(12-26-2019, 11:40 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 10:21 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]My theory about Pelosi holding Articles has to do with RBG. They want to keep Trump in Presidential purgatory so that if/when RBG retires or dies, the Dems can try to hold up a SCOTUS nomination by saying they aren't going to let an "impeached" President appoint a SCOTUS judge. They also get to hang that tag on him until he is acquitted. If she never sends the Articles, then every broadcaster can say "Impeached President Donald Trump" every time they reference him.
Claiming someone to be an existential threat to our democracy and a national security risk, then holding the articles of impeachment and going on vacation is not going to sit well with the American public. My understanding is he hasn't officially been impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate anyway. Nancy is in a no-win situation here and this will all die when the GOP takes back the house in 2020.
As Barry Hussein Obama once said, elections have consequences. Mitch is smarter than Nancy and isn't going to let her or Cryin' Chuck tell him what to do.
The "existential threat" and "security risk" is the possibility of foreign interference in the coming election in November 2020.
The threat is not immediate. As long as Nancy doesn't wait too much longer, she's at least not a hypocrite.
now you may think the threat that she's talking about is not real in the first place, but she's at least not contradicting herself.
(12-26-2019, 12:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 11:40 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Claiming someone to be an existential threat to our democracy and a national security risk, then holding the articles of impeachment and going on vacation is not going to sit well with the American public. My understanding is he hasn't officially been impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate anyway. Nancy is in a no-win situation here and this will all die when the GOP takes back the house in 2020.
As Barry Hussein Obama once said, elections have consequences. Mitch is smarter than Nancy and isn't going to let her or Cryin' Chuck tell him what to do.
The "existential threat" and "security risk" is the possibility of foreign interference in the coming election in November 2020.
The threat is not immediate. As long as Nancy doesn't wait too much longer, she's at least not a hypocrite.
now you may think the threat that she's talking about is not real in the first place, but she's at least not contradicting herself.
She isn't a hypocrite? She said they wouldn't impeach without bipartisan support. She is the epitome of a hypocrite.
Ironically, the MSM you quote daily is the real threat and risk.
(12-26-2019, 01:06 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 12:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The "existential threat" and "security risk" is the possibility of foreign interference in the coming election in November 2020.
The threat is not immediate. As long as Nancy doesn't wait too much longer, she's at least not a hypocrite.
now you may think the threat that she's talking about is not real in the first place, but she's at least not contradicting herself.
She isn't a hypocrite? She said they wouldn't impeach without bipartisan support. She is the epitome of a hypocrite.
Ironically, the MSM you quote daily is the real threat and risk.
She shouldn't have said that she would wait for bipartisan support. Just like when Obama wanted bipartisan support for Obamacare, it is reverse psychology. The Republican leadership says, "hey guys we can call them hypocrites if we just close ranks!" And then the conversation is about who's a hypocrite and who's partisan and it's not at all about the thing that they're actually voting on anymore... Sad!
(12-26-2019, 02:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 01:06 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]She isn't a hypocrite? She said they wouldn't impeach without bipartisan support. She is the epitome of a hypocrite.
Ironically, the MSM you quote daily is the real threat and risk.
She shouldn't have said that she would wait for bipartisan support. Just like when Obama wanted bipartisan support for Obamacare, it is reverse psychology. The Republican leadership says, "hey guys we can call them hypocrites if we just close ranks!" And then the conversation is about who's a hypocrite and who's partisan and it's not at all about the thing that they're actually voting on anymore... Sad!
So, do you retract your statement claiming Pelosi isn't a hypocrite?
(12-26-2019, 02:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 01:06 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]She isn't a hypocrite? She said they wouldn't impeach without bipartisan support. She is the epitome of a hypocrite.
Ironically, the MSM you quote daily is the real threat and risk.
She shouldn't have said that she would wait for bipartisan support. Just like when Obama wanted bipartisan support for Obamacare, it is reverse psychology. The Republican leadership says, "hey guys we can call them hypocrites if we just close ranks!" And then the conversation is about who's a hypocrite and who's partisan and it's not at all about the thing that they're actually voting on anymore... Sad!
It's quite fun to watch how you're all bunched up over this.
