(01-26-2020, 08:20 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 07:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The GAO report's author is not sure of if the hold should be considered a "rescission" or a "deferral". When somebody from the White House sends the proper memo to Congress, it says which part of the law they are using. Both parts require a memo, however.
More likely than not, Nancy knew that the GAO report was coming, which is why she delayed handing the articles over. That may seem unfair. But so is using the power of the White House to get foreign governments to investigate your political opponents without probable cause.
Three lies in one single sentence. You've reached a whole new level of trolling.
So you think it's fair to use the power of the White House to get foreign governments to investigate your political opponents without probable cause?
(01-26-2020, 08:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 08:20 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
Three lies in one single sentence. You've reached a whole new level of trolling.
So you think it's fair to use the power of the White House to get foreign governments to investigate your political opponents without probable cause?
You don’t need probable cause to open an investigation. I’d suspect that most investigations don’t have it in the beginning anyway.
(01-26-2020, 08:39 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 08:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]So you think it's fair to use the power of the White House to get foreign governments to investigate your political opponents without probable cause?
You don’t need probable cause to open an investigation. I’d suspect that most investigations don’t have it in the beginning anyway.
You don't need probable anything to hire a private investigator. You and I could put our money together right now and hire one. Everything would be on the up and up. But we would not be allowed to go around and tell people, "hey if you don't talk to this guy, we're going to take your welfare check away!"
(01-26-2020, 09:17 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 09:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You don't need anything to send over a private investigator. You and I could put our money together right now and hire one. Everything would be on the up and up. But we would not be allowed to go around and tell people, "hey if you don't talk to this guy, we're going to take your welfare check away!"
I'm pretty sure that government investigators lie to people all the time with threats that can't be completed in order to get them to talk.
And nowhere in either conversation between Trump and Zelensky did Trump ever threaten to take Ukraine's welfare check away, so lie #5.
Government investigators can threaten people with prosecution, while private investigators obviously can not. Both can and will lie if they think it will help them, but obviously public prosecutors have more power. And more responsibility. (Spiderman rule) They are only supposed to be investigating crimes that are reasonably suspected to have occured. Not personal vendettas.
(01-26-2020, 10:41 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 09:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Government investigators can threaten people with prosecution, while private investigators obviously can not. Both can and will lie if they think it will help them, but obviously public prosecutors have more power. And more responsibility. (Spiderman rule) They are only supposed to be investigating crimes that are reasonably suspected to have occured. Not personal vendettas.
What personal vendetta? I must have missed the news that Hunter Biden did something to Trump or his family.
Or is that lie #6?
No, the crowd strike server conspiracy theory is the personal vendetta.
(01-26-2020, 09:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 08:39 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]You don’t need probable cause to open an investigation. I’d suspect that most investigations don’t have it in the beginning anyway.
You don't need probable anything to hire a private investigator. You and I could put our money together right now and hire one. Everything would be on the up and up. But we would not be allowed to go around and tell people, "hey if you don't talk to this guy, we're going to take your welfare check away!"
You’re moving the goal posts. I addressed your comment to show you that your understanding of probable cause in relation to investigations is incorrect. You set a standard of probable cause to help justify saying Trump shouldn’t have started an investigation when probable cause isn’t necessary to start one.
As for this post, that isn’t even close to what he said anyway so I’m not sure why your representing it that way.
(01-26-2020, 08:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 08:20 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
Three lies in one single sentence. You've reached a whole new level of trolling.
So you think it's fair to use the power of the White House to get foreign governments to investigate your political opponents without probable cause?
Your a #$%_<king liar bruh. I can't help u anymore.
(01-26-2020, 08:46 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 08:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]So you think it's fair to use the power of the White House to get foreign governments to investigate your political opponents without probable cause?
Well, son of a [BLEEP]!
Insta-probable cause!
+1
(01-26-2020, 09:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 08:39 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]You don’t need probable cause to open an investigation. I’d suspect that most investigations don’t have it in the beginning anyway.
You don't need probable anything to hire a private investigator. You and I could put our money together right now and hire one. Everything would be on the up and up. But we would not be allowed to go around and tell people, "hey if you don't talk to this guy, we're going to take your welfare check away!"
A $%/_@ING LIAR!!!
I didnt know Adam was a jag fan.
(01-26-2020, 09:17 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 09:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You don't need anything to send over a private investigator. You and I could put our money together right now and hire one. Everything would be on the up and up. But we would not be allowed to go around and tell people, "hey if you don't talk to this guy, we're going to take your welfare check away!"
I'm pretty sure that government investigators lie to people all the time with threats that can't be completed in order to get them to talk.
And nowhere in either conversation between Trump and Zelensky did Trump ever threaten to take Ukraine's welfare check away, so lie #5.
+1
(01-26-2020, 10:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 10:41 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]What personal vendetta? I must have missed the news that Hunter Biden did something to Trump or his family.
Or is that lie #6?
No, the crowd strike server conspiracy theory is the personal vendetta.
Crowd strike isn't a domestic political opponent. It's a foreign entity devoid of constitutional protections. Try harder bruh.
#getonmylevel
(01-26-2020, 11:09 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-26-2020, 09:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You don't need probable anything to hire a private investigator. You and I could put our money together right now and hire one. Everything would be on the up and up. But we would not be allowed to go around and tell people, "hey if you don't talk to this guy, we're going to take your welfare check away!"
You’re moving the goal posts. I addressed your comment to show you that your understanding of probable cause in relation to investigations is incorrect. You set a standard of probable cause to help justify saying Trump shouldn’t have started an investigation when probable cause isn’t necessary to start one.
As for this post, that isn’t even close to what he said anyway so I’m not sure why your representing it that way.
They do have probable cause.
On 1 19 2016 their beloved whistleblower had to bring in the ukranian prosecutorial team for damage control over hunters conflict of interest. Mike's lying.
#TDSTROLL
I'm not sure what you guys are trying to say.
Do you think Trump's DoJ had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to investigate the Bidens?
Or do you think probable cause or reasonable suspicion is not required to start an investigation?
(01-27-2020, 07:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure what you guys are trying to say.
Do you think Trump's DoJ had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to investigate the Bidens?
Or do you think probable cause or reasonable suspicion is not required to start an investigation?
U could try responding to individual posters.
Or y could just ignore them and keep spouting maddow. Ur choice bruh.
(01-27-2020, 08:36 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 07:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure what you guys are trying to say.
Do you think Trump's DoJ had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to investigate the Bidens?
Or do you think probable cause or reasonable suspicion is not required to start an investigation?
U could try responding to individual posters.
Or y could just ignore them and keep spouting maddow. Ur choice bruh.
Any of you could answer my two questions. Even if only one person answered, that would clarify things for me.
And I have never once watched Rachel maddow's show.
Another perfectly-timed smear!!!
"Some anonymous person" has leaked information allegedly contained in an unpublished John Bolton book manuscript.
Guess what? This anonymous leaker says Bolton wrote that Trump was tying Ukranian aid to the Biden investigation!
Now the Senate MUST vote for witnesses or they are AGENTS OF PUTIN!
(01-27-2020, 09:06 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Another perfectly-timed smear!!!
"Some anonymous person" has leaked information allegedly contained in an unpublished John Bolton book manuscript.
Guess what? This anonymous leaker says Bolton wrote that Trump was tying Ukranian aid to the Biden investigation!
Now the Senate MUST vote for witnesses or they are AGENTS OF PUTIN!
Take it back to the house and interview him there.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media3.giphy.com/media/11a8FLrVeoLnna/giphy.gif)