Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:42 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2420, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2426 ... 2506  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 11:39 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37730
merry! wrote:
you lot remind me of the ex-miners in the pit villages or the commies in post soviet Russia (yup, personal experience of both).

the anglosphere changed direction in 2016 and, like a super tanker, it takes a while for the effects to become evident.

no doubt, one day, it'll penetrate your thick skulls. :)


There were lots of absolute die-hard Nixon supporters in 1973~4 telling us we just did not get it. Then it penetrated their thick skulls. You'd have loved Nixon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4337
Kiwias wrote:
merry! wrote:
you lot remind me of the ex-miners in the pit villages or the commies in post soviet Russia (yup, personal experience of both).

the anglosphere changed direction in 2016 and, like a super tanker, it takes a while for the effects to become evident.

no doubt, one day, it'll penetrate your thick skulls. :)


There were lots of absolute die-hard Nixon supporters in 1973~4 telling us we just did not get it. Then it penetrated their thick skulls. You'd have loved Nixon.


No. Sorry; I have to correct you there; die-hard Nixon supported never actually, 'got it'.

They had their head up their arses decades later.

I vividly remember being at a ball game in the early nineties; & it was announced, that, Tricky Dicky, was in the stadium, & was going to throw out the first pitch; & a bloke near me uttered the immortal, phrase; 'the last President with a Foreign Policy'.

Completely ignorant of the fact that the shitheads, 'Foreign Policy', was just the same as his, 'Domestic Policy'; i.e. do whatever it takes to get in power, & stay in power; & that, 'Foreign Policy', was treasonous, & cost 40k American soldiers their lives in Vietnam.

There isn't a hell hot enough; nor an eternity, long enough for that piece of shit !!!!

Forty thousand unnecessary American deaths; & that piece of shit is still spoken about in better terms than Benedict Arnold. :x :x


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 15756
merry! wrote:
:lol:

gonna be fun watching your 'omg! wtf just happened?' faces.

again.

Like Seth Rich?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 12:37 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37730
fishfoodie wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
merry! wrote:
you lot remind me of the ex-miners in the pit villages or the commies in post soviet Russia (yup, personal experience of both).

the anglosphere changed direction in 2016 and, like a super tanker, it takes a while for the effects to become evident.

no doubt, one day, it'll penetrate your thick skulls. :)


There were lots of absolute die-hard Nixon supporters in 1973~4 telling us we just did not get it. Then it penetrated their thick skulls. You'd have loved Nixon.


No. Sorry; I have to correct you there; die-hard Nixon supported never actually, 'got it'.

They had their head up their arses decades later.

I vividly remember being at a ball game in the early nineties; & it was announced, that, Tricky Dicky, was in the stadium, & was going to throw out the first pitch; & a bloke near me uttered the immortal, phrase; 'the last President with a Foreign Policy'.

Completely ignorant of the fact that the shitheads, 'Foreign Policy', was just the same as his, 'Domestic Policy'; i.e. do whatever it takes to get in power, & stay in power; & that, 'Foreign Policy', was treasonous, & cost 40k American soldiers their lives in Vietnam.

There isn't a hell hot enough; nor an eternity, long enough for that piece of shit !!!!

Forty thousand unnecessary American deaths; & that piece of shit is still spoken about in better terms than Benedict Arnold. :x :x


In my mind I was thinking of the senators and congressmen who supported him right to the end and the emergence of the smoking gun tape. I should have clarified it. You are right that many Americans adored him and still revere the memory.

Hunter Thompson got it right with his piece after Dicky died.

Quote:
If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9712
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Trump planning to pardon soldiers awaiting trial for war crimes & murder apparently.

Good to know in this world of fuzzy morals you can always rely on Trump to be a massive piece of shit.


When I heard that I was shocked. Will this play well with the troops? I mean these guys were turned in by their fellow soldiers. What about if you saw a guy killing a kid for fun now? What motivation is there for someone to risk their career to turn in a bad apple?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
Deadtigers wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Trump planning to pardon soldiers awaiting trial for war crimes & murder apparently.

Good to know in this world of fuzzy morals you can always rely on Trump to be a massive piece of shit.


When I heard that I was shocked. Will this play well with the troops? I mean these guys were turned in by their fellow soldiers. What about if you saw a guy killing a kid for fun now? What motivation is there for someone to risk their career to turn in a bad apple?


This is all sorts of fucked up.

