If Biden fires Durham, he MUST be impeached

[forkup]

Like the ACTION of firing Comey because of the "Russia thing"? Or the ACTION of denying you tried to fire Mueller? Or the ACTION of trying to get McGahn to deny it?

It's also factually incorrect. Specific intent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
To give an example. One can try to buy heroin. Even if it's powdered sugar the intent in itself is criminal. That's why a lot of actual crimes have attempted to do something in their description.

You Nazis are insane.

10 Times Democrats Slammed James Comey, Called For His Firing by Katie Pavlich (townhall.com)

Trump as president (the last legitimate one we are likely to every had) had the power to fire Torquemada at any time he wanted. "tried" is stupid Nazi shit. If he "tried," the Grand Inquisitor would have been gone. Now mobbed up Mueller should have been fired and prosecuted - even though we know the senile old cocksucker didn't run the Inquisition, that was Andrew Weissman, Reich agent. Whitey Bolger's bitch was in stage 4 Alzheimer's and didn't know where he was most of the time. Even so, Mafia bitch Mueller was named the Inquisitor and was responsible for the felonious acts of his witch hunt, including treason by Strzok and Page, perjury by McCabe, extortion by Weissman, and all the criminal bullshit these filthy thugs engaged in.

Trump as president (the last legitimate one we are likely to every had) had the power to fire Torquemada at any time he wanted.

Lol. If this is your opinion you might want to rethink this OP. You know the one where you are arguing that firing Durham constitutes obstruction of justice.

If I were you I'd also stop putting my foot in my mouth. I think by now it's coming out of your ass.

 

[jknowgood]

No one cares about Trump's leftovers. Fire that motherfucker and dare you bastards to make a case of it. It's what Trump would do.

If he does impeach him, if he doesn't impeach him!

 

[Uncensored2008]

McGann was not Trump's lawyer, he was white house counsel. The difference is that he represents the office, not the person. And there's also a difference between discussing an option and ORDERING someone to do something. There's also a difference between discussing options and ORDERING McGahn to lie to Mueller. That is NOT covered under attorney-client privilege. You can not order a lawyer to lie for you. He would be criminally culpable. The fact that the other person declined to adhere to those orders does not change the intent.

And actually firing the FBI director is NOT discussing anything but ACTING.

Hate has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it would come out that Biden pressured the AG or the white house lawyer to try to get Durham removed in my opinion he should be impeached and charged with obstruction of justice.

I DO NOT CHANGE MY OPINION ON LEGALITY ON THE BASES THAT THE PERSON BREAKING THE LAW IS SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY IDEOLOGY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT????

Is that clear enough?

Wow, you Nazis are insane.

You of the Reich never accepted the results 2016 and spent 4 years in insurrection blocking the peaceful transition of power.

Though you Nazi piles of shit refused to accept it, Donald Trump was the President of the United States, probably the last legitimate president America will ever have. White House counsel is counsel to the president, you drooling fucking retard.

And you continue to spew Reich lies that were debunked and dispelled years ago. As a Nazi, you lack even a HINT of integrity. No, Trump didn't order McGahn to lie. Rob Porter is a Reich soldier and perjured himself, as so many did,

 

[wamose]

Biden won't have to fire Durham. He's a cover up artist that was hired to delay and cover up all investigations that could shed a negative light on our corrupt DOJ. He'll protect Biden in order to protect himself, POS that he is..

 

[Uncensored2008]

Like the ACTION of firing Comey because of the "Russia thing"? Or the ACTION of denying you tried to fire Mueller? Or the ACTION of trying to get McGahn to deny it?

It's also factually incorrect. Specific intent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
To give an example. One can try to buy heroin. Even if it's powdered sugar the intent in itself is criminal. That's why a lot of actual crimes have attempted to do something in their description.

You Nazis are insane.

10 Times Democrats Slammed James Comey, Called For His Firing by Katie Pavlich (townhall.com)

Trump as president (the last legitimate one we are likely to every had) had the power to fire Torquemada at any time he wanted. "tried" is stupid Nazi shit. If he "tried," the Grand Inquisitor would have been gone. Now mobbed up Mueller should have been fired and prosecuted - even though we know the senile old cocksucker didn't run the Inquisition, that was Andrew Weissman, Reich agent. Whitey Bolger's bitch was in stage 4 Alzheimer's and didn't know where he was most of the time. Even so, Mafia bitch Mueller was named the Inquisitor and was responsible for the felonious acts of his witch hunt, including treason by Strzok and Page, perjury by McCabe, extortion by Weissman, and all the criminal bullshit these filthy thugs engaged in.

