Chat Forum
It is currently Fri May 29, 2020 2:03 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112814 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2663, 2664, 2665, 2666, 2667, 2668, 2669 ... 2821  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
Rinkals wrote:

Quote:

If you can’t imagine waking up one morning in October or November this year to find Twitter comprises solely of a series of messages from @realDonaldTrump, complete with retweets, and switch on the news to find that the President addressing the nation from the Oval Office on every channel


I imagine this is Backwoodsman and Merry's lives already


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
I was having an afternoon nap in a park last summer and I was in that half sleep / half awake slumber and I had this strange dream that I woke up and no one was on their phone and no one was on the internet. I asked someone what happened and they said [random person - just some nobody] had 'won the internet'. Some guy worked out how to win every exchange on the internet. He literally won it. He rendered the whole thing obsolete by clocking / winning the internet. So everyone stopped using it. It was one of those dreams I was chuckling away at.

Maybe if we let Trump "win the internet" then all our lives would be better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28163
Location: Chickenrunning...
Seneca of the Night wrote:
I was having an afternoon nap in a park last summer and I was in that half sleep / half awake slumber and I had this strange dream that I woke up and no one was on their phone and no one was on the internet. I asked someone what happened and they said [random person - just some nobody] had 'won the internet'. Some guy worked out how to win every exchange on the internet. He literally won it. He rendered the whole thing obsolete by clocking / winning the internet. So everyone stopped using it. It was one of those dreams I was chuckling away at.



Wet dream in your case


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17026
Seneca of the Night wrote:
I was having an afternoon nap in a park last summer and I was in that half sleep / half awake slumber and I had this strange dream that I woke up and no one was on their phone and no one was on the internet. I asked someone what happened and they said [random person - just some nobody] had 'won the internet'. Some guy worked out how to win every exchange on the internet. He literally won it. He rendered the whole thing obsolete by clocking / winning the internet. So everyone stopped using it. It was one of those dreams I was chuckling away at.

Maybe if we let Trump "win the internet" then all our lives would be better.


Bimboesque level of missing the point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5576
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
He’s a smooth criminickal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Rinkals wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
I was having an afternoon nap in a park last summer and I was in that half sleep / half awake slumber and I had this strange dream that I woke up and no one was on their phone and no one was on the internet. I asked someone what happened and they said [random person - just some nobody] had 'won the internet'. Some guy worked out how to win every exchange on the internet. He literally won it. He rendered the whole thing obsolete by clocking / winning the internet. So everyone stopped using it. It was one of those dreams I was chuckling away at.

Maybe if we let Trump "win the internet" then all our lives would be better.


Bimboesque level of missing the point.


I am making my own point you dumpfkonst (or whatever it is in Afrikaans).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8312
Rinkals wrote:

Interesting article in El Reg.


Quote:
And then she took a dark turn. “While we’re at it, we need to update our laws too,” she told the assembled policy wonks, politicians, and lobbyists, “because 47 USC Section 606 gives the president power to shut down communications without clear judicial or legislative review.”

And she is, of course, right. The President of the United States does have extraordinary powers in the event of war, and one of them is the ability to “suspend or amend, for such time as he may see fit, the rules and regulations applicable to any or all stations or devices capable of emitting electromagnetic radiations.”

It goes further than that: the President can “direct that such communications as in his judgment may be essential to the national defense and security shall have preference or priority with any carrier.” And he may “give these directions at and for such times as he may determine, and may modify, change, suspend, or annul them and for any such purpose.”
National security


I cannot believe even Trump would be that daft, for all sort of reasons I cannot see that happening, and certainly not surviving. Though bigger picture they do need to revisit executive power as they clearly cannot assume the position will be held in good faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1406
Location: Saint Paul
Deal of the CenturyTM or not?

I'm giving it a hard pass. The deal seems to be based on Bibi's Jordan Valley annexation plan with extra land grab in exchange for a couple of desert enclaves and a capital based in a rundown suburb. Kinda like if the prize was an embassy in Mayfair but you were told "sorry son, I hear Slough is nice".

Somewhere Bibi's grandfather is smiling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
puku wrote:
Deal of the CenturyTM or not?

