impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

11 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Do you even realize what you are saying?  Either congressional subpoenas are absolute or they are not.  You just typed that Holder failed to comply only after Holder (the one being subpoenaed) decided the gop had gone "too far afield".  I think you typed it with a straight face too.  So your position is that the person who receives the subpoena gets to determine what they want to provide?  Wow.  In fact, the specific documents that were requested from Holder but not provided in the subpoena were denied in the end by......obama exerting executive privilege.  So by your definition it was obstruction.

And contrary to your assertion about the WH not providing a scintilla of information, i suppose that you just forgot that the entire current impeachment inquiry is based on the potus phone conversation with ukraine.  Potus released the transcript of the call.  A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.  

I don't think you understand how subpoenas or executive privilege work.  

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

Double post.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Longhornfan1024

[Horn Dog 9,888]

Lawyer 1:  I am requesting a transcript of all your client’s  text messages of the night in question

Lawyer 2:  how about we give you a summary, as best as my client can remember?  Its exactly the same shit bro!

[sheeeit 129]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, you're only arguing with actual lawyers that know law and shit. It isnt about privilege and they arent asserting it. And their conditions were to end the investigation, which is a bit of a nonstarter for what should be obvious reasons to people who arent idiots. 

I suppose it is possible that you are just uninformed and not an "idiot".

This is directly from Pence's letter to congress:

"Please know that if the committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the committees have appropriate requests for information in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for separation of powers," Morgan wrote. "Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the president, the vice president and their advisors."

So everything you typed was wrong.  They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation".

Are you really an attorney?

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,610]

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Lulz.  You clearly have no reading comprehension and this is another perfect example of you being so emotionally charged that you cant even respond.  I clearly stated that my argument was on the issue and not, at all, based on who is currently in office.  If you want to debate that then lets do it.

"Because I fucking believe in the rule of law, regardless of whose fucking "team" is in power." 

Which "rule of law" should we follow?  The law is not black and white on this issue.  Is presidential privilege not lawful?  The courts certainly think that it is.  Both dem and repub appointed Justices have upheld it regularly.  Apparently, you "fucking believe" that congressional subpoena power should override presidential privilege.  That is a defensible position.  Just as presidential privilege is a defensible position.  I can not believe that you actually think that there should be zero instances where congressional subpoenas can be legally ignored.  That is why we have a 3rd branch.  If the courts determine a particular subpoena is lawful then full consequences should fall on the person not abiding by them.  You are arguing that every single written and expressed comments by any POTUS or anyone providing counsel to a POTUS should be made public.  That cant be your true feelings on the matter.   

"And I thought that Holder and the DOJ were wrong."

I never suggested that you didnt.  My point on that, which was pretty clear, was to point out the hypocrisy of the players involved.  I am sure your personal position was consistent but I must have missed all of your posts that suggested America was a lawless, banana republic at the time.

 

 

The question is what information, intelligence, or conferring is being retained as privileged information? Things that go through the proper channels and are in line with established foreign policy? Sure, I can understand that as privileged information. However, using someone who is not in anyway affiliated in any capacity with the government to influence other countries, or to establish channels that are outside of the legal and proper channels is absolutely not privileged information.

Then there are the whistleblowers that went through the proper channels and brought the present issue to the forefront of our collective consciousness. What this administration and players in this ordeal have done clearly demonstrates a pattern of trying to undermine our institutions, alliances, and policies.

So what information exactly are you trying to assert is privileged information?

[jimmyjazz 46,004]

I gotta say, "respect for separation of powers" is some USDA Grade A bullshittery.

[Dahobbs 17,627]

13 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Do you even realize what you are saying?  Either congressional subpoenas are absolute or they are not.  You just typed that Holder failed to comply only after Holder (the one being subpoenaed) decided the gop had gone "too far afield".  I think you typed it with a straight face too.  So your position is that the person who receives the subpoena gets to determine what they want to provide?  Wow.  In fact, the specific documents that were requested from Holder but not provided in the subpoena were denied in the end by......obama exerting executive privilege.  So by your definition it was obstruction.

And contrary to your assertion about the WH not providing a scintilla of information, i suppose that you just forgot that the entire current impeachment inquiry is based on the potus phone conversation with ukraine.  Potus released the transcript of the call.  A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.  