Trump as president (the last legitimate one we are likely to every had) had the power to fire Torquemada at any time he wanted.

Lol. If this is your opinion you might want to rethink this OP. You know the one where you are arguing that firing Durham constitutes obstruction of justice.

If I were you I'd also stop putting my foot in my mouth. I think by now it's coming out of your ass.

So, one set of rules for the deplorables, another for the Reich.

We get it.

 

[j-mac]

If he does he should. By the way, so glad you agree that firing an investigator because an investigation is obstruction of justice. Comey was fired because of an investigation his agency was conducting, guess Trump obstructed justice.

Comey was just a corrupt scumbag. The equivalent would be firing Mueller. You Nazis struggle with reality.

Oh, OK so now your opinion is that it's ok for the president to fire someone to stop an investigation in something that concerns him as long as that person is deemed corrupt by that same president?

As for firing Mueller.

The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed.

Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election - Volume 2 (justice.gov)
Page 90

So? The only question should be did he do it? All sorts of things can be discussed with legal counsel, action is what counts.

Like the ACTION of firing Comey because of the "Russia thing"? Or the ACTION of denying you tried to fire Mueller? Or the ACTION of trying to get McGahn to deny it?

It's also factually incorrect. Specific intent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
To give an example. One can try to buy heroin. Even if it's powdered sugar the intent in itself is criminal. That's why a lot of actual crimes have attempted to do something in their description.

No, having a conversation about options is not a criminal act. I’d bet Joe has had that conversation about Durham, You want to charge him?

There‘s a reason communications between attorneys, and clients are privileged...You people tried to have different rules for Trump because of the hatred.

McGann was not Trump's lawyer, he was white house counsel. The difference is that he represents the office, not the person. And there's also a difference between discussing an option and ORDERING someone to do something. There's also a difference between discussing options and ORDERING McGahn to lie to Mueller. That is NOT covered under attorney-client privilege. You can not order a lawyer to lie for you. He would be criminally culpable. The fact that the other person declined to adhere to those orders does not change the intent.

And actually firing the FBI director is NOT discussing anything but ACTING.

Hate has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it would come out that Biden pressured the AG or the white house lawyer to try to get Durham removed in my opinion he should be impeached and charged with obstruction of justice.

I DO NOT CHANGE MY OPINION ON LEGALITY ON THE BASES THAT THE PERSON BREAKING THE LAW IS SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY IDEOLOGY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT????

Is that clear enough?

First off, drop the aggressive posture.

Now, I agree that there could be exposure for the discussion with McGhan however, if it were so cut and dried as you say, why no charges?

As to Comey, Trump was within his authority to fire him.

Finally, I am glad to hear you'd have the same thoughts if Biden were to do so, only time will tell.

 

[forkup]

McGann was not Trump's lawyer, he was white house counsel. The difference is that he represents the office, not the person. And there's also a difference between discussing an option and ORDERING someone to do something. There's also a difference between discussing options and ORDERING McGahn to lie to Mueller. That is NOT covered under attorney-client privilege. You can not order a lawyer to lie for you. He would be criminally culpable. The fact that the other person declined to adhere to those orders does not change the intent.

And actually firing the FBI director is NOT discussing anything but ACTING.

Hate has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it would come out that Biden pressured the AG or the white house lawyer to try to get Durham removed in my opinion he should be impeached and charged with obstruction of justice.

I DO NOT CHANGE MY OPINION ON LEGALITY ON THE BASES THAT THE PERSON BREAKING THE LAW IS SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY IDEOLOGY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT????

Is that clear enough?

Wow, you Nazis are insane.

You of the Reich never accepted the results 2016 and spent 4 years in insurrection blocking the peaceful transition of power.

Though you Nazi piles of shit refused to accept it, Donald Trump was the President of the United States, probably the last legitimate president America will ever have. White House counsel is counsel to the president, you drooling fucking retard.