(12-26-2019, 12:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 11:40 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Claiming someone to be an existential threat to our democracy and a national security risk, then holding the articles of impeachment and going on vacation is not going to sit well with the American public. My understanding is he hasn't officially been impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate anyway. Nancy is in a no-win situation here and this will all die when the GOP takes back the house in 2020.
As Barry Hussein Obama once said, elections have consequences. Mitch is smarter than Nancy and isn't going to let her or Cryin' Chuck tell him what to do.
The "existential threat" and "security risk" is the possibility of foreign interference in the coming election in November 2020.
The threat is not immediate. As long as Nancy doesn't wait too much longer, she's at least not a hypocrite.
now you may think the threat that she's talking about is not real in the first place, but she's at least not contradicting herself.
Maybe you can explain how the man tasked to faithfully execute the law, asking for cooperation in a criminal matter, under the terms of an international treaty signed by the US Senate, is interfering with our election? Does running for office grant Biden some special immunity? It didn't seem to prevent the Obama administration from investigating Trump. Will the House Dems impeach Obama now?
(12-26-2019, 03:38 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 12:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The "existential threat" and "security risk" is the possibility of foreign interference in the coming election in November 2020.
The threat is not immediate. As long as Nancy doesn't wait too much longer, she's at least not a hypocrite.
now you may think the threat that she's talking about is not real in the first place, but she's at least not contradicting herself.
Maybe you can explain how the man tasked to faithfully execute the law, asking for cooperation in a criminal matter, under the terms of an international treaty signed by the US Senate, is interfering with our election? Does running for office grant Biden some special immunity? It didn't seem to prevent the Obama administration from investigating Trump. Will the House Dems impeach Obama now?
I've explained it many times in these threads. Short answer - your leading questions include false precepts.
(12-26-2019, 03:09 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 02:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]She shouldn't have said that she would wait for bipartisan support. Just like when Obama wanted bipartisan support for Obamacare, it is reverse psychology. The Republican leadership says, "hey guys we can call them hypocrites if we just close ranks!" And then the conversation is about who's a hypocrite and who's partisan and it's not at all about the thing that they're actually voting on anymore... Sad!
So, do you retract your statement claiming Pelosi isn't a hypocrite?
She's not a hypocrite for withholding the articles.
For proceeding without bipartisan support on the question of impeachment, you could call that hypocrisy, or you could call that changing her mind.
(12-26-2019, 04:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I've explained it many times in these threads. Short answer - your leading questions include false precepts.
Nobody has answered it. Not here and not at a national level. It's this giant scary accusation that cannot be questioned. Well, I'm questioning. How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates? If Biden is not a criminal, he is completely unaffected by an investigation. Does Biden's son also get a free pass? If Hunter Biden had taxpayer dollars funneled back into his personal account, who should investigate and prosecute that crime if not the people and agencies tasked with doing it?
(12-26-2019, 06:51 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 04:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I've explained it many times in these threads. Short answer - your leading questions include false precepts.
Nobody has answered it. Not here and not at a national level. It's this giant scary accusation that cannot be questioned. Well, I'm questioning. How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates? If Biden is not a criminal, he is completely unaffected by an investigation. Does Biden's son also get a free pass? If Hunter Biden had taxpayer dollars funneled back into his personal account, who should investigate and prosecute that crime if not the people and agencies tasked with doing it?
How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates?
Trump did not interfere. He asked Ukraine to interfere. but election interference can involve publishing propaganda before votes are cast.
Does Biden's son also get a free pass? If Hunter Biden had taxpayer dollars funneled back into his personal account, who should investigate and prosecute that crime if not the people and agencies tasked with doing it?
Nobody gets a free pass. Prosecutors should not be investigating people unless there is reasonable suspicion that a violation of their laws took place within their jurisdiction. Presidents should remain detached from this kind of thing. It's well below their paygrade. Politicians need to be investigated from time to time, but it needs to be handled delicately. People who work on campaigns should recuse themselves from investigating. at the end, the politician should either be indicted, or a report should be released explaining why the politician was suspected of wrongdoing, and how insufficient evidence was found. The President should not be involved in any of this, beyond making sure that the person doing it is competent and has enough help. Other than that, he should just stay out of the way. Think about how the investigation into Andrew gillum was handled. DeSantis stayed out of it. Scott stayed out of it. Obama stayed out of it. It was left to the professionals.