Yeah, you'll get some people who won't look past the surface of it and just see the farce as 'supporting the troops', no matter how blindly this support is. Many others are pissed though. There's a pretty lengthy facebook discussion going on among a lot of ex-mil guys and the disgust at this is palpable among the majority of them.

The SEAL one, Chief Gallagher is yet to stand trial, but is accused of murdering a wounded prisoner and posing with the body, as well as non-combatant civilians. There's enough evidence for that to go to trial, and those accusations are pretty damn serious. There are pretty strict rules about this sort of thing and you'll find a lot of service personnel don't want to be seen as part of any group that is not held to any sense of honour.
What really strikes home though, is that it was his own SEAL team who turned him in and will bear witness against him. THEY understood that he had broken the rules of combat and had the strength of character to draw the line in the sand. Where the hell do they stand now? They've taken a stand, and are now effectively having the rug pulled out from under them for doing so. They've been completely hung out to dry. There needs to be a trial so they can back up their charges against one of their own (a decision they wouldn't have taken lightly). Unless they have fabricated the whole thing to frame their TL, they are the troops who need to be supported right now, not Chief Gallagher. Unless there is an actual trial, the truth will not be known.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18522
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
I agree. But unfortunately Trump has never given a stuff about the truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
Fat Old Git wrote:
I agree. But unfortunately Trump has never given a stuff about the truth.


Nor have his followers.

Lindsey Graham wrote:

Just received a briefing from National Security Advisor Bolton about escalating tensions with Iran.

It is clear that over the last several weeks Iran has attacked pipelines and ships of other nations and created threat streams against American interests in Iraq.



in response:
Ruben Gallego wrote:


Again Lindsey and I get the same intel. That is not what is being said. This is total information bias to draw the conclusion he wants for himself and the media.


Watch this space for the Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident in 3..2..1..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23977
merry! wrote:
:lol:

you lads have lost it.

In a tailspin :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5741
Turbogoat wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
I agree. But unfortunately Trump has never given a stuff about the truth.


Nor have his followers.

Lindsey Graham wrote:

Just received a briefing from National Security Advisor Bolton about escalating tensions with Iran.

It is clear that over the last several weeks Iran has attacked pipelines and ships of other nations and created threat streams against American interests in Iraq.



in response:
Ruben Gallego wrote:


Again Lindsey and I get the same intel. That is not what is being said. This is total information bias to draw the conclusion he wants for himself and the media.


Watch this space for the Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident in 3..2..1..


Will we have Seal teams in Iranian PT boats attacking US ships or go with a straight out we was fired on and responded?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:38 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37730
kiwinoz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
I agree. But unfortunately Trump has never given a stuff about the truth.


Nor have his followers.

Lindsey Graham wrote:

Just received a briefing from National Security Advisor Bolton about escalating tensions with Iran.

It is clear that over the last several weeks Iran has attacked pipelines and ships of other nations and created threat streams against American interests in Iraq.



in response:
Ruben Gallego wrote:


Again Lindsey and I get the same intel. That is not what is being said. This is total information bias to draw the conclusion he wants for himself and the media.


Watch this space for the Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident in 3..2..1..


Will we have Seal teams in Iranian PT boats attacking US ships or go with a straight out we was fired on and responded?


Whatever the govt decide they can best use to deceive the public.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
kiwinoz wrote:

Will we have Seal teams in Iranian PT boats attacking US ships or go with a straight out we was fired on and responded?


At this rate we'll only need John Bolton using the twitter handle "@IRAN4EVER" send out mean tweets to Trump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
There's some signs of sanity though, a Federal Judge shot down the attempts to prevent the accounting firm from handing over Trump tax records - in record time, with some stern disdain for the non-arguments from the Trump lawyer, and a considerable speed up on the process to dismiss the obvious stalling tactics. :lol:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/20/poli ... index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15005
Turbogoat wrote:
There's some signs of sanity though, a Federal Judge shot down the attempts to prevent the accounting firm from handing over Trump tax records - in record time, with some stern disdain for the non-arguments from the Trump lawyer, and a considerable speed up on the process to dismiss the obvious stalling tactics. :lol:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/20/poli ... index.html

Image

Looks like one of them mooslims.

This does make sense, though:

Quote:
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 2752
Could Mayor Pete be the man?
Sounds like he did well on Fox


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5948
Rinkals wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
There's some signs of sanity though, a Federal Judge shot down the attempts to prevent the accounting firm from handing over Trump tax records - in record time, with some stern disdain for the non-arguments from the Trump lawyer, and a considerable speed up on the process to dismiss the obvious stalling tactics. :lol:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/20/poli ... index.html

Image

Looks like one of them mooslims.