I'm giving it a hard pass. The deal seems to be based on Bibi's Jordan Valley annexation plan with extra land grab in exchange for a couple of desert enclaves and a capital based in a rundown suburb. Kinda like if the prize was an embassy in Mayfair but you were told "sorry son, I hear Slough is nice".

Somewhere Bibi's grandfather is smiling.


There's nothing stopping you building Mayfair in Slough. If you can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20423
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
I'm not sure of that.

I think there's a deregulation dividend which applies as Obama era restrictions are repealed.

The question is whether Americans are happy to f uck up the environment and withdraw employment restrictions and it seems they care not a jot.


Or as I call it, taking the foot off the hose.



When the hose contains toxic waste going into the water your kids drink and bath in, taking your foot off it isn't a great idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5576
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
I was having an afternoon nap in a park last summer and I was in that half sleep / half awake slumber and I had this strange dream that I woke up and no one was on their phone and no one was on the internet. I asked someone what happened and they said [random person - just some nobody] had 'won the internet'. Some guy worked out how to win every exchange on the internet. He literally won it. He rendered the whole thing obsolete by clocking / winning the internet. So everyone stopped using it. It was one of those dreams I was chuckling away at.

Maybe if we let Trump "win the internet" then all our lives would be better.


Bimboesque level of missing the point.


I am making my own point you dumpfkonst (or whatever it is in Afrikaans).

Drumpfkop


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
Rudy Giuliani can sure let fly.
He's either telling the truth or he's going to get sued to hell.
No innuendo here.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6126568181001#sp=show-clips


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
BillW wrote:
Rudy Giuliani can sure let fly.
He's either telling the truth or he's going to get sued to hell.
No innuendo here.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6126568181001#sp=show-clips



Mmm... tasty. The fun is just starting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2566
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25704
Don Lemon. What a tool. :lol:

That is all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 4:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8536
the orange shitgibbon knows the best words


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 5:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6882
Location: emmerdale
senate trial rules state that no electronic devices are allowed in the chamber..

Quote:
Scenes from the impeachment trial: Schumer invited Lev Parnas to be his personal guest today at the trial. Minutes ago, Parnas was ejected from the gallery...because he’s wearing an ankle bracelet mandated bc he’s a criminal defendant accused of serious felonies! #CantMakeItUp

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1222583748450975746

hope he wasn't on the dem's witness list. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12063
merry! wrote:
senate trial rules state that no electronic devices are allowed in the chamber..

Quote:
Scenes from the impeachment trial: Schumer invited Lev Parnas to be his personal guest today at the trial. Minutes ago, Parnas was ejected from the gallery...because he’s wearing an ankle bracelet mandated bc he’s a criminal defendant accused of serious felonies! #CantMakeItUp

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1222583748450975746

hope he wasn't on the dem's witness list. :)



Pity you can't fvcking read. It was all over the news days ago that Parnas wouldn't be allowed in. And of course he didn't attempt to. Like most gullible gammon you swallowed Cruz's story HL&S. :lol:

Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
·
6h
Replying to
@tedcruz
Turns out, what I was told in the Cloakroom was slightly inaccurate. Instead of his being “ejected” from the gallery, Parnas was told he wouldn’t be allowed into the gallery w/ his ankle bracelet, and so he didn’t actually try to go in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6690
sorCrer wrote:
merry! wrote:
senate trial rules state that no electronic devices are allowed in the chamber..

Quote:
Scenes from the impeachment trial: Schumer invited Lev Parnas to be his personal guest today at the trial. Minutes ago, Parnas was ejected from the gallery...because he’s wearing an ankle bracelet mandated bc he’s a criminal defendant accused of serious felonies! #CantMakeItUp

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1222583748450975746

hope he wasn't on the dem's witness list. :)



Pity you can't fvcking read. It was all over the news days ago that Parnas wouldn't be allowed in. And of course he didn't attempt to. Like most gullible gammon you swallowed Cruz's story HL&S. :lol:


cant he become a whistleblower? Foir all purposes well this one at least he can become the orange pimpernel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
6.Jones wrote:
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.


Flabbergasting


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
merry! wrote:
senate trial rules state that no electronic devices are allowed in the chamber..