Notice how much I'm saying "should." Our Constitution is vague, and the office of attorney general or district attorney is not even mentioned. The president "can" be more involved, but he "should" not, because if he gets too involved, it looks like an abuse of power.
(12-26-2019, 08:46 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 07:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates?
Trump did not interfere. He asked Ukraine to interfere. but election interference can involve publishing propaganda before votes are cast.
What "propaganda" did he ask Ukraine to publish? I must have missed that part of the phone transcript.
Lol, you cant miss what never existed. Kinda like this whole sham's credibility.
(12-26-2019, 07:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 06:51 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody has answered it. Not here and not at a national level. It's this giant scary accusation that cannot be questioned. Well, I'm questioning. How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates? If Biden is not a criminal, he is completely unaffected by an investigation. Does Biden's son also get a free pass? If Hunter Biden had taxpayer dollars funneled back into his personal account, who should investigate and prosecute that crime if not the people and agencies tasked with doing it?
How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates?
Trump did not interfere. He asked Ukraine to interfere. but election interference can involve publishing propaganda before votes are cast.
Does Biden's son also get a free pass? If Hunter Biden had taxpayer dollars funneled back into his personal account, who should investigate and prosecute that crime if not the people and agencies tasked with doing it?
Nobody gets a free pass. Prosecutors should not be investigating people unless there is reasonable suspicion that a violation of their laws took place within their jurisdiction. Presidents should remain detached from this kind of thing. It's well below their paygrade. Politicians need to be investigated from time to time, but it needs to be handled delicately. People who work on campaigns should recuse themselves from investigating. at the end, the politician should either be indicted, or a report should be released explaining why the politician was suspected of wrongdoing, and how insufficient evidence was found. The President should not be involved in any of this, beyond making sure that the person doing it is competent and has enough help. Other than that, he should just stay out of the way. Think about how the investigation into Andrew gillum was handled. DeSantis stayed out of it. Scott stayed out of it. Obama stayed out of it. It was left to the professionals.
Notice how much I'm saying "should." Our Constitution is vague, and the office of attorney general or district attorney is not even mentioned. The president "can" be more involved, but he "should" not, because if he gets too involved, it looks like an abuse of power.
So he should be impeached because he didn't do what somebody thought he should do, even though he has complete and total discretion in these matters and they have none? He should handle it delicately, like Joe Biden did, right? "Yer not getting the $1 Billion in taxpayer dollars unless the investigator is fired. And guess what? The [BLEEP] got fired". Quid Pro Joe convicted himself, on camera. It's an open and shut case. Joe and his son embezzle taxpayer funds in plain sight, and when the nation's top law enforcement officer MENTIONS IT, he should be removed? It is insanity. It's almost like a test to measure what % of the country is insane.
(12-26-2019, 08:46 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 07:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates?
Trump did not interfere. He asked Ukraine to interfere. but election interference can involve publishing propaganda before votes are cast.
What "propaganda" did he ask Ukraine to publish? I must have missed that part of the phone transcript.
You must have missed the testimony during the house hearings. It was a recurring thing. Trump didn't care about any specifics of Ukraine's corruption and didn't even know what an investigation should look like. He wanted an announcement of an investigation, in the American media, nothing more. That's propaganda.
(12-26-2019, 09:50 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 07:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates?
Trump did not interfere. He asked Ukraine to interfere. but election interference can involve publishing propaganda before votes are cast.
Does Biden's son also get a free pass? If Hunter Biden had taxpayer dollars funneled back into his personal account, who should investigate and prosecute that crime if not the people and agencies tasked with doing it?
Nobody gets a free pass. Prosecutors should not be investigating people unless there is reasonable suspicion that a violation of their laws took place within their jurisdiction. Presidents should remain detached from this kind of thing. It's well below their paygrade. Politicians need to be investigated from time to time, but it needs to be handled delicately. People who work on campaigns should recuse themselves from investigating. at the end, the politician should either be indicted, or a report should be released explaining why the politician was suspected of wrongdoing, and how insufficient evidence was found. The President should not be involved in any of this, beyond making sure that the person doing it is competent and has enough help. Other than that, he should just stay out of the way. Think about how the investigation into Andrew gillum was handled. DeSantis stayed out of it. Scott stayed out of it. Obama stayed out of it. It was left to the professionals.