This does make sense, though:

Quote:
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,"


That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13383
Location: South Oxfordshire
zzzz wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
There's some signs of sanity though, a Federal Judge shot down the attempts to prevent the accounting firm from handing over Trump tax records - in record time, with some stern disdain for the non-arguments from the Trump lawyer, and a considerable speed up on the process to dismiss the obvious stalling tactics. :lol:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/20/poli ... index.html

Image

Looks like one of them mooslims.

This does make sense, though:

Quote:
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,"


That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


That would be why a third branch has the right to rule on the limits of those powers - and has done so in the past. That's why Congress thinks it has the power to do this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15005
zzzz wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
There's some signs of sanity though, a Federal Judge shot down the attempts to prevent the accounting firm from handing over Trump tax records - in record time, with some stern disdain for the non-arguments from the Trump lawyer, and a considerable speed up on the process to dismiss the obvious stalling tactics. :lol:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/20/poli ... index.html

Image

Looks like one of them mooslims.

This does make sense, though:

Quote:
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,"


That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Eh?

It's only fatuous if you believe that the President is immune from the law.

If you give Congress the power to remove him, but then refuse to allow them to investigate him, the whole thing is pointless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:
That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Checks and balances. It's a fairly fundamental part of the US system of government.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5948
Saint wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
There's some signs of sanity though, a Federal Judge shot down the attempts to prevent the accounting firm from handing over Trump tax records - in record time, with some stern disdain for the non-arguments from the Trump lawyer, and a considerable speed up on the process to dismiss the obvious stalling tactics. :lol:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/20/poli ... index.html

Image

Looks like one of them mooslims.

This does make sense, though:

Quote:
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,"


That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


That would be why a third branch has the right to rule on the limits of those powers - and has done so in the past. That's why Congress thinks it has the power to do this


I think you are actually making the same point as me. This the whole point of seperated powers. These investigation powers are not withouit limit and it really is not unfathomable to think that Congress might need to open an inquiry before excercising these powers of inquiry. Not sure the decison is wrong, just rolling my eye's at the idea the contrary is unfathomable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5948
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Checks and balances. It's a fairly fundamental part of the US system of government.


again. that's my point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21777
Location: Middle East
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Checks and balances. It's a fairly fundamental part of the US system of government.


again. that's my point.


That Congress should have to start impeachment proceedings before being able to begin an investigation?
Impeachment is pretty serious, you'd want it to be based upon some actual investigation really, you're putting the cart before the horse (by several miles) here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13383
Location: South Oxfordshire
zzzz wrote:
Saint wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
There's some signs of sanity though, a Federal Judge shot down the attempts to prevent the accounting firm from handing over Trump tax records - in record time, with some stern disdain for the non-arguments from the Trump lawyer, and a considerable speed up on the process to dismiss the obvious stalling tactics. :lol:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/20/poli ... index.html

Image

Looks like one of them mooslims.

This does make sense, though:

Quote:
"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry,"


That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


That would be why a third branch has the right to rule on the limits of those powers - and has done so in the past. That's why Congress thinks it has the power to do this


I think you are actually making the same point as me. This the whole point of seperated powers. These investigation powers are not withouit limit and it really is not unfathomable to think that Congress might need to open an inquiry before excercising these powers of inquiry. Not sure the decison is wrong, just rolling my eye's at the idea the contrary is unfathomable.


It's been made fairly clear that the investigation starts first, and then the impeachment. If you want impeachment hearings first then that's an odd way of doing it.

Looking at it another way, Congress investigates various parts of the Executive branch on a daily basis without opening an inquiry. The point is to discover if there's enough evidence to open an inquiry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5436
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Isnt it just hilarious that it’s going before Merrick Garland?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18522
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
saffer13 wrote:
merry! wrote:
:lol:

you lads have lost it.

In a tailspin :lol:


You guys keep saying things like this and seem rather desperate for it to be true.

Although that's easier than actually coming up with a sensible argument I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23977
Fat Old Git wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
merry! wrote:
:lol:

you lads have lost it.

In a tailspin :lol:


You guys keep saying things like this and seem rather desperate for it to be true.

Although that's easier than actually coming up with a sensible argument I guess.


I guess we could flip this with regards to the obstruction, collusion, impeachment, that "you guys" are always desperate to be true. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18522
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
saffer13 wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
merry! wrote:
:lol:

you lads have lost it.

In a tailspin :lol:


You guys keep saying things like this and seem rather desperate for it to be true.

