Greene has been Stripped

Why try to change the subject? The comment was specific to the use of their majority to attack a political opponent in the HOR. And this is what you bring? And frankly having brought this up, are you suggesting that ANTIFA didn't deserve to be arrested for their insurrection?

 

You're the one who brought it up. Have you had your coffee yet? Or is it you just don't enjoy being reminded of things that happened when they don't fit your narrative?

"I see guys in camo," O'Shea said. "Four or five of them pop out, open the door and it was just like, 'Oh s***. I don't know who you are or what you want with us.'"

Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least Tuesday. Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation about why they are being arrested, and driving off."

 

LOL.. Typical. No one, but you, offered up ANTIFA. So why did you need to change the subject from the conversation being had? The discussion was stripping ms Green. Somehow you got all flustered and turned around and ended up in Portland.

 

See post #224.

 

Again, you seem confused. The conversation is about democrats using their power to attack a political rival in the HOR. You're woefully off topic here.

 

Repubs once had the integrity to discipline one of their own for deplorable behavior.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/425328-gop-leaders-strip-steve-king-of-committee-assignments

The abdication of their responsibility left Dems no choice but to step in.

 

Well you keep pitching these ridiculous softballs so I'm enjoying knocking them out of the park. Still waiting for that DOJ indictment against the Orange Obstructionist.

 

A baseball metaphor, I love those. What you've actually been doing is leaving your bat on your shoulder as you've repeatedly watched 100mph fastballs cross the heart of the plate. Unless you'd care to finally take a swing at something.

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you pretend you've been hitting softballs out of the park.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice

 

Your "case" of obstruction depends on Trump writing a tell all called "If I did it." He is not going to be indicted for firing Mueller when he did not fire Mueller, end of story.

 

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”
...............................................................................................................................
An act having all 3 prerequisites to sustain a charge of obstruction. Not succeeding in getting Mueller fired is immaterial to the commission of the crime of obstruction. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/attempt.html

 

And yet no indictment...the evidence of what's actually happening (or not happening) in the real world seems to contradict your theory, but it makes no difference to you.

This is called being a conspiracy theorist.

 

The evidence of what happened in the real world is the evidence. The stuff you keep not wanting to deal with.

 

We obviously disagree on what evidence is. I think it has to something that can be proven in a court of law. No telling what you think it is. As a conspiracy theorist, I assume your standards are quite a bit...lighter.

 

What's the relevance of this?

 

What are you talking about?!?! LOL! Evidence is used to support a proof. You don't look to prove the evidence.

Try using a dictionary.

 

When I said, "so I guess Ilhan Omar's and Rashida Tliab's district are a bunch of anti-semitic radical leftists", you didn't disagree.

 

Rep. Greene is definitely an evil extremist and the Republican failure to kick her out from the Congress committees (as they dis to Rep. King one year ago) is both painful and shameful.

However, there are dozens partially senior Democrats (from Clyburn till Ilhan Omar), who are as much extremist of her, but far more influential, and none of them has ever been officially condemned, let alone punished by the Democrats !

The most recent example is Sen. (not just House member) Warnock.
I don't even want to repeat, what he told about Israel (and America), but he called Jesus of Nazareth "poor Palestinian peasant" and "poor Palestinian prophet".
On the eve of the Holocaust (and during the Shoah) Jesus was "Aryan", now he is "Palestinian".

“History is the best teacher to us if we want to learn” – as an Auschwitz survivor said

 

If that's what you want to think, so be it.
You tend to make things up anyway.

 

You said that Greene's district thinks as she does. That's no different to saying that Ilhan Omar's and Rashida Tliab's districts think as they do.