructed
justice. Pretty simple explanation. I'm sure he'd say the same thing to Nadler. Mcgahn like most people doesn't feel the need
to be redundant.
justice

 

[Atomic Kid]

When all you have is smears by association, I suppose that is what you have to go with.

Find an argument. Try again.

Smears by association? WTF is that? What are you talking about? If anyone loves smears here, it is you. Smears is all you all you ever have to offer as as a counter point to an argument. Because you never have anything else to offer that has any factual basis.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Smears by association? WTF is that? What are you talking about? If anyone loves smears here, it is you. Smears is all you all you ever have to offer as as a counter point to an argument. Because you never have anything else to offer that has any factual basis.

I have been arguing on the principles of the argument since the beginning. I have been accused of lying, got accusations of liking lying, etc.

Go back to discussing the topic. I am not the topic.

 

[upsideguy]

Sorry, pal.

No, no... it is I that is sorry for, pal. You are caught in a loop of circular reasoning. Your entire point is based upon a representation from someone inside the justice department about what Mueller said to Barr. Thus far that has not been a credible source (see also letter from Mueller to Barr that pretty much says the opposite of what you are represent).

Mueller never affirmed saying what you say. There are no words from Mueller directly to a news gathering source or on the record. He thus far as declined to comment. Moreover, Mueller specifically took Barr to task in a letter that strongly suggests he misrepresented his work.

We are back to the need to ask Mueller directly. Your entire point is not based upon what Mueller actually said, but based upon what a spokesperson of the DoJ says that Barr said that Mueller said. That is called hearsay. And, as the DoJ under Barr is not an honest broker, you back to having nothing.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I have been arguing on the principles of the argument since the beginning. I have been accused of lying, got accusations of liking lying, etc.

Go back to discussing the topic. I am not the topic.

I'm just surprised that you can even spell "principles", much less know what they are.

 

[BitterPill]

so he orders the firing...McGahn tells him NO

but you all want him crucified for the conversation anyway?

:shock:

McGahn is Deep State. Best to just go-ahead with the crucifixion.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I'm just surprised that you can even spell "principles", much less know what they are.

You don't seem to listen very well. Please address the topic, I am not the topic.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No, no... it is I that is sorry for, pal. You are caught in a loop of circular reasoning. Your entire point is based upon a representation from someone inside the justice department about what Mueller said to Barr. Thus far that has not been a credible source (see also letter from Mueller to Barr that pretty much says the opposite of what you are represent).

Mueller never affirmed saying what you say. There are no words from Mueller directly to a news gathering source or on the record. He thus far as declined to comment. Moreover, Mueller specifically took Barr to task in a letter that strongly suggests he misrepresented his work.

We are back to the need to ask Mueller directly. Your entire point is not based upon what Mueller actually said, but based upon what a spokesperson of the DoJ says that Barr said that Mueller said. That is called hearsay. And, as the DoJ under Barr is not an honest broker, you back to having nothing.

That and Mueller not contradicting it publicly.

 

[upsideguy]

Agree.

I keep coming back to this...
Trump's underling, McGahn, refused to go along with his requests to fire the special counsel, so then how does Trump's attempt to obstruct justice equate to an "act of obstruction of justice"?
It doesn't.

Telling McGahn to fire Mueller was an act of obstruction. The fact that McGahn did not carry out Trump's orders does not negate that any more then hiring a hitman that doesn't complete the hit absolve you of conspiracy to commit murder. Obstruction is a crime of intent, not a crime of actual action.

Obstruction of justice | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

That all said, a single act is not likely to get you charged or convicted of such a crime, as that is a matter of a pattern of obstruction. But, it was a single act of obstruction..... and, has hundreds of former federal prosecutors have attested, the case against Trump is pretty overwhelming.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS – DOJ Alumni Statement – Medium

That and Mueller not contradicting it publicly.

...which he did today....

Chris Christie: Mueller 'contradicts' Barr's summary of his findings | TheHill
Chris Christie claims Mueller'''s statement '''clearly contradicts''' AG Barr'''s summary | Fox News
Mueller remarks put Barr back into harsh spotlight - POLITICO
https://www.thewrap.com/robert-mueller-charging-trump-with-a-crime-unconstitutional-while-in-office/