They arent absolute. But, just like every other legal issue, the lawyer is supposed to do everything possible to comply with lawful requests and only assert things like privilege when a good faith basis exists to do so. That is what Holder did. Not complying at all is pretty much never an option, and that is the one that Trump has chosen. Worse, he released an edited summary of the call rather than the transcript precisely because he thought he could gain a political advantage by doing so, while hiding the true transcript completely. Of course, he is an idiot, so the summary still ended up being damning.

[lemonlime 5,503]

15 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.  

No legal scholar on the planet would think the so called "transcript" is subject to executive privilege.  Well, maybe some of the trump appointees would given, say, Neomi Rao's knowledge of the Constitution, with complete ignoring of every single case or scholarly article on executive privilege.

Executive privilege can apply to communications within the executive branch of government.  Communications with people not part of the executive branch of the United States government cannot possibly be subject to executive privilege.

[Brisketexan 105,187]

Just now, sheeeit said:

I suppose it is possible that you are just uninformed and not an "idiot".

This is directly from Pence's letter to congress:

"Please know that if the committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the committees have appropriate requests for information in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for separation of powers," Morgan wrote. "Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the president, the vice president and their advisors."

So everything you typed was wrong.  They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation".

Are you really an attorney?

Actually, that language doesn't assert a privilege.  At all.  That is, if a party submitted that language as an assertion of privilege in court, it would not be well-received, as it does not assert that ANY specific privilege applies to ANY specific request (and there are specific requests that have been made to which they could respond).  Rather, it says, in simplified language, "if you don't follow the procedural rules that I alone decide apply and are binding, even though there is no authority making any such procedure binding, then I just won't respond, and I'm not waiving any privilege that might apply, and here, I'll list all of them, except the clergy privilege, but I might, because I said 'including,' which doesn't limit me."

[wildcat09 29,360]

34 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

As usual you guys are omitting certain facts.  Maybe you are just unaware.

There is actually very little case law regarding impeachments and very little precedent when it comes to congressional subpoena power and executive privilege.   The reason is that, in virtually all former instances, the executive and congress worked out a compromise on the issues.  What Cippallone's and Pence's letters are saying is that unless the congress and the executive can agree to certain guidelines in the impeachment process, the executive will invoke privilege which it is legally entitled to do.  

Contrary to what you guys keep saying, the executive has said it will be willing to waive privilege with an understanding and clarification of the process.  It is asking for compromise.  Perhaps it is bullshit but it will certainly be much harder for the executive to defend its position of uncooperation if the congress agrees to certain terms which certainly appear to have precedence.  Essentially, congress is asking for everything and giving nothing.  The executive has indicated they will cooperate under certain terms and, so far, the congress has refused to any such terms.  

So, like I have said, if both parties refuse to budge then it becomes a case of executive privilege versus congressional subpoena power.  Congress is saying that they have absolute/unlimited subpoena power for any reason they want. 

This whole claim of "obstruction" is so stupid but you guys just love to eat it up.  Asserting legal rights is not obstruction.  Executive privilege is a legal right.  I get it that most of you think it is bullshit, but that doesnt make it illegal.  To me, this episode is actually a great statement to our country's constitution and rule of law.  It is why we have 3 branches.  It is within congress' legal rights to issue subpoenas an it is within the executives legal rights to claim privilege.  If, and only if, the issues are heard by the courts (likely all the way to the SC) and then one side fails to comply with the courts rulings then that side would absolutely be obstructing justice and should be help accountable.  But not before.  

Have any of you actually read what the executive is asking for in exchange for waiving privilege?  It is actually pretty reasonable.  If this is really an actual impeachment inquiry as opposed to a political hunt, then congress should agree to the terms requested immediately as they do not change any of the underlying facts of the case.  

 

 

A bunch of us have law degrees and know what we're talking about. You don't, so kindly:

[Dahobbs 17,627]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I suppose it is possible that you are just uninformed and not an "idiot".

This is directly from Pence's letter to congress:

"Please know that if the committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the committees have appropriate requests for information in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for separation of powers," Morgan wrote. "Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the president, the vice president and their advisors."

So everything you typed was wrong.  They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation".

Are you really an attorney?

One, that letter doesnt assert anything. It says he maintains the right do so, but doesnt actually say privilege applies or explain why it would apply. When you assert privilege, you have to explain the basis and identify what specific request you're applying it to. Two, the terms and conditions that you amazingly skip included ending the investigation. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Dahobbs

[HenryJames 66,135]

6 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation".