Quote:
Scenes from the impeachment trial: Schumer invited Lev Parnas to be his personal guest today at the trial. Minutes ago, Parnas was ejected from the gallery...because he’s wearing an ankle bracelet mandated bc he’s a criminal defendant accused of serious felonies! #CantMakeItUp

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1222583748450975746

hope he wasn't on the dem's witness list. :)


Dumb post


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2566
BokJock wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.


Flabbergasting

If the Dems had included an obstruction of justice article from the Mueller report [amazing they don't] then Dersh would be saying actual crimes aren't included either. He'll clearly say anything, even if it contradicts something he already said. You have to wonder why.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:05 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15412
Location: South Oxfordshire
BokJock wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.


Flabbergasting


It's a ludicrous defense, but one which gives a semblance of cover fir wavering GOP senators. "We're not going to deny quid pro quo, because at this stage we know we can't, but that doesn't matter - because the President's lawyers said it was legal! No case to answer, nothing to see here move on"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
kiwinoz wrote:
sorCrer wrote:
merry! wrote:
senate trial rules state that no electronic devices are allowed in the chamber..

Quote:
Scenes from the impeachment trial: Schumer invited Lev Parnas to be his personal guest today at the trial. Minutes ago, Parnas was ejected from the gallery...because he’s wearing an ankle bracelet mandated bc he’s a criminal defendant accused of serious felonies! #CantMakeItUp

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1222583748450975746

hope he wasn't on the dem's witness list. :)



Pity you can't fvcking read. It was all over the news days ago that Parnas wouldn't be allowed in. And of course he didn't attempt to. Like most gullible gammon you swallowed Cruz's story HL&S. :lol:


cant he become a whistleblower? Foir all purposes well this one at least he can become the orange pimpernel.


The extent of disinformation, fake news being spread over social media by congressmen and women has prompted the house ethical committee to warn that there could be legal repercussions for misleading the public.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
6.Jones wrote:
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.

Are you repeating porkies Jonesy?

Quote:
Multiple media outlets, including CNN, mischaracterized Dershowitz throughout the day as saying that presidents can do "anything" as long as they can argue it's in the "public interest." In fact, Dershowitz maintained that criminal or criminal-like conduct is impeachable, regardless of its motivation.

Instead, Dershowitz asserted the Senate should not be in the business of removing presidents based on nebulous and unconstitutional "abuse of power" charges that the framers expressly rejected. It would be a standard Democrats would not want applied to their own presidents, he argued.

To demonstrate that point, Dershowitz made thinly veiled references to President Obama's refusal to send lethal military aid to Ukraine, as well as his failed, unenforced "red line" warning for Syria not to use chemical weapons.

"Let's consider a hypothetical," Dershowitz said. "Let's assume that President Obama had been told by his advisors that it really is important to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine. But then he gets a call from his pollster and his political adviser, who says we know it's in the national interest to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine, but we're telling you that the left-wing of your party is really going to give you a hard time if you start selling lethal weapons and potentially get into a lethal war with Russia. Would anybody here suggest that is impeachable?"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... -the-issue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:18 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 25409
I always told you my boy Mitt was a hero.

When you think of the shit he got on here when he ran. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
People have assured me that you are just on the wind up, so will treat that post as such

Edit: meant for Billw

Edit edit: but of course could easily apply to Mullet


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
So I guess the question now is how many democratic senators will vote to acquit. Will be intersting to see how the wayverers go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:25 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15412
Location: South Oxfordshire
BillW wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.

Are you repeating porkies Jonesy?

Quote:
Multiple media outlets, including CNN, mischaracterized Dershowitz throughout the day as saying that presidents can do "anything" as long as they can argue it's in the "public interest." In fact, Dershowitz maintained that criminal or criminal-like conduct is impeachable, regardless of its motivation.

Instead, Dershowitz asserted the Senate should not be in the business of removing presidents based on nebulous and unconstitutional "abuse of power" charges that the framers expressly rejected. It would be a standard Democrats would not want applied to their own presidents, he argued.

To demonstrate that point, Dershowitz made thinly veiled references to President Obama's refusal to send lethal military aid to Ukraine, as well as his failed, unenforced "red line" warning for Syria not to use chemical weapons.

