• 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!

ABC: WH Has 'Significant Concern' About Mueller Report

PLizzy

Formerly, MovingPictures
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2017
Messages
12,870
Reaction score
10,543
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Looks like the WH is concerned about potentially damaging revelations in the Special Counsels report, and are particularly concerned about the testimony of former WH counsel, Don McGahn, who gave over thirty hours of testimony to the SC to answer their questions.

I normally don't cite the boobs at Newmax as a source, but they're the only ones available right now.

ABC: McGahn Interviews of 'Significant Concern' for WH in Mueller Report | Newsmax.com


Why might they be concerned about what McGahn said? Well, McGahn saw all of the following.
  • The motivation to stop the FBI's investigation.
  • The motivation for firing Comey.
  • The demands for Sessions to unrecuse himself and not follow DOJ guidelines.
  • The requests to Coats and Rogers to persuade the FBI to stop the Russia investigation.
  • The attempts to fire the Special Counsel.
  • The requests to the DOJ become political and prosecute Trump's political enemies, a'la Nixon.

He saw all of that and much of it could demonstrate Trump using his powers unlawfully, politicizing the DOJ, and obstructing lawful investigations. In particular, I think the requests that Trump made to the DOJ to prosecute Clinton and other Democrats, might be the worst element of all, making Trump look like Nixon.

I don't know whether we'll see all of McGahn's testimony in the report, or in his 302's with the FBI (which the House might have to request), but it won't be pretty, bet on that kiddies.
 
McGahn's testimony will be redacted, with "executive priviledge" cited. Mark my words.

They have **** to hide here.
 
Maybe Russians could hack the report? Now, I'm not saying Russians should hack the report. But if any Russians happen to read this and can hack the report, that would be great. Joking, of course.
 
ecofarm said:
Maybe Russians could hack the report? Now, I'm not saying Russians should hack the report. But if any Russians happen to read this and can hack the report, that would be great. Joking, of course.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there, sir.

Well struck.
 
Kobie said:
McGahn's testimony will be redacted, with "executive priviledge" cited. Mark my words.

They have **** to hide here.
Click to expand...

Since the report hasn't been given to the White House for them to redact anything, how would they exert executive privilege?
 
Kobie said:
McGahn's testimony will be redacted, with "executive priviledge" cited. Mark my words.

They have **** to hide here.
Click to expand...
When they allowed McGahn to talk to Mueller, they lost the right to executive privilege, end of story.

It doesn't sound like Flood plans to make that challenge, or they wouldn't be worried.
 
They certainly are concerned enough to be writing a huge counter-report to it already. I'd definitely say that's concerned.

Sadly, the redhats will continue loving and supporting their daddy, cuz that's what they do.
 
nekrodev said:
They certainly are concerned enough to be writing a huge counter-report to it already. I'd definitely say that's concerned.

Sadly, the redhats will continue loving and supporting their daddy, cuz that's what they do.
Click to expand...
Yep.

He could **** a dog out on the WH lawn, and they'd insist he was trying to disable a bomb in its ass.
 
It doesn't matter. Anything damaging to Trump or his team is "fake news" or the person was forced to lie because Mueller is the world's only longtime respected conservative who is apparently an angry, far-left deep state agent.

I honestly feel like the best approach to Trump is to ignore him. The wisest words are all found in Matthew Broderick films. In this case: the only winning move is not to play.
 
MovingPictures said:
Yep.

He could **** a dog out on the WH lawn, and they'd insist he was trying to disable a bomb in its ass.
Click to expand...

The hero worship goes further than that though.....he wouldn't be disabling it, he would be sticking it in to contain the blast at great peril to himself, because thats what a real man would do.
 
ecofarm said:
Maybe Russians could hack the report? Now, I'm not saying Russians should hack the report. But if any Russians happen to read this and can hack the report, that would be great. Joking, of course.
Click to expand...

Why hasn't Anonymous been busy lately?
 
I hate to inject some reality into your fantasy-induced circle jerk, but then again...why not?

1. The OP doesn't have to explain using Newsmax. One part of the echo chamber is as bad as another part.

2. Does Karl even cite any sources for his nonsense? If not, then this whole thing comes from HIS brain...and nowhere else.