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/7cb26618-e770-45ef-9c45-bdd5554ce201/note/9608d380-f0df-4e07-8b08-8f326b723626.pdf#page=1

I like how @sheeeit doesn’t mention the letter from the President’s lawyer.

[Dahobbs 17,627]

1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/7cb26618-e770-45ef-9c45-bdd5554ce201/note/9608d380-f0df-4e07-8b08-8f326b723626.pdf#page=1

I like how @sheeeit doesn’t mention the letter from the President’s lawyer.

Those are just facts, and facts are just things that get in the way of his asshole opinions.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I gotta say, "respect for separation of powers" is some USDA Grade A bullshittery.

“Respect for state’s rights” was already taken

[Brisketexan 105,187]

2 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

The question is what information, intelligence, or conferring is being retained as privileged information? Things that go through the proper channels and are in line with established foreign policy? Sure, I can understand that as privileged information. However, using someone who is not in anyway affiliated in any capacity with the government to influence other countries, or to establish channels that are outside of the legal and proper channels is absolutely not privileged information.

Then there are the whistleblowers that went through the proper channels and brought the present issue to the forefront of our collective consciousness. What this administration and players in this ordeal have done clearly demonstrates a pattern of trying to undermine our institutions, alliances, and policies.

So what information exactly are you trying to assert is privileged information?

Yep.  And this is where the use of Rudy bites him him in the ass.  Using someone who is NOT an official representative of the executive branch means that any information etc. that went through that person is not subject to executive privilege.  Rather, it was an action taken in Trump's personal capacity, not as an officer of the executive branch.  If, on the other hand, Rudy WAS acting as a representative of the executive branch, then his actions (and those will be criminal actions) will be actions of the executive in that capacity.

Scylla, charybdis, and all that mess.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,610]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  And this is where the use of Rudy bites him him in the ass.  Using someone who is NOT an official representative of the executive branch means that any information etc. that went through that person is not subject to executive privilege.  Rather, it was an action taken in Trump's personal capacity, not as an officer of the executive branch.  If, on the other hand, Rudy WAS acting as a representative of the executive branch, then his actions (and those will be criminal actions) will be actions of the executive in that capacity.

Scylla, charybdis, and all that mess.

Then the question of whether the act was done as a conspiracy against the United States.

[sheeeit 129]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

FIF truth.  Not that you'd recognize it if it ran you over.

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

[Brisketexan 105,187]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

I negged you because you lied.  And not even a good one.  

Here, FROM THE FUCKING DOCUMENT ITSELF:

Quote

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.

It is NOT an exact, word-for-word transcription by a stenographer.  That is a specific thing.  This is not that thing.  So, fuck off, you fucking lying sack of shit.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Brisketexan

[wildcat09 29,360]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

I honestly can’t imagine what compels someone to be such a shitty troll.

[HenryJames 66,135]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

From the actual document: CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation, The word “inaudible” is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

[Stilicho 1,397]

5 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

There's a goddamn disclaimer at the bottom of the first page of the memo that reads:

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation, The word “inaudible” is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Stilicho
I see others have also bothered to read the memo.

[sheeeit 129]

16 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

The question is what information, intelligence, or conferring is being retained as privileged information? Things that go through the proper channels and are in line with established foreign policy? Sure, I can understand that as privileged information. However, using someone who is not in anyway affiliated in any capacity with the government to influence other countries, or to establish channels that are outside of the legal and proper channels is absolutely not privileged information.

Then there are the whistleblowers that went through the proper channels and brought the present issue to the forefront of our collective consciousness. What this administration and players in this ordeal have done clearly demonstrates a pattern of trying to undermine our institutions, alliances, and policies.

So what information exactly are you trying to assert is privileged information?

Um..the people in government that communicated with the POTUS about his interactions with a foreign head of state?

Are you talking about Rudy?  POTUS did not instruct Rudy to ignore the subpoena.  Rudy is just ignoring it.  If they want to come after Rudy they certainly can.  

 

[The Royal We 3,072]

Negged for lying.  If you can't formulate an argument without using bald faced lies then maybe you should quit while you are behind.