And you continue to spew Reich lies that were debunked and dispelled years ago. As a Nazi, you lack even a HINT of integrity. No, Trump didn't order McGahn to lie. Rob Porter is a Reich soldier and perjured himself, as so many did,

On January 26, 2018, the President’s personal counsel called McGahn’s attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest.784 McGahn’s attorney spoke with McGahn about that request and then called the President’s personal counsel to relay that McGahn would not make a statement.785 McGahn’s attorney informed the President’s personal counsel that the Times story was accurate

Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election - Volume 2 (justice.gov) page 114.

 

[forkup]

If he does he should. By the way, so glad you agree that firing an investigator because an investigation is obstruction of justice. Comey was fired because of an investigation his agency was conducting, guess Trump obstructed justice.

Comey was just a corrupt scumbag. The equivalent would be firing Mueller. You Nazis struggle with reality.

Oh, OK so now your opinion is that it's ok for the president to fire someone to stop an investigation in something that concerns him as long as that person is deemed corrupt by that same president?

As for firing Mueller.

The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed.

Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election - Volume 2 (justice.gov)
Page 90

So? The only question should be did he do it? All sorts of things can be discussed with legal counsel, action is what counts.

Like the ACTION of firing Comey because of the "Russia thing"? Or the ACTION of denying you tried to fire Mueller? Or the ACTION of trying to get McGahn to deny it?

It's also factually incorrect. Specific intent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
To give an example. One can try to buy heroin. Even if it's powdered sugar the intent in itself is criminal. That's why a lot of actual crimes have attempted to do something in their description.

No, having a conversation about options is not a criminal act. I’d bet Joe has had that conversation about Durham, You want to charge him?

There‘s a reason communications between attorneys, and clients are privileged...You people tried to have different rules for Trump because of the hatred.

McGann was not Trump's lawyer, he was white house counsel. The difference is that he represents the office, not the person. And there's also a difference between discussing an option and ORDERING someone to do something. There's also a difference between discussing options and ORDERING McGahn to lie to Mueller. That is NOT covered under attorney-client privilege. You can not order a lawyer to lie for you. He would be criminally culpable. The fact that the other person declined to adhere to those orders does not change the intent.

And actually firing the FBI director is NOT discussing anything but ACTING.

Hate has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it would come out that Biden pressured the AG or the white house lawyer to try to get Durham removed in my opinion he should be impeached and charged with obstruction of justice.

I DO NOT CHANGE MY OPINION ON LEGALITY ON THE BASES THAT THE PERSON BREAKING THE LAW IS SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY IDEOLOGY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT????

Is that clear enough?

First off, drop the aggressive posture.

Now, I agree that there could be exposure for the discussion with McGhan however, if it were so cut and dried as you say, why no charges?

As to Comey, Trump was within his authority to fire him.

Finally, I am glad to hear you'd have the same thoughts if Biden were to do so, only time will tell.

First off, drop the aggressive posture.

Then please stop repeating the same line in every reply to me that I'm inconsistent in my opinion and partisan in how I approach this. Since I've explicitly said the exact opposite in every single one of my replies to you. Not to mention other people who have challenged me on it, both left and right. If you do not understand something when I repeat it 4 times normally the next time I will make it hard to miss.

Now, I agree that there could be exposure for the discussion with McGhan however, if it were so cut and dried as you say, why no charges?

Because he was the president of the United States Mueller didn't want to charge him. He laid it out in his report. He appeared before the Senate to explain his reasoning. I happen to agree with the line of reasoning he put forth.

Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election - Volume 2 (justice.gov)

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. page 182


We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. …

And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

This last line is the best argument IMO.

 

[forkup]

As to Comey, Trump was within his authority to fire him.

It has nothing to do with authority. Biden has the authority to fire Durham. It has to do with the intent of the firing. In Comey's case, Trump admitted on camera that at least one of the reasons for the firing was an investigation his agency was conducting. That admission is admitting to intend of obstruction of justice.

Durham's firing would be objectively less damning because you could cast reasonable doubt on the intention of the firing. In the case of Comey, that doubt doesn't exist on account of Trump spelling it out.

 

[colfax_m]

You of the Reich never accepted the results 2016 and spent 4 years in insurrection blocking the peaceful transition of power.

You are, of course, delusional.

WATCH: Hillary Clinton Concedes Presidential Race To Donald Trump

"This is not the outcome we wanted or worked so hard for. I'm sorry we didn't win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country," the Democratic nominee told supporters.

www.npr.org

4 years ago, Obama invited Trump to the White House to discuss transfers of power. Trump hasn't done the same for Biden

On November 10, 2016, President Barack Obama invited Donald Trump, then President-elect, to the White House. No such invitation has been extended to President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

www.cnn.com

 

[forkup]

Like the ACTION of firing Comey because of the "Russia thing"? Or the ACTION of denying you tried to fire Mueller? Or the ACTION of trying to get McGahn to deny it?