3. The OP uses "might" and "could" a lot. Logic tells us that "might not" and "could not" is equally valid.

4. You won't see a word of McGhan's testimony...and it's not because of executive privilege. This is exactly the kind of stuff Barr said would be redacted because it involves people who have not been charged with any crimes. I know that sucks for y'all, but too ****ing bad. Get over it.
​

Okay folks...reality time is over. You are free to resume your jerk-off.
 
Last edited:
~ Ah yes - we see ABC has consulted the Trump Doom & Gloom crystal ball once again. They borrow that thing from CNN !
No wonder their ratings plummet . ..
 
I agree in spirit.

Democrats shouldn't participate in Trump's propaganda games and should largely ignore what he says.

But, I don't believe Congress should ignore Trump's conduct. That is a huge mistake, as it sets a precedent for what Republicans in the future will do.

Just as rewarding Republicans for shutting the government down encouraged every Republican congress to shut it down when they didn't get their way, allowing Trump's misconduct to go without resistance, will encourage every Republican president to do these things, and in far more effect ways.

IMHO, Democrats letting Reagan and both Bush regimes to walk all over the law is partly how the GOP monster of the present was built.
 

I respectfully disagree (for the most part). Congress should definitely stop people like Scott Pruitt and Betsy Devos from ever having a role in our government because the intent is to destroy the institutions the preside over. It's their duty to step up to the plate on that.

On the other hand, Republicans will not (I don't think) continue to be the "party of Trump" after 2 years if he is defeated. Mike Pence is a far more despicable politician. Trump isn't even a politician, he's a showman playing the role of politician. His efforts are largely supported because he's the hero in the conservative reality television show that's happening in Washington. I would say a solid 65% of the country opposes almost everything he does but only 50% oppose it when it comes from him (biologically, people are built to believe snake oil works so they don't have to believe they were tricked). When the snake oil salesman is gone, they are left with the policies and it will require another person who is a pathological liar, sociopath, and has the largest ego in the world winning the nomination to continue encouraging this level of partisanship. It's possible such a person exists but they're far and few. I wish we had already built his stupid wall because it would be a symbol of hatred and xenophobia, wouldn't work on any level, and would be a huge symbolic victory for the Democrats. Fighting it is like attacking a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. It only reinforces Trump's base that they are the victims and they are on the "correct" side.

Let's face it, the DNC doesn't know how to combat Trump, because the Democrats who got no love from them largely were responsible for flipping the House and the Senate remains in control of the Republicans despite a substantive majority of people not actually liking their proposals.
 
You are correct, I ignore the man child. Just waiting on Nov 2020 to make him a one term wonder.
 

A lot of people were questioned by the WOULD-BE PROSECUTORS ONLY, with NO CHANCE for the WOULD-BE DEFENSE to cross examine any of them.

BOTTOM LINE: NO FURTHER INDICTMENTS. NO INDICTMENT FOR "RUSSIAN COLLUSUON/COOPERATION", NO INDICTMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE.


Were I the target of that attempted prosecution, I'd be interested in vetting that, myself, wouldn't you?

The man who GAVE MUELLER HIS MANDATE, ROD ROSENTEIN, has already CLEARLY DISMISSED, claims that BARR has , somehow, "misrepresented" the gist of the Mueller Report as "BIZARRE":.


This DESPITE THE TWO+ YEARS OF BULL**** from the FAKE NEWS/LYING LEFT/RUSSIANISTAS.





The same will likely NOT BE TRUE of the originators of the ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE, and ATTEMPTED UNSEATING of the candidate-now-President Trump.



Better start getting the NEXT FAKENEWS/LYING LEFT BATCH OF LIES TOGETHER...the "JIG IS UP" on Thursday.
 
Last edited:

If the report gave trump a clean bill of health he would have released the whole thing the next day. He can do whatever he wants in that regard.

But his boy Barr isn't letting it out without cleaning it up first with black ink.

And I would he very surprised if the whitehouse hasn't seen it yet.

So SHS can craft a Crisis Response Plan for anything that might be leaked
 

Take off your tin foil.
 
What if...? said:
We already established that trump can declassify whatever he wants to as head of the executive.
Click to expand...

Why would he expose innocent people to the foamy-mouthed wrath of the TDS left?
 
What if...? said:
We already established that trump can declassify whatever he wants to as head of the executive.
Click to expand...

Yes. But he cannot disobey the law.
Grand jury testimony cannot be release to Congress.
 
What if...? said:
We already established that trump can declassify whatever he wants to as head of the executive.
Click to expand...

The stuff you want isn't necessarily classified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…