Edited October 16, 2019 by The Royal We

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

Just now, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

Keep on digging. They released what they thought would clear the President and back his "perfect call" narrative. It backfired. I would guess there is even more dirt buried on that call/transcript that has yet to be released and one of the reasons the White House went to extraordinary measures to try and hide the call from normal channels (aka unauthorized use of the National Security Server).

 

There is so much evidence now in the open that outlines exactly what has happened that any attempt now to ignore subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents in question should be looked at as an exact attempt of the VP/President to obstruct justice. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,610]

Just now, sheeeit said:

Um..the people in government that communicated with the POTUS about his interactions with a foreign head of state?

Are you talking about Rudy?  POTUS did not instruct Rudy to ignore the subpoena.  Rudy is just ignoring it.  If they want to come after Rudy they certainly can.  

 

I'm not referring to a subpoena for anyone, that is an entirely different issue from the question I asked. I'll go find the post that laid out this dilemma succinctly. The issue I'm referring to is using someone not in the executive branch to conduct business for that branch or the US government in general.

[TwiceHorn 31,515]

9 hours ago, Asithappens said:

A couple of things. One, I don't remember calling the US "special", although we do have a system of government that, imo, is superior to many others (US Constitution) and does offer a better than average chance of weathering these types of storms. Maybe you disagree with that assessment. And while I'm in no way a Nationalist, we are exceptional, at least there's nothing wrong with thinking so. It's fine to do so. It's fine for the Swedes to think they are exceptional, too. 

And nothing I have said means that I don't think we are at risk of imploding. Of course we are at risk. Take your argument to those who have explicitly said such a thing. 

But you seem to think the sky is falling a lot of the time. I guess one of these times you'll be right.

The flip side of American exceptionalism, or the lack thereof, is that we are neither exceptionally good, nor exceptionally bad.

[wildcat09 29,360]

1 minute ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I'm not referring to a subpoena for anyone, that is an entirely different issue from the question I asked. I'll go find the post that laid out this dilemma succinctly. The issue I'm referring to is using someone not in the executive branch to conduct business for that branch or the US government in general.

Any moment you spend trying to engage sheeit in a good faith conversation is a wasted one.

[TwiceHorn 31,515]

Goddammit.

Being ill-informed and wrong is not lying.

You people aren't helping anything.  You're as bad as conservatards going for librul tears.

Edited October 16, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Bateshorn 9,928]

Can’t we just have a dialogue?  Where is the rational conversation in today’s politics?

[Chad Fuck 17,711]

24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

One, that letter doesnt assert anything. It says he maintains the right do so, but doesnt actually say privilege applies or explain why it would apply. When you assert privilege, you have to explain the basis and identify what specific request you're applying it to. Two, the terms and conditions that you amazingly skip included ending the investigation. 

"I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS SHAM INVESTIGATION UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION IS SHUT DOWN!!! ALL CAPS 4LOKO!!!!'

 - Sincerely, Chief Suck up to Almighty Orange God.

[HenryJames 66,135]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Goddammit.

Being dumb and wrong is not lying.

You people aren't helping.

He knows what he’s doing.

[Chuckie Finster 22,705]

14 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

Why are you all so dumb?  

[jimmyjazz 46,004]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Those are just facts, and facts are just things that get in the way of his asshole opinions. fishing expedition.

 

[Asithappens 974]

43 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Except it wasn’t a transcript.

I'm a big Henry James fan.

Also, William James. Billy James?

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,610]

9 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Um..the people in government that communicated with the POTUS about his interactions with a foreign head of state?

Are you talking about Rudy?  POTUS did not instruct Rudy to ignore the subpoena.  Rudy is just ignoring it.  If they want to come after Rudy they certainly can.  

 

From the Rudy thread, post #205 by @Brisketexan

 

 

[kevwun 15,814]

There are morons and trolls.  sheeeeit is a troll.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,610]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Any moment you spend trying to engage sheeit in a good faith conversation is a wasted one.

Perhaps. I don't mind getting them to provide some comedy gold though.

[sheeeit 129]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I negged you because you lied.  And not even a good one.  

Here, FROM THE FUCKING DOCUMENT ITSELF:

It is NOT an exact, word-for-word transcription by a stenographer.  That is a specific thing.  This is not that thing.  So, fuck off, you fucking lying sack of shit.

Jesus.  This place is completely insufferable.  Call it whatever you want.  POTUS released a document that was created by people listening in real time to his phone conversation.  Is that better?  You said they "paraphrased" it.