It's also factually incorrect. Specific intent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
To give an example. One can try to buy heroin. Even if it's powdered sugar the intent in itself is criminal. That's why a lot of actual crimes have attempted to do something in their description.

You Nazis are insane.

10 Times Democrats Slammed James Comey, Called For His Firing by Katie Pavlich (townhall.com)

Trump as president (the last legitimate one we are likely to every had) had the power to fire Torquemada at any time he wanted. "tried" is stupid Nazi shit. If he "tried," the Grand Inquisitor would have been gone. Now mobbed up Mueller should have been fired and prosecuted - even though we know the senile old cocksucker didn't run the Inquisition, that was Andrew Weissman, Reich agent. Whitey Bolger's bitch was in stage 4 Alzheimer's and didn't know where he was most of the time. Even so, Mafia bitch Mueller was named the Inquisitor and was responsible for the felonious acts of his witch hunt, including treason by Strzok and Page, perjury by McCabe, extortion by Weissman, and all the criminal bullshit these filthy thugs engaged in.

Trump as president (the last legitimate one we are likely to every had) had the power to fire Torquemada at any time he wanted.

Lol. If this is your opinion you might want to rethink this OP. You know the one where you are arguing that firing Durham constitutes obstruction of justice.

If I were you I'd also stop putting my foot in my mouth. I think by now it's coming out of your ass.

So, one set of rules for the deplorable, another for the Reich.

We get it.

I'm not the one arguing for 2 sets of rules. You are, not that I think you can comprehend this.

 

[candycorn]

We were told the President can fire whomever he wants. Sorry.

You Nazis said firing special counsel means a president - even a faux president like *, MUST be impeached.

You rules.

Come was special counsel?

 

[Faun]

McGann was not Trump's lawyer, he was white house counsel. The difference is that he represents the office, not the person. And there's also a difference between discussing an option and ORDERING someone to do something. There's also a difference between discussing options and ORDERING McGahn to lie to Mueller. That is NOT covered under attorney-client privilege. You can not order a lawyer to lie for you. He would be criminally culpable. The fact that the other person declined to adhere to those orders does not change the intent.

And actually firing the FBI director is NOT discussing anything but ACTING.

Hate has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it would come out that Biden pressured the AG or the white house lawyer to try to get Durham removed in my opinion he should be impeached and charged with obstruction of justice.

I DO NOT CHANGE MY OPINION ON LEGALITY ON THE BASES THAT THE PERSON BREAKING THE LAW IS SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY IDEOLOGY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT????

Is that clear enough?

Wow, you Nazis are insane.

You of the Reich never accepted the results 2016 and spent 4 years in insurrection blocking the peaceful transition of power.

Though you Nazi piles of shit refused to accept it, Donald Trump was the President of the United States, probably the last legitimate president America will ever have. White House counsel is counsel to the president, you drooling fucking retard.

And you continue to spew Reich lies that were debunked and dispelled years ago. As a Nazi, you lack even a HINT of integrity. No, Trump didn't order McGahn to lie. Rob Porter is a Reich soldier and perjured himself, as so many did,

You're out of your fucking mind, Fruitcake.

Joe Biden is currently is the current legitimate president. But I do like how you project it's the left who wouldn't accept Trump as president in the same post you literally say that about Biden.

 

[forkup]

McGann was not Trump's lawyer, he was white house counsel. The difference is that he represents the office, not the person. And there's also a difference between discussing an option and ORDERING someone to do something. There's also a difference between discussing options and ORDERING McGahn to lie to Mueller. That is NOT covered under attorney-client privilege. You can not order a lawyer to lie for you. He would be criminally culpable. The fact that the other person declined to adhere to those orders does not change the intent.

And actually firing the FBI director is NOT discussing anything but ACTING.

Hate has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it would come out that Biden pressured the AG or the white house lawyer to try to get Durham removed in my opinion he should be impeached and charged with obstruction of justice.

I DO NOT CHANGE MY OPINION ON LEGALITY ON THE BASES THAT THE PERSON BREAKING THE LAW IS SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY IDEOLOGY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT????

