Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Jun 02, 2020 4:43 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113061 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2413, 2414, 2415, 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419 ... 2827  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6703
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 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40519
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: 21779
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: 21779
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: 17070
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 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4824
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: 6562
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 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15430
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: 17070
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: 21779
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: 6562
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: 6562
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: 21779
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 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15430
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: 5576
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: 20446
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: 25704
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: 20446
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: 8539
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: 16868
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: 16868
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: 17436
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: 16868
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 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40519
_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 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40519
_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 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40519
_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 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40519
_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  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 3:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
Americans died @ Benghazi, it provides motivation for retribution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40519
_fatprop wrote:
Americans died @ Benghazi, it provides motivation for retribution


That would explain the multiple enquiries into the American deaths at embassies in Beirut in 1984 and Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10213
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
So the head of HUD doest know what a REO is ? kakistocracy for real


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40519
_fatprop wrote:
Americans died @ Benghazi, it provides motivation for retribution


That does not even start to explain the famous Ken Starr fishing expedition on Bill Clinton.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 4:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6703
Very interesting interview between Mark Steyn and George Papadopoulos.

Its in two parts but runs through how he was set up and the depth and breadth of this is quite astounding. Involves at the minimum UK, Australian and Italian governments and their agencies. As for Russian collusion its an absolute joke - Josef Mifsud was not a Russian anything but a CIA connection. Hence why Boris Johnson is not being charged with collusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 5:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10213
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
_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


Read up on Watergate for christ sakes!! The committee hears were held to build a case for impeachment

And as has been pointed out after Benghazi, it is ridiculous to even make such a statement especially as statements like this from you were missing during the 8 hearings on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 5:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10213
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
kiwinoz wrote:
Very interesting interview between Mark Steyn and George Papadopoulos.

Its in two parts but runs through how he was set up and the depth and breadth of this is quite astounding. Involves at the minimum UK, Australian and Italian governments and their agencies. As for Russian collusion its an absolute joke - Josef Mifsud was not a Russian anything but a CIA connection. Hence why Boris Johnson is not being charged with collusion.


So you believe him but not the intelligence agencies. Again I ask what has he done or shown for you to even believe that he is not a raging idiot like the whole administration. Clear everything else away and the constant stupidity of this administration is why they have no credibility with those of us on Earth 1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 5:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10213
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Kiwias wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Americans died @ Benghazi, it provides motivation for retribution


That would explain the multiple enquiries into the American deaths at embassies in Beirut in 1984 and Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.


It was investigated more than 9/11. I mean really!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 6:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
_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?


We can always start with what the Judge in question said, because, y'know, he's kind of an authority on this, but if you think you can see better than he can... maybe it's just best if all Presidential candidates release their tax returns as part of the process, as has been the custom now for a while? I honestly can't see any future candidate getting away with this rope-a-dope evasion ever again.

Then we just have to look at the amount of lies on record about income/tax/money in general from Trump&Co.
The testimony and evidence of people like Cohen, his personal lawyer-thug.
And the times he's been bailed out by foreign interests.
And the mystifying disappearance of all the money from the inauguration committee.
And the use of funds to pay off pornstars to buy their silence.
DeutscheBank suspicious activity reports getting shoved under the mattress.
etc...
etc...

If it's a fishing expedition, those fish are in a barrel right now.


Last edited by Turbogoat on Wed May 22, 2019 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113061 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2413, 2414, 2415, 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419 ... 2827  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alliswell, bimboman, BokJock, Boxcar Ira, danny_fitz, dargotronV.1, Gavin Duffy, happyhooker, La soule, Leinsterman, Mick Mannock, MrBunhead, Mullet 2, Nolanator, ovalball, Oxbow, penguin, piquant, Red Revolution, Risteard, Saint, Short Man Syndrome, Snooze, sturginho, The Man Without Fear, toweliechaos and 81 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