Notice how much I'm saying "should." Our Constitution is vague, and the office of attorney general or district attorney is not even mentioned. The president "can" be more involved, but he "should" not, because if he gets too involved, it looks like an abuse of power.
So he should be impeached because he didn't do what somebody thought he should do, even though he has complete and total discretion in these matters and they have none?
He didn't do what every other President in living memory would have done in the situation. Including Nixon. So "somebody" is an awful lot of people.
(12-26-2019, 09:50 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]He should handle it delicately, like Joe Biden did, right? "Yer not getting the $1 Billion in taxpayer dollars unless the investigator is fired. And guess what? The [BLEEP] got fired". Quid Pro Joe convicted himself, on camera.
Quid pro quo is normal in diplomacy. So long as the 'quo' is in the national interest.
(12-26-2019, 09:50 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] Joe and his son embezzle taxpayer funds in plain sight,
Assertion of facts not in evidence. I accept links from Fox News as evidence, as long as they're not op-eds.
(12-26-2019, 07:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 06:51 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody has answered it. Not here and not at a national level. It's this giant scary accusation that cannot be questioned. Well, I'm questioning. How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates? If Biden is not a criminal, he is completely unaffected by an investigation. Does Biden's son also get a free pass? If Hunter Biden had taxpayer dollars funneled back into his personal account, who should investigate and prosecute that crime if not the people and agencies tasked with doing it?
How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates?
Trump did not interfere. He asked Ukraine to interfere. but election interference can involve publishing propaganda before votes are cast.
Does Biden's son also get a free pass? If Hunter Biden had taxpayer dollars funneled back into his personal account, who should investigate and prosecute that crime if not the people and agencies tasked with doing it?
Nobody gets a free pass. Prosecutors should not be investigating people unless there is reasonable suspicion that a violation of their laws took place within their jurisdiction. Presidents should remain detached from this kind of thing. It's well below their paygrade. Politicians need to be investigated from time to time, but it needs to be handled delicately. People who work on campaigns should recuse themselves from investigating. at the end, the politician should either be indicted, or a report should be released explaining why the politician was suspected of wrongdoing, and how insufficient evidence was found. The President should not be involved in any of this, beyond making sure that the person doing it is competent and has enough help. Other than that, he should just stay out of the way. Think about how the investigation into Andrew gillum was handled. DeSantis stayed out of it. Scott stayed out of it. Obama stayed out of it. It was left to the professionals.
Ur just winding us up right?
Notice how much I'm saying "should." Our Constitution is vague, and the office of attorney general or district attorney is not even mentioned. The president "can" be more involved, but he "should" not, because if he gets too involved, it looks like an abuse of power.
So were impeaching a president because of a non existent doctrine that he has to yield his oath to execute the laws of the united states to a subordinate executive official? Got it
(12-26-2019, 12:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 11:40 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Claiming someone to be an existential threat to our democracy and a national security risk, then holding the articles of impeachment and going on vacation is not going to sit well with the American public. My understanding is he hasn't officially been impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate anyway. Nancy is in a no-win situation here and this will all die when the GOP takes back the house in 2020.
As Barry Hussein Obama once said, elections have consequences. Mitch is smarter than Nancy and isn't going to let her or Cryin' Chuck tell him what to do.
The "existential threat" and "security risk" is the possibility of foreign interference in the coming election in November 2020.
The threat is not immediate. As long as Nancy doesn't wait too much longer, she's at least not a hypocrite.
now you may think the threat that she's talking about is not real in the first place, but she's at least not contradicting herself.
U believe this? They wrote an entire article of impeachment based on the idea that the threat was so imminent that due process to adjudicate the limits of executive power was too slow. So now she's saying she won't move to the next phase unless, wait for it, the senate that she has no power over goes through the courts to adjudicate the limits of judicial power mand compel the testimony of witnesses sought by the senate majority after keeping the house minority on a leash. This is beyond hypocrisy this is depravity.
(12-26-2019, 11:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 08:46 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
What "propaganda" did he ask Ukraine to publish? I must have missed that part of the phone transcript.
You must have missed the testimony during the house hearings. It was a recurring thing. Trump didn't care about any specifics of Ukraine's corruption and didn't even know what an investigation should look like. He wanted an announcement of an investigation, in the American media, nothing more. That's propaganda.