Is that clear enough?

Wow, you Nazis are insane.

You of the Reich never accepted the results 2016 and spent 4 years in insurrection blocking the peaceful transition of power.

Though you Nazi piles of shit refused to accept it, Donald Trump was the President of the United States, probably the last legitimate president America will ever have. White House counsel is counsel to the president, you drooling fucking retard.

And you continue to spew Reich lies that were debunked and dispelled years ago. As a Nazi, you lack even a HINT of integrity. No, Trump didn't order McGahn to lie. Rob Porter is a Reich soldier and perjured himself, as so many did,

You're out of your fucking mind, Fruitcake.

Joe Biden is currently is the current legitimate president. But I do like how you project it's the left who wouldn't accept Trump as president in the same post you literally say that about Biden.

Yea he's kind of tone deaf to irony isn't he?

 

[surada]

That "third worldesque" inaug. was the result of a MAGAriot. A murderous coup attempt that included BOMBS

^^ Boy, this one sounds like Hitler. Jan 6th was the Reichstag fire for these Dem Nazis. “Let’s use Jan 6th as an excuse to persecute anyone that opposes us!!!”

Are you being persecuted?

All conservatives are. No more free speech allowed. The Nazis...I mean Democrats, have the corporations willing to do their bidding. The Gestap....I mean FBI, is tracking down any peaceful protester as if they are terrorists. Won’t be long before every registered Republican is deemed an “undesirable”.

You sound like an imbecile. Nobody is stifling your free speech or taking away any of your rights.

Big Tech oligarchs certainly are taking away free speech. Deplatforming Parler sounds familiar? Banning people off social media? Removing any video that shows evidence of election fraud? The Dem Nazis are terrified of letting us speak.

There is NO evidence of election fraud. Start your own network for liars and crackpots if you want to give people a voice on your dime.. Good luck with finding sponsors.

Perhaps you can self fund.

 

[surada]

McGann was not Trump's lawyer, he was white house counsel. The difference is that he represents the office, not the person. And there's also a difference between discussing an option and ORDERING someone to do something. There's also a difference between discussing options and ORDERING McGahn to lie to Mueller. That is NOT covered under attorney-client privilege. You can not order a lawyer to lie for you. He would be criminally culpable. The fact that the other person declined to adhere to those orders does not change the intent.

And actually firing the FBI director is NOT discussing anything but ACTING.

Hate has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it would come out that Biden pressured the AG or the white house lawyer to try to get Durham removed in my opinion he should be impeached and charged with obstruction of justice.

I DO NOT CHANGE MY OPINION ON LEGALITY ON THE BASES THAT THE PERSON BREAKING THE LAW IS SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY IDEOLOGY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT????

Is that clear enough?

Wow, you Nazis are insane.

You of the Reich never accepted the results 2016 and spent 4 years in insurrection blocking the peaceful transition of power.

Though you Nazi piles of shit refused to accept it, Donald Trump was the President of the United States, probably the last legitimate president America will ever have. White House counsel is counsel to the president, you drooling fucking retard.

And you continue to spew Reich lies that were debunked and dispelled years ago. As a Nazi, you lack even a HINT of integrity. No, Trump didn't order McGahn to lie. Rob Porter is a Reich soldier and perjured himself, as so many did,

You're out of your fucking mind, Fruitcake.

Joe Biden is currently is the current legitimate president. But I do like how you project it's the left who wouldn't accept Trump as president in the same post you literally say that about Biden.

Yea he's kind of tone deaf to irony isn't he?

Just dumb and easily manipulated.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We were told the President can fire whomever he wants. Sorry.

You Nazis said firing special counsel means a president - even a faux president like *, MUST be impeached.

You rules.

Come was special counsel?

Durham is.

This is why you're a Nazi, you're stupid.

 

[candycorn]

We were told the President can fire whomever he wants. Sorry.

You Nazis said firing special counsel means a president - even a faux president like *, MUST be impeached.

You rules.

Come was special counsel?

Durham is.

This is why you're a Nazi, you're stupid.

Comey wasn't a special counsel...good to know you've invalidated your own point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Comey wasn't a special counsel...good to know you've invalidated your own point.

Gumby wasn't a marvel superhero...good to know you've invalidated your own point.

What is it with you Nazis and the really fucking stupid Straw Men?

 

[bendog]

Breaking News: Biden Week 3 and Durham still not fired. LOL