Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 8 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Why won't Pelosi open an inquiry?
1 year ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 3:01PM #71
NW
Posts: 2,407

Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:59PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:55PM, NW wrote:


I don't consider using a source to obtain factual information as "collusion".  




Trump: Shoot's somebody on 5th avenue
Dan: I don't consider that to have been "shooting somebody"


It doesn't matter what you consider it to be lol. It's collusion. You even admitted earlier that it still violated FEC rules. Heck, you also said Hillary violated it by obtaining the steele dossier. 





Yes, and the Obama and Sanders campaign also paid fines for campaign finance violations.  Whoop dee doo.

1 year ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 3:54PM #72
felipe27point5
Posts: 2,645

Oct 17, 2019 -- 3:00PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:56PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:39PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:38PM, bertram wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:34PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:32PM, bertram wrote:


So, when Trump publicly invited the Russians to hack the Dems in his speech, he should have been prosecuted because he broke the law whether he knew what he was doing or not.




We've been over this again and again.  There is nothing illegal in that statement.




Inviting an adversarial foreign power to mess with our elections is against the law...not to mention flying in the face of common sense, patriotism, and American values.  Had Obama done that in the 2012 campaign, you hypocrites would have been screaming bloody murder.




Hacking the DNC and "messing with our elections" are two totally different things.  If the DNC has something to hide, I want to hear about it.




Weren't you the one who said you would file an injunction against a search warrant and this whole "well if you don't have anything to hide..." argument is a load of garbaeg? 


Now you're advocating for foreign hacking to see what they can find.


Why isn't it your position that this should be handled legally, and if there is probable cause for an investigation into Biden, or the DNC, there are legal measures the American DOJ can use to trigger an investigation. 


Those are two hypocritical positions. I could just as accurately say "I don't care if the Judge and you had a bad breakup, if you've got something to hide in your house, I want to hear about it"


At what point - in your opinion - does the law no longer apply?




If the President believes there is probable cause for an investigation, he has EVERY right to ask a foreign country to assist the DOJ in an investigation.




Actually, i was talking about when Trump asked the russians to hack the DNC. Does a presidential candidate have every right to ask a foreign country to hack into a party server?


The trouble is, Trump has asked for foreign help in his political rivalries so often you're having a hard time remembering which instance we're talking about

You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
1 year ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 4:00PM #73
bertram
Posts: 13,941

Mulvaney admits to Ukraine quid pro quo...


"We do that all the time..."


So much for that defense, which was not gonna hold water anyway given all the people being called to testify.

1 year ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 4:02PM #74
NW
Posts: 2,407

Oct 17, 2019 -- 3:54PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 3:00PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:56PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:39PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:38PM, bertram wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:34PM, NW wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 2:32PM, bertram wrote:


So, when Trump publicly invited the Russians to hack the Dems in his speech, he should have been prosecuted because he broke the law whether he knew what he was doing or not.




We've been over this again and again.  There is nothing illegal in that statement.




Inviting an adversarial foreign power to mess with our elections is against the law...not to mention flying in the face of common sense, patriotism, and American values.  Had Obama done that in the 2012 campaign, you hypocrites would have been screaming bloody murder.




Hacking the DNC and "messing with our elections" are two totally different things.  If the DNC has something to hide, I want to hear about it.




Weren't you the one who said you would file an injunction against a search warrant and this whole "well if you don't have anything to hide..." argument is a load of garbaeg? 


Now you're advocating for foreign hacking to see what they can find.


Why isn't it your position that this should be handled legally, and if there is probable cause for an investigation into Biden, or the DNC, there are legal measures the American DOJ can use to trigger an investigation


Those are two hypocritical positions. I could just as accurately say "I don't care if the Judge and you had a bad breakup, if you've got something to hide in your house, I want to hear about it"


At what point - in your opinion - does the law no longer apply?




If the President believes there is probable cause for an investigation, he has EVERY right to ask a foreign country to assist the DOJ in an investigation.




Actually, i was talking about when Trump asked the russians to hack the DNC. Does a presidential candidate have every right to ask a foreign country to hack into a party server?