Although that's easier than actually coming up with a sensible argument I guess.


I guess we could flip this with regards to the obstruction, collusion, impeachment, that "you guys" are always desperate to be true. :lol:


Or you just actually read what is written, starting with the report in to Russian interference that found Russian interference and try comprehending what it actually means rather than trying to spin it as people flipping and losing it.

And perhaps realize that the "you guys" are quite a diverse bunch, many of whom have no dog in a fight and are just laughing at how ridiculous the most powerful national on earth has become.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7937
saffer13 wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
saffer13 wrote:
merry! wrote:
:lol:

you lads have lost it.

In a tailspin :lol:


You guys keep saying things like this and seem rather desperate for it to be true.

Although that's easier than actually coming up with a sensible argument I guess.


I guess we could flip this with regards to the obstruction, collusion, impeachment, that "you guys" are always desperate to be true. :lol:

Really? We were “desperate” for the truth? I’ll settle with what has proven. That there was contact between the orange shitgibbon’s team and the ruskies. That the orange shitgibbon tried to obstruct on 10 times. That no one here ever claimed collusion was a basis for the investigation and impeachment? Meh.

Do try again


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14988
Turbogoat wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Trump planning to pardon soldiers awaiting trial for war crimes & murder apparently.

Good to know in this world of fuzzy morals you can always rely on Trump to be a massive piece of shit.


When I heard that I was shocked. Will this play well with the troops? I mean these guys were turned in by their fellow soldiers. What about if you saw a guy killing a kid for fun now? What motivation is there for someone to risk their career to turn in a bad apple?


This is all sorts of fucked up.

Yeah, you'll get some people who won't look past the surface of it and just see the farce as 'supporting the troops', no matter how blindly this support is. Many others are pissed though. There's a pretty lengthy facebook discussion going on among a lot of ex-mil guys and the disgust at this is palpable among the majority of them.

The SEAL one, Chief Gallagher is yet to stand trial, but is accused of murdering a wounded prisoner and posing with the body, as well as non-combatant civilians. There's enough evidence for that to go to trial, and those accusations are pretty damn serious. There are pretty strict rules about this sort of thing and you'll find a lot of service personnel don't want to be seen as part of any group that is not held to any sense of honour.
What really strikes home though, is that it was his own SEAL team who turned him in and will bear witness against him. THEY understood that he had broken the rules of combat and had the strength of character to draw the line in the sand. Where the hell do they stand now? They've taken a stand, and are now effectively having the rug pulled out from under them for doing so. They've been completely hung out to dry. There needs to be a trial so they can back up their charges against one of their own (a decision they wouldn't have taken lightly). Unless they have fabricated the whole thing to frame their TL, they are the troops who need to be supported right now, not Chief Gallagher. Unless there is an actual trial, the truth will not be known.


Surely it isn't possible to pardon a crime that hasn't yet been established as having been committed? Rather than a pardon, is that not subversion of the law?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 1:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14988
zzzz wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Checks and balances. It's a fairly fundamental part of the US system of government.


again. that's my point.


A whole lot of kerfuffle about nothing, then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 1:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15958
Ted. wrote:

Surely it isn't possible to pardon a crime that hasn't yet been established as having been committed? Rather than a pardon, is that not subversion of the law?


It is possible, Ford pardoned Nixon before he was ever charged with anything.

There's actually almost no limits on the Presidential pardon (n respect of federal charges anyway). It's not even established explicitly that they can't pardon themselves.

The only real limit on pardoning other people seems to be specificity - ie, they have to be pardoned in respect of an actual incident (so the President can't just say "Person X is immune from any and all prosecutions and above the law")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14988
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Surely it isn't possible to pardon a crime that hasn't yet been established as having been committed? Rather than a pardon, is that not subversion of the law?


It is possible, Ford pardoned Nixon before he was ever charged with anything.

There's actually almost no limits on the Presidential pardon (n respect of federal charges anyway). It's not even established explicitly that they can't pardon themselves.

The only real limit on pardoning other people seems to be specificity - ie, they have to be pardoned in respect of an actual incident (so the President can't just say "Person X is immune from any and all prosecutions and above the law")


Gotcha. :thumbup:

It's a pretty low bar then, a whim will do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Checks and balances. It's a fairly fundamental part of the US system of government.


Checks and balances, yes, but opening the window to fishing expeditions will bite them.

Have an issue worthy of impeachment or a specific issue before a committee, start the process and go at it.