"Let's consider a hypothetical," Dershowitz said. "Let's assume that President Obama had been told by his advisors that it really is important to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine. But then he gets a call from his pollster and his political adviser, who says we know it's in the national interest to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine, but we're telling you that the left-wing of your party is really going to give you a hard time if you start selling lethal weapons and potentially get into a lethal war with Russia. Would anybody here suggest that is impeachable?"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... -the-issue


Or maybe you might quote something else he actually said
Quote:
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
That is a remarkable thing to say

But hang on, I thought there was no quid pro quo - but here is Trumps lawyer saying that there was on.

Is Dershowitz just Giuliani in disguise


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Mullet 2 wrote:
I always told you my boy Mitt was a hero.

When you think of the shit he got on here when he ran. :roll:


If the media and globalist had pulled the plug on Obama's only barely competent slow lane presidency and backed the super competent if dull and slightly ideologically confused Romney, then all manner of current issues would have been avoided, from the great awokening, to this Ukraine/Russia morass to Donald Trump himself.

The Economist backed Obama over Romney, which tells you everything you need to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:49 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3678
BokJock wrote:
That is a remarkable thing to say

But hang on, I thought there was no quid pro quo - but here is Trumps lawyer saying that there was on.

Is Dershowitz just Giuliani in disguise

:roll:
A slight variation of the cab rank barrister's defence of the old lag:

I wasn't there
and if I was there I didn't do it
and if I did do it then I didn't mean to do it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17026
BokJock wrote:
merry! wrote:
senate trial rules state that no electronic devices are allowed in the chamber..

Quote:
Scenes from the impeachment trial: Schumer invited Lev Parnas to be his personal guest today at the trial. Minutes ago, Parnas was ejected from the gallery...because he’s wearing an ankle bracelet mandated bc he’s a criminal defendant accused of serious felonies! #CantMakeItUp

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1222583748450975746

hope he wasn't on the dem's witness list. :)


Dumb post


Totally in keeping with the rest of his output, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8312
6.Jones wrote:
BokJock wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.


Flabbergasting

If the Dems had included an obstruction of justice article from the Mueller report [amazing they don't] then Dersh would be saying actual crimes aren't included either. He'll clearly say anything, even if it contradicts something he already said. You have to wonder why.


I along with many others admire Alan Dershowitz for taking time out to comment on this matter from the standpoint of a non-partisan academic/historian. Not least because a lawyer has a duty to zealously represent their client, and yet he abandons his requirement to specifically be zealous to elucidate to the Senate as to his indifference both to Trump's behaviour and his job


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8312
BillW wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.

Are you repeating porkies Jonesy?

Quote:
Multiple media outlets, including CNN, mischaracterized Dershowitz throughout the day as saying that presidents can do "anything" as long as they can argue it's in the "public interest." In fact, Dershowitz maintained that criminal or criminal-like conduct is impeachable, regardless of its motivation.

Instead, Dershowitz asserted the Senate should not be in the business of removing presidents based on nebulous and unconstitutional "abuse of power" charges that the framers expressly rejected. It would be a standard Democrats would not want applied to their own presidents, he argued.

To demonstrate that point, Dershowitz made thinly veiled references to President Obama's refusal to send lethal military aid to Ukraine, as well as his failed, unenforced "red line" warning for Syria not to use chemical weapons.

"Let's consider a hypothetical," Dershowitz said. "Let's assume that President Obama had been told by his advisors that it really is important to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine. But then he gets a call from his pollster and his political adviser, who says we know it's in the national interest to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine, but we're telling you that the left-wing of your party is really going to give you a hard time if you start selling lethal weapons and potentially get into a lethal war with Russia. Would anybody here suggest that is impeachable?"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... -the-issue


The better example would be if Obama had received a legal instruction from Congress to act and then illegally ignored that instruction because of a conspiracy theory he and/or his advisors dreamt up. That said these current hearings could be used to try and justify much iffier impeachment proceedings in future, in theory that'd be fine if people acted responsibly, but if people acted responsibly we wouldn't have Trump, and the history of Congress (both houses) wouldn't be what it is


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:28 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8001
Mullet 2 wrote:
I always told you my boy Mitt was a hero.