"A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." So I guess you yourself need to "fuck off, you lying sack of shit".  

And, as usual, you somehow get fixated on this and refuse to even try and justify that using executive privilege is "fucking lawful".

[Dahobbs 17,627]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddammit.

Being ill-informed and wrong is not lying.

You people aren't helping anything.  You're as bad as conservatards going for librul tears.

Its sheeeit. He isnt ill-informed, he is intentionally disingenuous. It is his thing. But, maybe he comes on here and admits it isnt a transcript. I doubt it.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31,515]

20 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I'm not referring to a subpoena for anyone, that is an entirely different issue from the question I asked. I'll go find the post that laid out this dilemma succinctly. The issue I'm referring to is using someone not in the executive branch to conduct business for that branch or the US government in general.

There's not all that much law on executive privilege, unlike attorney-client privilege.  The privilege applies to deliberative communications and processes within the executive branch.  I think there's a pretty good argument that if you bring in someone who isn't a part of the executive branch, you blow the privilege.  Crimes and wrongdoings notwithstanding.

Also worth noting that the privilege is not absolute, as is the attorney client privilege.  It can be pierced in the interest of justice even when no exceptions or disqualifications apply.

Edited October 16, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Asithappens 974]

16 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

Is that true? Because I don't think it's true, but I could be wrong. 

What I heard, and I really, really doubt that you have inside intel, is that this was contemporaneous notes, not anything from a steno. Meaning, it was NOT word-for-word.

If you're lying to us, then fuck you. 

If not, then I, in my inestimable wisdom and judgement, will find a way to still blame you. Very Trumpian of me, don't you think.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,515]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Its sheeeit. He isnt ill-informed, he is intentionally disingenuous. It is his thing. But, maybe he comes on here and admits it isnt a transcript. I doubt it.

I havent been keeping up.  I thought he was just ill-informed.

Still, I think the "liar" and "lying" terms are tossed around too freely around here and elsewhere.  Hanlons razor and all.

Edited October 16, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Bateshorn 9,928]

To be clear:  I’ve worked in Congress, I believe Congressional subpoenas should be nearly absolute.  I’m willing to allow for some discretion regarding conversations between presidents and aids as well as national security,  but in general, most executive privilege is complete horseshit. 

[Dahobbs 17,627]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

Jesus.  This place is completely insufferable.  Call it whatever you want.  POTUS released a document that was created by people listening in real time to his phone conversation.  Is that better?  You said they "paraphrased" it.

"A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." So I guess you yourself need to "fuck off, you lying sack of shit".  

And, as usual, you somehow get fixated on this and refuse to even try and justify that using executive privilege is "fucking lawful".

It is a 5 minute summary of a 30 minute call. Admit it isn't a word for word transcript. Admit it cannot contain the complete conversation. Admit it is possible that it doesnt accurately portray the full conversation. All of those things are obviously true. I'd love to see you acknowledge any of them. 

As to executive privilege, see everything we said before. It isnt a limitless well of protection. There is even a Supreme Court case on it involving another president. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,610]

2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Jesus.  This place is completely insufferable.  Call it whatever you want.  POTUS released a document that was created by people listening in real time to his phone conversation.  Is that better?  You said they "paraphrased" it.

"A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." So I guess you yourself need to "fuck off, you lying sack of shit".  

And, as usual, you somehow get fixated on this and refuse to even try and justify that using executive privilege is "fucking lawful".

Attempting to pressure a foreign government in exchange for a "favor" by withholding assistance to that country is unlawful though. It's, what is referred to in the business, as a "quid pro quo"l." the words "quid pro quo" do not actually have to be stated. Only the asking of something from the other party in exchange for something you have that they want or need.

[Chad Fuck 17,711]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I havent been keeping up.  I thought he was just ill-informed.

Nah, he's a career troll.  

[DDD Dad 14,346]

A bunch of us have law degrees and know what we're talking about. You don't, so kindly:

Some of us even have real experience handling issues of constitutional law and separation of powers.

But don’t let that stop you.

[Lurch 5,931]

There are morons and trolls.  sheeeeit is a troll.

 

Why not both gif

[shnsajax 3,591]

I like how this place is insufferable because you guys keep calling me out for being a lying piece of shit.

[RPM 26,330]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I honestly can’t imagine what compels someone to be such a shitty troll.

To own them libs! That's how. Winning!