But no evidence of a crime but lets just see all these financials anyway because we may find something - really?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:27 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37730
_fatprop wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Checks and balances. It's a fairly fundamental part of the US system of government.


Checks and balances, yes, but opening the window to fishing expeditions will bite them.

Have an issue worthy of impeachment or a specific issue before a committee, start the process and go at it.

But no evidence of a crime but lets just see all these financials anyway because we may find something - really?


Surely an investigation is required in order to determine whether an issue is worthy of impeachment?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
Kiwias wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Checks and balances. It's a fairly fundamental part of the US system of government.


Checks and balances, yes, but opening the window to fishing expeditions will bite them.

Have an issue worthy of impeachment or a specific issue before a committee, start the process and go at it.

But no evidence of a crime but lets just see all these financials anyway because we may find something - really?


Surely an investigation is required in order to determine whether an issue is worthy of impeachment?


That is the impeachment process, if they think there was obstruction go at it, it doesn't have to meet any legal test unlike Mueller's report & Barr's decision that there was nothing that met the legal definition of obstruction but that doesn't matter in a impeachment.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors is a broad undefined brush and it is purely a political process

But just trolling through historical financial records looking for crimes? How does that help future of politics, how do you think that will be weaponised in the future? Because the precedent will be used against them as well


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:21 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37730
_fatprop wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
zzzz wrote:
That is utterly fatuous. It may well be that Congress has this particular power, but it would be pretty easy to fathom why one branch of a seperated system might not have unlimited powers of investigation over another.


Checks and balances. It's a fairly fundamental part of the US system of government.


Checks and balances, yes, but opening the window to fishing expeditions will bite them.

Have an issue worthy of impeachment or a specific issue before a committee, start the process and go at it.

But no evidence of a crime but lets just see all these financials anyway because we may find something - really?


Surely an investigation is required in order to determine whether an issue is worthy of impeachment?


That is the impeachment process, if they think there was obstruction go at it, it doesn't have to meet any legal test unlike Mueller's report & Barr's decision that there was nothing that met the legal definition of obstruction but that doesn't matter in a impeachment.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors is a broad undefined brush and it is purely a political process

But just trolling through historical financial records looking for crimes? How does that help future of politics, how do you think that will be weaponised in the future? Because the precedent will be used against them as well


The obvious flaw is that Mueller's report identified several cases of potential obstruction of justice and Congress is now investigating them. Financial documents and records are likely to aid in this investigation so it is clearly not a case of trolling through these records looking for crimes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
Kiwias wrote:

The obvious flaw is that Mueller's report identified several cases of potential obstruction of justice and Congress is now investigating them. Financial documents and records are likely to aid in this investigation so it is clearly not a case of trolling through these records looking for crimes.


Really so looking through 6 year old plus financials for obstruction in the last 18 months makes sense to you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:33 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37730
_fatprop wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

The obvious flaw is that Mueller's report identified several cases of potential obstruction of justice and Congress is now investigating them. Financial documents and records are likely to aid in this investigation so it is clearly not a case of trolling through these records looking for crimes.


Really so looking through 6 year old plus financials for obstruction in the last 18 months makes sense to you?


Obstruction is not the only possible problem Trump faces. Others include foreign emoluments, tax fraud, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
Kiwias wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

The obvious flaw is that Mueller's report identified several cases of potential obstruction of justice and Congress is now investigating them. Financial documents and records are likely to aid in this investigation so it is clearly not a case of trolling through these records looking for crimes.


Really so looking through 6 year old plus financials for obstruction in the last 18 months makes sense to you?


Obstruction is not the only possible problem Trump faces. Others include foreign emoluments, tax fraud, etc.


Ah yes a fishing expedition it is then


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:39 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37730
_fatprop wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Kiwias wrote:

The obvious flaw is that Mueller's report identified several cases of potential obstruction of justice and Congress is now investigating them. Financial documents and records are likely to aid in this investigation so it is clearly not a case of trolling through these records looking for crimes.


Really so looking through 6 year old plus financials for obstruction in the last 18 months makes sense to you?


Obstruction is not the only possible problem Trump faces. Others include foreign emoluments, tax fraud, etc.


Ah yes a fishing expedition it is then


Yes of course. You keep telling yourself that.

It is still nowhere as bad as the endless and repeated Benghazi expedition the GOP staged.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2420, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2426 ... 2506  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: comets, ElementFreak, Google Adsense [Bot], Jeff the Bear, ManInTheBar, sculler, Slim 293, sonic_attack, Taranaki Snapper and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group