(12-26-2019, 09:50 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]So he should be impeached because he didn't do what somebody thought he should do, even though he has complete and total discretion in these matters and they have none?
He didn't do what every other President in living memory would have done in the situation. Including Nixon. So "somebody" is an awful lot of people.
Notice how the left is pontificating about "caring" "feeling" etc.
Rational people focus on standards of suspicion & probable cause.
The man lost 7 billion dollars in aid money and enriched his family. Did any of the opinion witnesses locate our 7 billion dollars? Did they explain the path of the money from burisma through 4 countries to hunter biden? Did they explain why joe biden lied about the status of the investigation for the last half decade? Did they call John Kerry's son to have him recount that he cut his business ties with biden because Burisma smelled so bad?
The idea that the chief executive wouldn't be concerned about corruption that specifically targeted HIS campaign with propaganda and got his campaign manager thrown in jail is asinine.
U dont care about an ambassador admitting in open court that she allowed Ukrainian election interference. U dont care that fiona hill worked with Christopher steel. U dont care that bill Taylor did work for NGO's funded by burisma. You dont care that George Kent testified that he himself had to cancel planned projects with Burisma because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. U dont care that it's part of the open record that ukrainian sources contributed to the propaganda used to spy on the trump campaign. U dont care that the head of the nbu in ukrain was convicted of election interference (let off because of the statute of limitations) . U dont care that the chief executive has a DUTY under a treaty with ukrain to report corruption.
The only thing you care about is #orangemanbad
(12-26-2019, 11:40 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 09:50 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]He should handle it delicately, like Joe Biden did, right? "Yer not getting the $1 Billion in taxpayer dollars unless the investigator is fired. And guess what? The [BLEEP] got fired". Quid Pro Joe convicted himself, on camera.
Quid pro quo is normal in diplomacy. So long as the 'quo' is in the national interest.
(12-26-2019, 09:50 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] Joe and his son embezzle taxpayer funds in plain sight,
Assertion of facts not in evidence. I accept links from Fox News as evidence, as long as they're not op-eds.
Accepting media as evidence makes you a fool.
(12-27-2019, 02:08 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 11:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You must have missed the testimony during the house hearings. It was a recurring thing. Trump didn't care about any specifics of Ukraine's corruption and didn't even know what an investigation should look like. He wanted an announcement of an investigation, in the American media, nothing more. That's propaganda.
He didn't do what every other President in living memory would have done in the situation. Including Nixon. So "somebody" is an awful lot of people.
Notice how the left is pontificating about "caring" "feeling" etc.
Rational people focus on standards of suspicion & probable cause.
The man lost 7 billion dollars in aid money and enriched his family. Did any of the opinion witnesses locate our 7 billion dollars? Did the explain the path of the money from burisma through 4 countries to hunter biden? Dud they explain why joe biden lied about the status of the investigation for the last half decade? Did they call John Kerry's son to have him recount that he cut his business ties with biden because Burisma smelled so bad?
The idea that the chief executive wouldn't be concerned about corruption that specifically targeted HIS campaign with propaganda and got his campaign manager thrown in jail is asinine.
U dont care about an ambassador admitting in open court that she allowed Ukrainian election interference. U dont care that fiona hill worked with Christopher steel. U dont care that bill Taylor did work for NGO's funded by burisma. You dont care that George Kent testified that he himself had to cancel planned projects with Burisma because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. U dont care that it's part of the open record that ukrainian sources contributed to the propaganda used to spy on the trump campaign. U dont care that the head of the nbu in ukrain was convicted of election interference (let off because of the statute of limitations) . U dont care that the chief executive has a DUTY under a treaty with ukrain to report corruption.
The only thing you care about is #orangemanbad
He doesnt really care about any of it, he's been trolling to argue since Day1 in this forum.
(12-27-2019, 10:11 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (12-26-2019, 11:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You must have missed the testimony during the house hearings. It was a recurring thing. Trump didn't care about any specifics of Ukraine's corruption and didn't even know what an investigation should look like. He wanted an announcement of an investigation, in the American media, nothing more. That's propaganda.
I wasn't allowed into the closed hearings in the capitol basement. You were?
No, but after the closed door hearings they had hearings that were open to the public. You know that, right?