The trouble is, Trump has asked for foreign help in his political rivalries so often you're having a hard time remembering which instance we're talking about




If you were talking about Trump's actions as a candidate, why are you talking about Trump's resources as president.  It seems you are the one who is confused.  As a candidate, I would use every bit of factual information I could find when running for an office.  So long as I can find that it was factual, I wouldn't care if Osama Bin Laden provided it.


As far as Trump as President, he has EVERY right to ask a foreign country to assist the DOJ in an investigation.  The investigation had been opened by the DOJ and they needed Ukranian help (which by law he could ask for) to go further with the investigation.

1 year ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 4:30PM #75
felipe27point5
Posts: 2,645

Oct 17, 2019 -- 4:02PM, NW wrote:


If you were talking about Trump's actions as a candidate, why are you talking about Trump's resources as president.  It seems you are the one who is confused.  As a candidate, I would use every bit of factual information I could find when running for an office.  So long as I can find that it was factual, I wouldn't care if Osama Bin Laden provided it.


As far as Trump as President, he has EVERY right to ask a foreign country to assist the DOJ in an investigation.  The investigation had been opened by the DOJ and they needed Ukranian help (which by law he could ask for) to go further with the investigation.




I'm not confused, i was doing it to emphasize how you're confused and what you were saying doesn't make sense. But i digress


Let me rephrase this. When it comes to an individual, you think "right to due process" and therefor if a police officer shows up with a warrant you think it's their right to file an injunction and not have to adhere to "well if you don't have anything to hide, why are you worried?"


But when it comes to an individual running for president, you think it's okay for a foreign country to hack a DNC server because "if they're up to something, i want to find out"


My question is at which point does one cross from "if you aren't hiding anything why are you worried" to "open up, if you're up to something we want to know"? Legally speaking of course

You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
1 year ago  ::  Oct 17, 2019 - 10:26PM #76
NW
Posts: 2,407

Oct 17, 2019 -- 5:45PM, Patricia wrote:


Oct 12, 2019 -- 1:27PM, NW wrote:

Because opening an official inquiry with a vote gives Republicans subpoena authority. Right now, the Democrats are performing their investigation behind closed doors and the Republicans can do nothing but watch. Do you think there's skeletons in hiding?



She said months  that would rather see in him in an orange jumpsuit  and behind bars.


She said she would ONLY go down that path , if the evidence gave her choice . He gave her NO CHOICE. The Dems are just doing what they are legally bound to do ,uphold and protect the Constitution.


Calling the Ukraine President and withholfing aid already approved by Congress is in one word - illegal


He was blackmailing the President of the Ukraine , and trying to enforce to get dirt on Biden and his son Hunter , even if he had to make it up . That is also known as extortion


 extortion -Exaction refers not only to extortion or the demanding and obtaining of something through force,but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant





1-


Illegal Law and Legal Definition. Illegal is a description for something that is in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance. ... Something may be illegal under a statute that doesn't require criminal intent, and is therefore a civil vilation subject to civil penalites such as a fine.


2-


Illegal" means "against the law" and could get a person into serious trouble with the police and/or court system. It is not related to personal interest because law is supposed to be the same for everyone regardless of interest, wealth, class, sex, race, etc.


3-


Legal: laws passed through the judicial system. Each State will have it's respective laws. Then there are Federal laws.


Illegal: any conduct or activity that breaks the above is considered illegal.




He admitted it several times on TV.


You can ask another country to get dirt on your oppenent. That is a felony .


Again, he can not win fairly nor honestly, this why he cheats.


He also asked for Russia in 2016 for help.


How can you forget the video , where at one of his rallies , he said "Russia  , if you  are listening , I hope you find the missing 30,000 wmails .  That is Collusion.


Mueller never fully exonerated him , he said so in his report .






You can't say the same things over and over again and make them true all of a sudden.  Keep spouting your **** with no evidence.

1 year ago  ::  Oct 18, 2019 - 11:00AM #77
felipe27point5
Posts: 2,645

Oct 17, 2019 -- 4:30PM, felipe27point5 wrote:


Oct 17, 2019 -- 4:02PM, NW wrote:


If you were talking about Trump's actions as a candidate, why are you talking about Trump's resources as president.  It seems you are the one who is confused.  As a candidate, I would use every bit of factual information I could find when running for an office.  So long as I can find that it was factual, I wouldn't care if Osama Bin Laden provided it.


As far as Trump as President, he has EVERY right to ask a foreign country to assist the DOJ in an investigation.  The investigation had been opened by the DOJ and they needed Ukranian help (which by law he could ask for) to go further with the investigation.




I'm not confused, i was doing it to emphasize how you're confused and what you were saying doesn't make sense. But i digress


Let me rephrase this. When it comes to an individual, you think "right to due process" and therefor if a police officer shows up with a warrant you think it's their right to file an injunction and not have to adhere to "well if you don't have anything to hide, why are you worried?"


But when it comes to an individual running for president, you think it's okay for a foreign country to hack a DNC server because "if they're up to something, i want to find out"


My question is at which point does one cross from "if you aren't hiding anything why are you worried" to "open up, if you're up to something we want to know"? Legally speaking of course




Lt. Dan, you missed responding to mine.



Why the hypocrisy on "if you don't have anything to hide..." when it comes to political rivals vs regular people.


Followup question, do you feel "if ____ did something wrong, i wanna know" applies to Trump and his tax returns?


Followup question to the followup, do you only advocate for foreign interference and hacking that skirts american laws, or do you think this should be a legal part of the DOJ to do a deep dive on presidential candidates? For example, should a president be required to release their tax returns and show there's no fraud or money laundering or anything like that?

You are welcome to recall my posts when it becomes that i'm proven wrong as long as we judge it on the merits of what we knew to be true at the time it was posted.
1 year ago  ::  Oct 18, 2019 - 11:21AM #78
Max
Posts: 5,964

Oct 17, 2019 -- 4:00PM, bertram wrote:


Mulvaney admits to Ukraine quid pro quo...


"We do that all the time..."


So much for that defense, which was not gonna hold water anyway given all the people being called to testify.




That Press Conference sounded like a confession. He didn't do Trump any favors.

1 year ago  ::  Oct 18, 2019 - 11:21AM #79
Max
Posts: 5,964

Oct 17, 2019 -- 5:45PM, Patricia wrote:


Oct 12, 2019 -- 1:27PM, NW wrote:

Because opening an official inquiry with a vote gives Republicans subpoena authority. Right now, the Democrats are performing their investigation behind closed doors and the Republicans can do nothing but watch. Do you think there's skeletons in hiding?



She said months  that would rather see in him in an orange jumpsuit  and behind bars.


She said she would ONLY go down that path , if the evidence gave her choice . He gave her NO CHOICE. The Dems are just doing what they are legally bound to do ,uphold and protect the Constitution.


Calling the Ukraine President and withholfing aid already approved by Congress is in one word - illegal


He was blackmailing the President of the Ukraine , and trying to enforce to get dirt on Biden and his son Hunter , even if he had to make it up . That is also known as extortion


 extortion -Exaction refers not only to extortion or the demanding and obtaining of something through force,but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant





1-


Illegal Law and Legal Definition. Illegal is a description for something that is in violation of statute, regulation or ordinance. ... Something may be illegal under a statute that doesn't require criminal intent, and is therefore a civil vilation subject to civil penalites such as a fine.


2-


Illegal" means "against the law" and could get a person into serious trouble with the police and/or court system. It is not related to personal interest because law is supposed to be the same for everyone regardless of interest, wealth, class, sex, race, etc.


3-


Legal: laws passed through the judicial system. Each State will have it's respective laws. Then there are Federal laws.


Illegal: any conduct or activity that breaks the above is considered illegal.




He admitted it several times on TV.


You can ask another country to get dirt on your oppenent. That is a felony .


Again, he can not win fairly nor honestly, this why he cheats.


He also asked for Russia in 2016 for help.


How can you forget the video , where at one of his rallies , he said "Russia  , if you  are listening , I hope you find the missing 30,000 wmails .  That is Collusion.


Mueller never fully exonerated him , he said so in his report .






Great post!

1 year ago  ::  Oct 18, 2019 - 11:21AM #80
Max
Posts: 5,964

Anyone here notice that the witnesses that are testifying are corroborating what the whistleblower said?

Page 8 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

Yankees Forum