When you think of the shit he got on here when he ran. :roll:


Let's see if Mittens goes the whole hog but it's a decent start.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
piquant wrote:
BillW wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.

Are you repeating porkies Jonesy?

Quote:
Multiple media outlets, including CNN, mischaracterized Dershowitz throughout the day as saying that presidents can do "anything" as long as they can argue it's in the "public interest." In fact, Dershowitz maintained that criminal or criminal-like conduct is impeachable, regardless of its motivation.

Instead, Dershowitz asserted the Senate should not be in the business of removing presidents based on nebulous and unconstitutional "abuse of power" charges that the framers expressly rejected. It would be a standard Democrats would not want applied to their own presidents, he argued.

To demonstrate that point, Dershowitz made thinly veiled references to President Obama's refusal to send lethal military aid to Ukraine, as well as his failed, unenforced "red line" warning for Syria not to use chemical weapons.

"Let's consider a hypothetical," Dershowitz said. "Let's assume that President Obama had been told by his advisors that it really is important to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine. But then he gets a call from his pollster and his political adviser, who says we know it's in the national interest to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine, but we're telling you that the left-wing of your party is really going to give you a hard time if you start selling lethal weapons and potentially get into a lethal war with Russia. Would anybody here suggest that is impeachable?"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... -the-issue


The better example would be if Obama had received a legal instruction from Congress to act and then illegally ignored that instruction because of a conspiracy theory he and/or his advisors dreamt up. That said these current hearings could be used to try and justify much iffier impeachment proceedings in future, in theory that'd be fine if people acted responsibly, but if people acted responsibly we wouldn't have Trump, and the history of Congress (both houses) wouldn't be what it is


Interestingly, I think Obama did divert funds allocated by Congress to the defense budget to support his Obamacare program if I remember well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2566
Mullet 2 wrote:
I always told you my boy Mitt was a hero.

When you think of the shit he got on here when he ran. :roll:

He's the man who put the second m in Mormon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
Saint wrote:
BillW wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
Dersh's latest legal argument is pretty damned interesting. Because re-election can be perceived to be in the public interest, anything done by a president in pursuit of re-election is unimpeachable. I wonder if the founders intended that.

Are you repeating porkies Jonesy?

Quote:
Multiple media outlets, including CNN, mischaracterized Dershowitz throughout the day as saying that presidents can do "anything" as long as they can argue it's in the "public interest." In fact, Dershowitz maintained that criminal or criminal-like conduct is impeachable, regardless of its motivation.

Instead, Dershowitz asserted the Senate should not be in the business of removing presidents based on nebulous and unconstitutional "abuse of power" charges that the framers expressly rejected. It would be a standard Democrats would not want applied to their own presidents, he argued.

To demonstrate that point, Dershowitz made thinly veiled references to President Obama's refusal to send lethal military aid to Ukraine, as well as his failed, unenforced "red line" warning for Syria not to use chemical weapons.

"Let's consider a hypothetical," Dershowitz said. "Let's assume that President Obama had been told by his advisors that it really is important to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine. But then he gets a call from his pollster and his political adviser, who says we know it's in the national interest to send lethal weapons to the Ukraine, but we're telling you that the left-wing of your party is really going to give you a hard time if you start selling lethal weapons and potentially get into a lethal war with Russia. Would anybody here suggest that is impeachable?"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... -the-issue


Or maybe you might quote something else he actually said
Quote:
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.....""


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12521
BokJock wrote:
People have assured me that you are just on the wind up, so will treat that post as such

Edit: meant for Billw

Edit edit: but of course could easily apply to Mullet


It's the old, I've had a beer with him so can't say anything bad about the guy effect. He's a reactionary old twit and given his output in the NZ politics thread I'm not the least bit surprised to see he's a Trumper.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112814 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2663, 2664, 2665, 2666, 2667, 2668, 2669 ... 2821  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alliswell, Balls Out!, dinsdale, EverReady, Gavin Duffy, jdogscoop, julian, kerrandy, Lenny, Lorthern Nights, Masterji, Mr Mike, Mullet 2, OomPB, PCPhil, penguin, Porterbelly1, Saint, shereblue, The Sun God, Winnie, Yer Man, YOYO, ZappaMan and 82 guests


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