Bill O’Reilly and the Right’s Morality Problem

[Happy]

Yes. Actually it happened to me except it was called a layoff. Sometimes people do get escorted out the door immediately but that's rare.

A layoff is not the same as fired.

 

[FollowTheWay]

LOL ~ The President is the Executive Officer of the United States. He has the authority to appoint and fire his own executive secretaries! Impeachable offense - you are off base and unknowing of the LAWS.

So you believe that consorting with an enemy to change the result of a presidential election and then obstructing an investigation into that is not an impeachable offense? What is if not TREASON?

 

[InTheLight]

So you believe that consorting with an enemy to change the result of a presidential election and then obstructing an investigation into that is not an impeachable offense? What is if not TREASON?

Well, yes, that is a compelling argument for treason. Firing an employee? Not so much.

Who or what is stopping this person from speaking out now? As in, "I got fired because I was getting close to proving the Trump campaign was colluding with Russians."

 

[Happy]

So you believe that consorting with an enemy to change the result of a presidential election and then obstructing an investigation into that is not an impeachable offense? What is if not TREASON?

Who consorted with an enemy?
How many times did this person "consort" with the enemy?
In person?
Who is the "enemy"?
How did you determine the "enemy", fact or opinion?
How exactly was the result of a Presidential election compromised?
How was an investigation obstructed?
By whom?
Define Treason?
And the sources of your facts are?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Well, yes, that is a compelling argument for treason. Firing an employee? Not so much.

Who or what is stopping this person from speaking out now? As in, "I got fired because I was getting close to proving the Trump campaign was colluding with Russians."

If the House Committee

Well, yes, that is a compelling argument for treason. Firing an employee? Not so much.

Who or what is stopping this person from speaking out now? As in, "I got fired because I was getting close to proving the Trump campaign was colluding with Russians."

Normal practice for the Dept. of Justice and BI is to not comment on an ongoing investigation. This woman is correctly following that policy. FBI Director Comey was not doing so when he announced the new set of Hillary's emails that had been received two weeks before the election. Her should be tried under the Hatch Act for doing that. I'm convinced he had an illegal impact on the election as well.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Who consorted with an enemy?
How many times did this person "consort" with the enemy?
In person?
Who is the "enemy"?
How did you determine the "enemy", fact or opinion?
How exactly was the result of a Presidential election compromised?
How was an investigation obstructed?
By whom?
Define Treason?
And the sources of your facts are?

I suppose you don't regard Russia as the enemy. I'm asking questions. It's the job of the House Select committee and the Dept. of Justice to answer them. They've done an unacceptable job so far. Call you Rep and tell him you want answers.

 

[Happy]

I suppose you don't regard Russia as the enemy. I'm asking questions. It's the job of the House Select committee and the Dept. of Justice to answer them. They've done an unacceptable job so far. Call you Rep and tell him you want answers.

I don't need to consult my Rep. I didn't ask a question with leading comments, you did.

So you believe that consorting with an enemy to change the result of a presidential election and then obstructing an investigation into that is not an impeachable offense? What is if not TREASON?

I said nothing about WHO America's enemies are.
I said nothing about anyone "consorting with an enemy"
I said nothing about an enemy attempting to change the results of a presidental election.
I said nothing about obstructing an investigation.
I said nothing about implying an impeachable offense was made.
I said nothing about implying anyone had committed treason.

You made all of those implications.

Why would I go ask my Rep about what YOU said?

I asked you questions about what YOU said. And apparently you do not know WHY you said what you did.

 

[Happy]

I suppose you don't regard Russia as the enemy. I'm asking questions. It's the job of the House Select committee and the Dept. of Justice to answer them. They've done an unacceptable job so far. Call you Rep and tell him you want answers.

So you believe that consorting with an enemy to change the result of a presidential election and then obstructing an investigation into that is not an impeachable offense? What is if not TREASON?

Evidence Trump has "consorted" with an enemy?

Consort meaning ~ habitually associate with (someone). ~ concerning Trump? Evidence? None.
Russia ~ US relationship ~ Bilateral
Change election result ~ evidence? None.
Obstruction of justice meaning ~ not complying with the legal system ~ evidence concerning Trump? None.
Impeachable offense? Treason
Treason ~ meaning
The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance;
or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.~ evidence concerning Trump? None.

In other words your implications ...
1) ARE NOT my implications.
2) Have nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.

 

[carpro]

Some people have no idea what the constitutional standard for treason is, nor how to apply it.

 

[Happy]

Some people have no idea what the constitutional standard for treason is, nor how to apply it.

Some people think opinionated talking points and speculated "news" means; facts.

 

[Reynolds]

So you believe that consorting with an enemy to change the result of a presidential election and then obstructing an investigation into that is not an impeachable offense? What is if not TREASON?

Problem being is far Trump did none of the above accused. The real problem is the Democrats doing the actions that the hackers outed. The material exposed is the problem, not the exposer.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I don't need to consult my Rep. I didn't ask a question with leading comments, you did.



I said nothing about WHO America's enemies are.
I said nothing about anyone "consorting with an enemy"
I said nothing about an enemy attempting to change the results of a presidental election.
I said nothing about obstructing an investigation.
I said nothing about implying an impeachable offense was made.
I said nothing about implying anyone had committed treason.

You made all of those implications.

Why would I go ask my Rep about what YOU said?

I asked you questions about what YOU said. And apparently you do not know WHY you said what you did.

One of your questions was: "Who is the "enemy"? I answered Russia. Do you agree?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Evidence Trump has "consorted" with an enemy?

Consort meaning ~ habitually associate with (someone). ~ concerning Trump? Evidence? None.
Russia ~ US relationship ~ Bilateral
Change election result ~ evidence? None.
Obstruction of justice meaning ~ not complying with the legal system ~ evidence concerning Trump? None.
Impeachable offense? Treason
Treason ~ meaning
The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance;
or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.~ evidence concerning Trump? None.

In other words your implications ...
1) ARE NOT my implications.
2) Have nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.

If they have nothing to do with Trump why are they being investigated (not very well) by the Dept. of Justice and the House Select Committee? You make no sense.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Problem being is far Trump did none of the above accused. The real problem is the Democrats doing the actions that the hackers outed. The material exposed is the problem, not the exposer.

Proof?

 

[Reynolds]

Proof?

Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Provide the proof considering you are the accuser. The Democrats dud not deny, and admitted to most of, what was leaked by the hackers.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I asked for your proof that the real problem is the Democrats raising the question. I'm looking for proof from the House Commission if they ever really do anything.

 

[Reynolds]

I asked for your proof that the real problem is the Democrats raising the question. I'm looking for proof from the House Commission if they ever really do anything.

It is my opinion, that the problem is the Democrats engaging in the behavior that the hackers exposed. The problem was the actions that were exposed, and not those who exposed them.

 

[Happy]

One of your questions was: "Who is the "enemy"? I answered Russia. Do you agree?

Not outright.

Perhaps you could expound on why you do consider Russia an enemy.

 

[Happy]

If they have nothing to do with Trump why are they being investigated (not very well) by the Dept. of Justice and the House Select Committee? You make no sense.

Allegations prompt investigations.
And investigations prompt the media to imply guilt.
And (some) of the public declare guilt.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Not outright.

Perhaps you could expound on why you do consider Russia an enemy.

So, you are aligning yourself with the Communists like Trump? So be it. I consider Russia to be our enemy. Putin is licking his chops because of people like you.