keepthefaith Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 8 hours ago, Tiberius said: Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is poised to take control of the House Judiciary Committee in January, said Sunday that he plans to call acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker as his first witness. The hearing would focus on Whitaker’s “expressed hostility” to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, which Nadler called “a real threat to the integrity of that investigation.” The Democrat said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he is prepared to subpoena Whitaker if necessary. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nadler-whitaker-will-be-first-witness-summoned-by-the-judiciary-committee/2018/11/11/d5ad40ac-e5bf-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.79cdc6a8f891 If this corrupt clown refuses to recuse himself the Democrats should impeach him and throw it over into the senate for a trial. Let the Republicans vote against getting rid of a corrupt, unqualified fool who has obviously been appointed to do the illegal bidding of this president. Notice that the article doesn't include what the writer or what Nadler sees as the critical comments made by Whitaker about the investigation. Could it be that the comments by Whitaker might be viewed as constructive criticism or fair concerns of the investigation rather than "hostility" by readers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 8 hours ago, Tiberius said: If this corrupt clown refuses to recuse himself the Democrats should impeach him and throw it over into the senate for a trial. Let the Republicans vote against getting rid of a corrupt, unqualified fool who has obviously been appointed to do the illegal bidding of this president. You want the House to impeach the guy who you say is illegally appointed to an acting position because he wasn't approved by the Senate according to a ruling against the NLRB you don't even understand? Has anyone noticed gatorman has actually gotten more emotional and incoherent since the midterms? I didn't think it was possible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Notice that the article doesn't include what the writer or what Nadler sees as the critical comments made by Whitaker about the investigation. Could it be that the comments by Whitaker might be viewed as constructive criticism or fair concerns of the investigation rather than "hostility" by readers? Whitaker ran the leak operation for Sessions. This hasn't been reported but is confirmed. He wrote the Wolfe indictment himself. Whitaker knows everything the House and Senate committees have been up to re the investigations. That's why they're terrified of him. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 Adam Schiff says if the acting attorney general doesn’t recuse himself from the Mueller probe, he’ll have to answer to Democrats. . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Adam Schiff says if the acting attorney general doesn’t recuse himself from the Mueller probe, he’ll have to answer to Democrats. . Actually answering to Democrats publicly might be a welcomed opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Adam Schiff says if the acting attorney general doesn’t recuse himself from the Mueller probe, he’ll have to answer to Democrats. . This time they won't fool around. They'll find a woman to testify he gave her cooties in secind grade. The gloves are off, *****! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Adam Schiff says if the acting attorney general doesn’t recuse himself from the Mueller probe, he’ll have to answer to Democrats. .Simple two word reply. F U Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 Just now, Wacka said: .Simple two word reply. F U I got a better two word reply: "You're indicted" 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 When did resigning and getting fired become the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Kemp said: When did resigning and getting fired become the same thing? "Asked to resign." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Kemp said: When did resigning and getting fired become the same thing? forced resignation = firing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 4 hours ago, B-Man said: Adam Schiff says if the acting attorney general doesn’t recuse himself from the Mueller probe, he’ll have to answer to Democrats. Schumer has already promised to put "protections" for Mueller's investigation into the next "must pass" spending bill. He's betting he won't be blamed for this shutdown, unlike the last one. That spineless weasel still hasn't figured out that Trump has brass balls and isn't afraid to call a bluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 On 11/11/2018 at 8:20 PM, DC Tom said: You want the House to impeach the guy who you say is illegally appointed to an acting position because he wasn't approved by the Senate according to a ruling against the NLRB you don't even understand? Has anyone noticed gatorman has actually gotten more emotional and incoherent since the midterms? I didn't think it was possible. Weak argument, but what else have you got? Nothing. You are the one that has gotten more emotional and incoherent since Trump. I liked the old Tom, who wasn't afraid to point out how incompetent Trump was. You are suffering from Batter Republican Syndrome. He abuses your stupid ass but you keep coming back to defend him.. Ya, rubber glue, I know sh it breath, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 Man the headlines this morning make you wonder what everyone is so afraid of by the linebacker AG. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 On 11/11/2018 at 8:09 PM, keepthefaith said: Notice that the article doesn't include what the writer or what Nadler sees as the critical comments made by Whitaker about the investigation. Could it be that the comments by Whitaker might be viewed as constructive criticism or fair concerns of the investigation rather than "hostility" by readers? LOL, ya right, un vetted, unapproved and his only qualification is he hates what Trump is afraid of. This is outright and open corruption. This is like Venezuala style government. You can't pick your own prosector in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 NPC talking points went out strong and bold faced. And clearly with small words being the Tibs can reiterate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 17 minutes ago, Tiberius said: LOL, ya right, un vetted, unapproved and his only qualification is he hates what Trump is afraid of. This is outright and open corruption. This is like Venezuala style government. You can't pick your own prosector in the USA. From your favorite media outlet, the NY Times. They make the legal temporary argument for Whitaker. In the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, Congress elaborated on those missing pieces. When a senior executive branch officer “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office,” the statute authorizes the president to choose either that official’s “first assistant” (in this case, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein); any other currently serving government officer who was confirmed by the Senate; or any senior official, like Mr. Whitaker, who served in the same department as the vacant office for at least 90 of the previous 365 days “to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/opinion/trump-attorney-general-constitutional.html 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Weak argument, but what else have you got? Nothing. You are the one that has gotten more emotional and incoherent since Trump. I liked the old Tom, who wasn't afraid to point out how incompetent Trump was. You are suffering from Batter Republican Syndrome. He abuses your stupid ass but you keep coming back to defend him.. Ya, rubber glue, I know sh it breath, I know. You mad bro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 23 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: From your favorite media outlet, the NY Times. They make the legal temporary argument for Whitaker. In the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, Congress elaborated on those missing pieces. When a senior executive branch officer “dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office,” the statute authorizes the president to choose either that official’s “first assistant” (in this case, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein); any other currently serving government officer who was confirmed by the Senate; or any senior official, like Mr. Whitaker, who served in the same department as the vacant office for at least 90 of the previous 365 days “to perform the functions and duties of the vacant office temporarily in an acting capacity.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/opinion/trump-attorney-general-constitutional.html Not for corrupt purposes, which this obviously is. He is there to go after the investigation of Trump. Totally corrupt, only Trump Cultists think otherwise. If this clown interferes with the investigation in any way at all, he is going to jail. 24 minutes ago, westside said: You mad bro? Not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 13, 2018 Share Posted November 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Weak argument, but what else have you got? Nothing. You are the one that has gotten more emotional and incoherent since Trump. I liked the old Tom, who wasn't afraid to point out how incompetent Trump was. You are suffering from Batter Republican Syndrome. He abuses your stupid ass but you keep coming back to defend him.. Ya, rubber glue, I know sh it breath, I know. I have a hard time believing you about liking the "old Tom" but I'm convinced that you enjoy Republican batter. Not sure where though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts