Ukrainegate - Page 50 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15047843
Finfinder wrote:
I'd like to see you offer some facts



Wake me up when you stop avoiding them.

The tables have turned, and you haven't caught up with the fact that you've lost control of the narrative.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15047845
late wrote:Wake me up when you stop avoiding them.

The tables have turned, and you haven't caught up with the fact that you've lost control of the narrative.


So I'll take that as you refuse to answer my question because you are projecting .
This is a debate forum btw you are not doing so well.
By late
#15047847
Finfinder wrote:
So I'll take that as you refuse to answer my question because you are projecting .

This is a debate forum btw you are not doing so well.



One of your tactics is doing the same thing over and over. Why should I tell you something I've told you several times already?

There is a larger, political, dimension. Back in the real world you have lost. The barbarians are at your gates this time.

Disgrace awaits.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15047848
late wrote:One of your tactics is doing the same thing over and over. Why should I tell you something I've told you several times already?

There is a larger, political, dimension. Back in the real world you have lost. The barbarians are at your gates this time.

Disgrace awaits.



It is not a tactic its simple you made a statement and I just asked for some facts to back it up. Why won't you answer a simple question. You said Trump resides over the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States and I'm asking for some back up some details some facts as you demand here on POFO. It's very simple. How is this a tactic?
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15047876
Rugoz wrote:Prosecutorial Immunity applies to prosecutors, not to politicians. Provide evidence that Prosecutorial Immunity applies to the POTUS.

Article 2, Section 1, Sentence 1 wrote:The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

All executive authority in the United States Federal Government is vested in the president. He delegates those powers. There is no power, privilege or immunity held by a subordinate of the president that the president does not also have.
Article 2, Section 3 wrote:he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed

He is the commander in chief, he is the chief law enforcement officer, he is the chief foreign diplomat, etc. The United States has a unitary executive. It is different from the system in Canada, Britain, etc. We are not a parliamentary democracy. We are a federated republic with three distinct branches of government as defined by a written constitution. The lowliest second lieutenant in the US Army is a representative of the President of the United States. Generally, presidents do not meet with second lieutenants or even directly commission them, but by the time they are colonels, they may actually have the president pin them with their new rank. That sometimes happens with lower ranking officers who have distinguished themselves. The same thing is true of prosecutors. The attorney general is a military officer. Whereas, the president has all that power, he cannot do all things at once. Hence, he has attorneys to do that for him. Federal prosecutors are known as United States District Attorneys; that is, they represent the president of the United States for a particular district in matters before a federal court. When acting in an advocative manner, they have the same privileges and immunities as the president with respect to taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. There are 93 such US attorneys in the US, and their subordinates are referred to as Assistant US attorneys subordinate to the US attorney for a particular district. All of that power is vested in the president. US attorneys are merely delegates. They are not superior to or separate from the president.

Again, Trump's motivation may be malicious. It is not impeachable if he has reasonable cause to believe criminal activity may have transpired. Biden bragging to the Council on Foreign Relations that he had a prosecutor fired, and Hunter Biden and Devin Archer given high paid board seats in a foreign country where they didn't speak the language and didn't have any subject matter expertise to offer, and Hunter Biden and Devin Archer lobbying the State Department along with Hunter Biden's law firm and Burisma's law firm doing the same, and attempting to get USAID moneys that required a resolution of the corruption allegations against Burisma is more than enough evidence to suggest that Trump had reasonable cause, so his motivation is not ripe for consideration.

late wrote:The tables have turned, and you haven't caught up with the fact that you've lost control of the narrative.

Trying to offer a political argument, because you've lost the legal argument? You guys have been reduced well past hearsay to the point of offering office gossip as testimony.

late wrote:There is a larger, political, dimension. Back in the real world you have lost. The barbarians are at your gates this time.

Disgrace awaits.

The Senate has already said that impeachment using the current approach is DOA at the door mat of the Senate. "The walls are closing in..." didn't work the first time, and basically people are just annoyed with this shtick now. I do agree, however, that the Democrats are definitely the Barbarians.
By late
#15047898
blackjack21 wrote:
1) All executive authority in the United States Federal Government is vested in the president. He delegates those powers. There is no power, privilege or immunity held by a subordinate of the president that the president does not also have.


2) It is not impeachable if he has reasonable cause to believe criminal activity may have transpired.

3) I do agree, however, that the Democrats are definitely the Barbarians.



1) That's the so called Unitary Executive. But there is an older, less absurd way of saying that.

King, or the newer words to describe that state of affairs, like tyrant or dictator.

2) "The intent makes the crime." Trump's intent was to extort. Your little lies don't change that.

3) I do love irony.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15047908
late wrote:1) That's the so called Unitary Executive. But there is an older, less absurd way of saying that.

King, or the newer words to describe that state of affairs, like tyrant or dictator.

The president of the US is more or less like an elected King of England in a constitutional monarchy circa the late 18th Century--e.g., he has to power to pardon, the power to veto, etc. Eleanor Roosevelt described the need for dictatorial power before the term became used to refer to Hitler's government. You may not like the US constitution or the office of the presidency, but that is the nature of the system.

late wrote:2) "The intent makes the crime." Trump's intent was to extort. Your little lies don't change that.

In US federal law, extortion involves a threat of injury to a person. There is no such threat made anywhere. In fact, nobody is even alleging as much. Again, a crime is union of act and intent. If there is no act, intent is immaterial. You need a criminal act, and you don't have one.

late wrote:3) I do love irony.

What can I say? You left yourself wide open to that one. :lol:

Anyway, I doubt impeachment predicated on hearsay and gossip is going to go anywhere.
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15047911
It is very telling that only a few liberal POFOers even bother with this stuff anymore. It might be things like the whistle blower is not even testifying, a fact that is impossible to defend.
By late
#15047929
blackjack21 wrote:
1) The president of the US is more or less like an elected King of England in a constitutional monarchy circa the late 18th Century--e.g., he has to power to pardon, the power to veto, etc. Eleanor Roosevelt described the need for dictatorial power before the term became used to refer to Hitler's government. You may not like the US constitution or the office of the presidency, but that is the nature of the system.


2) In US federal law, extortion involves a threat of injury to a person. There is no such threat made anywhere. In fact, nobody is even alleging as much. Again, a crime is union of act and intent. If there is no act, intent is immaterial. You need a criminal act, and you don't have one.


3) What can I say? You left yourself wide open to that one.

4) Anyway, I doubt impeachment predicated on hearsay and gossip is going to go anywhere.



1) Tell the Supreme Court they made a terrible mistake during Watergate.

2) Because the Russian army is 100% pacifists. They throw flowers.

3) Whoosh.

4) It's already going, back in the real, where you don't go.

Unbelievable. Literally.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15047942
late wrote:1) Tell the Supreme Court they made a terrible mistake during Watergate.

Releasing tapes has nothing to do with immunity for official prosecutorial acts. As I pointed out already, prosecutors are not immune from things like lying under oath.

late wrote:2) Because the Russian army is 100% pacifists. They throw flowers.

The threat has to be made by the person seeking personal gain. :roll: Trump never threatened to physically injure anyone.

late wrote:4) It's already going, back in the real, where you don't go.

Hearsay, rumor, gossip and innuendo are not probative in legal proceedings. This whole process is akin to the old saying, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit." At least with Russiagate, there was an allegation with an investigation to find something. Here, we already have the transcript, and now they are trying to use hearsay to somehow augment what's in the transcript such that people should somehow believe it says something other than it says. It's not flying.

late wrote:Unbelievable. Literally.

Yes. Nobody believes it. That's why it's going nowhere.
By Rugoz
#15047972
blackjack21 wrote:All executive authority in the United States Federal Government is vested in the president. He delegates those powers. There is no power, privilege or immunity held by a subordinate of the president that the president does not also have.


I wasn't asking for your personal opinion, but for a source from a legal expert. The best I could find was this (note prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for their prosectuorial acts, but governors for example only enjoy qualified immunity):

Nixon vs. Fitzgerald
...
In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Burger emphasized that absolute immunity for the President "derives from and is mandated by
the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers." Justice White, joined by Justices Brennen, Marshall, and Blackmun dissented, arguing that there is no constitutional or policy basis for absolute immunity for the President, that the majority had improperly refused to apply the functional approach to the scope of presidential immunity, and that qualified immunity protection is adequate for the President just as it is for most federal executives. The majority did its best to avoid resting its decision solely on the Constitution. In a footnote, Justice Powell, writing for the Court, stated:

[W]e need not address directly the immunity question as it would arise if Congress expressly had created a damages action against the President of the United States .... Consequently, our holding today need only be that the President is absolutely immune from civil damages liability for his official acts in the absence of explicit affirmative action by Congress.

Evidently, the Court was reluctant to constitutionalize presidential immunity law completely and preclude congressional action in the area. This reluctance is consistent with the Court's view of the possible congressional role to be played in connection with the Bivens prima facie case as well. Until Congress acts, however, absolute presidential immunity from damages liability is the rule.


https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/v ... _lawreview
Page 239.

So basically the POTUS enjoys absolute immunity (for actions taken within his official duties) until Congress decides otherwise.
User avatar
By Stormsmith
#15047984
Huh. Turns out, there was a crime committed by the President. Twice.

When President Trump stayed the two lots of cash to the Ukraine, those in themselves were crimes.

@Finfinder


I'll take this for an admission you know all of this is a hoax and you are hedging your bets


Hang on lovie, there's loads more to come. ;)
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15047987
Rugoz wrote:So basically the POTUS enjoys absolute immunity (for actions taken within his official duties) until Congress decides otherwise.

Right, and that is by legislation allowing Bivens actions against the president, which Congress has not sought fit to do.

Stormsmith wrote:When President Trump stayed the two lots of cash to the Ukraine, those in themselves were crimes.

Once again, state the section of the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations where you think this action is a crime. The president has the power to impound funds.

Stormsmith wrote:Hang on lovie, there's loads more to come. ;)

Yes, we know we're going to be treated to another Kavanaugh-like show this week. What we are interested in is a bill of particulars. Trotting in a bunch of federal employees to provide office gossip under oath with no cross examination allowed looks more like a Saturday Night Live skit than something to be taken seriously. Can you diagram an action by the president to a section of the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations and substantiate the elements of a crime? I'm guessing the answer is no, or that would have been done a long time ago.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15047990
blackjack21 wrote:Right, and that is by legislation allowing Bivens actions against the president, which Congress has not sought fit to do.


Once again, state the section of the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations where you think this action is a crime. The president has the power to impound funds.


Yes, we know we're going to be treated to another Kavanaugh-like show this week. What we are interested in is a bill of particulars. Trotting in a bunch of federal employees to provide office gossip under oath with no cross examination allowed looks more like a Saturday Night Live skit than something to be taken seriously. Can you diagram an action by the president to a section of the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations and substantiate the elements of a crime? I'm guessing the answer is no, or that would have been done a long time ago.


All of this is true. But the Liberal and Deep State (two different but overlapping groups of people to an extent) factions in the government are determined to destroy President Trump, his family, his associates, and those who voted for them, make an example out of them.

The Impeachment Inquiry and Impeachment itself will be a joke, in themselves, but it's going to be timed to color revolution in the streets, to put pressure upon the US Senate, with a complicit media and other institutions, to remove Trump from office. It will escalate until someone stops it, with calls for VP Pence to resign, and much more besides, until the troops are called out into the streets.

Few on PoFo want to see another American Civil War happen, and many would be incredulous at the very suggestion that it even might happen. But the fact is is that it's already started. Just as with the Presidential Election of 1860, deep down inside one or both sides of our political divide wittingly or unwittingly decided not to accept the results of the ballot box and would rather break apart the country along ideological lines.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15047992
annatar1914 wrote:All of this is true. But the Liberal and Deep State (two different but overlapping groups of people to an extent) factions in the government are determined to destroy President Trump, his family, his associates, and those who voted for them, make an example out of them.

The Impeachment Inquiry and Impeachment itself will be a joke, in themselves, but it's going to be timed to color revolution in the streets, to put pressure upon the US Senate, with a complicit media and other institutions, to remove Trump from office. It will escalate until someone stops it, with calls for VP Pence to resign, and much more besides, until the troops are called out into the streets.

Few on PoFo want to see another American Civil War happen, and many would be incredulous at the very suggestion that it even might happen. But the fact is is that it's already started. Just as with the Presidential Election of 1860, deep down inside one or both sides of our political divide wittingly or unwittingly decided not to accept the results of the ballot box and would rather break apart the country along ideological lines.



Annatar, the USA has been on the fault line of a political earthquake for a while. But, who knows where it might land?

I think the nation was bound to start breaking apart when it did a couple of things. The first was manifest destiny. Where that was even cause to try to annex other far flung areas of the world. Because it suited some reduced elitist group.

Mark Twain did his speech about once the USA became imperialist it betrayed the ideals of a republic. He was right about that. You betray your ideals? You wind up unraveling down the road.

And the inability to stick to nationalist goals. It will be costly to constantly put capitalist banks and greed ahead of basic nationalist survival. They betrayed that as well.

I don't know how long the whole thing might take to break down?

Your guess is as good as mine Annatar?

The USA has had very bad leadership for a while now.

I wonder what will happen as a consequence?

I picked this up about Snowden and how ordinary people are being spied on by cell phones? It is concerning. If the state truly wanted to repress enormous amounts of people? Today's technology just might be able to do that easier than past regimes in human history bent on controlling people and their thoughts and abilities to connect.


They don't respect privacy either. That is gone.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15047997
Tainari88 wrote:Annatar, the USA has been on the fault line of a political earthquake for a while. But, who knows where it might land?

I think the nation was bound to start breaking apart when it did a couple of things. The first was manifest destiny. Where that was even cause to try to annex other far flung areas of the world. Because it suited some reduced elitist group.

Mark Twain did his speech about once the USA became imperialist it betrayed the ideals of a republic. He was right about that. You betray your ideals? You wind up unraveling down the road.

And the inability to stick to nationalist goals. It will be costly to constantly put capitalist banks and greed ahead of basic nationalist survival. They betrayed that as well.

I don't know how long the whole thing might take to break down?

Your guess is as good as mine Annatar?

The USA has had very bad leadership for a while now.

I wonder what will happen as a consequence?

I picked this up about Snowden and how ordinary people are being spied on by cell phones? It is concerning. If the state truly wanted to repress enormous amounts of people? Today's technology just might be able to do that easier than past regimes in human history bent on controlling people and their thoughts and abilities to connect.


They don't respect privacy either. That is gone.


It's been said that America's ''Original Sin'' was that of Slavery, of which echoes of that crisis remain. I would say that the next major Social Sin of the collective American body politic is that of striving for Global Hegemony, Imperialism.

What happens in cases of Universal Empires in civilization is that the tools and tactics of managing the frontiers of an Empire-managing and controlling it's colonies and provinces and what have you-are turned upon the central and primary areas and these same methods of control are applied. The National Security State now snoops on everybody, etc...

Obviously the old governmental structures, created before Imperialism, is always really unsuited to those who seek total power they think they need to reshape the world according to their desires.

As to what will eventually happen sooner or later, I predict a bloodbath the likes of which has not been seen in hundreds of years in scale. Take care of your family and friends and loved ones, and pray.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15048000
annatar1914 wrote:All of this is true. But the Liberal and Deep State (two different but overlapping groups of people to an extent) factions in the government are determined to destroy President Trump, his family, his associates, and those who voted for them, make an example out of them.

Destroying 60 million people is a bridge too far. I think we were supposed to draw conclusions that putting the screws to Manafort or to Cohen that Trump is a bad guy, because they convicted people close to him of unrelated matters. From what I can see, however, it's making Trump stronger with his base. In Washington he gets booed. In Alabama, he gets a standing ovation.

annatar1914 wrote:The Impeachment Inquiry and Impeachment itself will be a joke, in themselves, but it's going to be timed to color revolution in the streets, to put pressure upon the US Senate, with a complicit media and other institutions, to remove Trump from office.

Your "complicit media" comment is interesting, because FoxNews oped folks like Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham are not on board; yet, they are all heeding the warning not to mention Eric Ciaramella's name, even though it is not illegal to say his name. The rest of the mainstream media is also zipped lips on Ciaramella, which is absolutely amazing in a scoop-and-headline driven media. That tells me that they have paid non-disclosure agreements with the CIA and the CIA invoked the agreements, because certainly Trump wouldn't have done it and none of the outlets would forgo the profit opportunity from the headlines. Yet, the whole country knows about it and the only people not talking about it are the media and the politicians. It's quite eerie irrespective of your political persuasion.

annatar1914 wrote:It will escalate until someone stops it, with calls for VP Pence to resign, and much more besides, until the troops are called out into the streets.

Well, I notice that Evo Morales got bounced out of Bolivia, and the only US politician who squawked about it was Bernie Sanders--because the Bolivian military called on Morales to resign. So I'm guessing they may try some bullshit like that this week--a parade of office gossip purporting to be evidence, followed by some crescendo of accusations, and then some high-level persons asking Trump to resign with the media in tow and pumping that show up. I mean, what else do they have? No crime has been committed, so hot air is all they've got.

annatar1914 wrote:Few on PoFo want to see another American Civil War happen, and many would be incredulous at the very suggestion that it even might happen. But the fact is is that it's already started. Just as with the Presidential Election of 1860, deep down inside one or both sides of our political divide wittingly or unwittingly decided not to accept the results of the ballot box and would rather break apart the country along ideological lines.

Well, as Zaid tried to clarify, this is a coup of lawyers not guns. The problem is that they don't have a cause of action, and they don't have any traction at all with Trump's base. One more note on that at the end of this post.

Tainari88 wrote:I picked this up about Snowden and how ordinary people are being spied on by cell phones? It is concerning.

Oh, I was on about that quite a long time ago, and said more or less the same thing. Your phone is a bug. So is Amazon Alexa by the way. Yes, it is concerning. It's also a colossal waste of resources.

Tainari88 wrote:If the state truly wanted to repress enormous amounts of people? Today's technology just might be able to do that easier than past regimes in human history bent on controlling people and their thoughts and abilities to connect.

Well just think about the complete silence about the whistleblower's identity. The masses are stupid. The whistleblower statute is to prevent someone from ending your career as a result of whistleblowing. It does not cover anonymity at all. In fact, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to confront his accuser in the United States. Yet, ABC, CBS, NBC, WaPo, NYT, AP, even FoxNews will not say "Eric Ciaramella" for anything. Even YouTube is threatening to ban YouTubers if they say his name. It's ludicrous. Everybody knows it was him. I queued this one up to a funny point where instead of saying "Eric Ciarmella", they just put up a "Censored" sign. Literally everybody knows who they're talking about.



Since you're an anthropologist, this is why I bring up the book Left of Boom. The CIA's redactions are just beyond stupid. Everybody knows he's talking about Pakistan, but they force the author to omit the name Pakistan and a bunch of other trivial details as though we couldn't figure it out. It makes me think they out to rename the CIA the Central Idiot Agency. (by the way, I know a big, big secret, and I'm not telling any of you)

About once a week I tune in to Mark Dice for a laugh. He was the last person from whom I expected to hear some hard news details, or to hear him get a lot more serious:



A few days ago, Dice noted that Zaid, Ciaramella's attorney, had a bunch of likes on his YouTube account about a bunch of very young Disney stars. It's about 2:49 seconds into this video. He points to a pretty disturbing Zaid Tweet where he claims he got people security clearances who had child pornography issues. In spite of YouTube's feed censorhip, Mark Dice still gets over 200k views on this video.

While he looped back to Project Veritas and the Amy Robach leak, it struck me that Zaid said he could get people with child porn issues security clearances.

I've said before that I thought the Epstein story resurfaced as payback to the Clintons for Russiagate. I don't think Trump expected that they were going to execute Epstein.
By Hindsite
#15048003
No need to worry. President Trump is the chosen one. The Trump of God.
If there is any real justice, this kangaroo court by the Democrats will backfire.
Praise the Lord.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15048005
@blackjack21 , you replied;

Destroying 60 million people is a bridge too far.


Is it? History suggests otherwise, but i'd say that ''trying to destroy 60 million people'' is more accurate of what I'm thinking.



I think we were supposed to draw conclusions that putting the screws to Manafort or to Cohen that Trump is a bad guy, because they convicted people close to him of unrelated matters. From what I can see, however, it's making Trump stronger with his base. In Washington he gets booed. In Alabama, he gets a standing ovation.


The old gerontocratic DNC machine thinks in the way you describe, but i'm referring to their lunatic base, the coalition of the unhinged who (rightfully) believe that the party is over if Trump gets the upper hand in his own Administration much less the Federal Government as a whole.


Your "complicit media" comment is interesting, because FoxNews oped folks like Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham are not on board; yet, they are all heeding the warning not to mention Eric Ciaramella's name, even though it is not illegal to say his name. The rest of the mainstream media is also zipped lips on Ciaramella, which is absolutely amazing in a scoop-and-headline driven media. That tells me that they have paid non-disclosure agreements with the CIA and the CIA invoked the agreements, because certainly Trump wouldn't have done it and none of the outlets would forgo the profit opportunity from the headlines. Yet, the whole country knows about it and the only people not talking about it are the media and the politicians. It's quite eerie irrespective of your political persuasion.


Best to ignore the whole ''Liberal'' and ''Conservative'' media altogether in my opinion.


Well, I notice that Evo Morales got bounced out of Bolivia, and the only US politician who squawked about it was Bernie Sanders--because the Bolivian military called on Morales to resign. So I'm guessing they may try some bullshit like that this week--a parade of office gossip purporting to be evidence, followed by some crescendo of accusations, and then some high-level persons asking Trump to resign with the media in tow and pumping that show up. I mean, what else do they have? No crime has been committed, so hot air is all they've got.


Oh yeah, that's going to be run in parallel to the paid for revolution in the streets that is coming at the same time as the Impeachment on into the 2020 elections, they'll have a ''committee of responsible government'' or similar such horseshit name, with military, ex-military from the Obama and Clinton eras, democrat and republican congresspersons and senators, and select others, that will attempt to function as a shadow government, in tandem as I said with the mobs of rent-a-thugs in the streets. The Endgame will begin similar to this;

By late
#15048021
blackjack21 wrote:
Yes. Nobody believes it. That's why it's going nowhere.



Your timing, as always, is exquisite.

Hasta manana.
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 64
Trump, Oh my god !

That's the point I was trying to make, while thes[…]

1) China has already butt in by trying to influ[…]

Turn, turn, turn

Investigating whether Biden violated the Foreig[…]

As I said earlier, if the Secession of the Southe[…]