Ukrainegate - Page 28 - 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
#15040633
late wrote:
DOJ rules didn't allow him to prove guilt, that would have to happen in impeachment of in court. Because he couldn't be charged, he couldn't even build a case. But the pieces are all there. It's worth mentioning there is lots of stuff that was outside his purview. Lots and lots of stuff, and more showing up all the time.

Like I said, Mueller said that if he thought Trump was innocent, he would have said so.

User avatar
By Verv
#15040640
@blackjack21 , I think that, if they knew what would result from these ideas, there would have been a clause firmly laying down requirements for voting rights and naturalization, and citizenship would have been something that resembled Roman citizenship.

There might have also been a push for a hereditary executive & judicial branch, not unlike what Bolivar proposed in the Cartagena manifesto, with their sole focus on setting up a timeless, iron Republic not subject to change or to the will of the people.

I think even liberals would admit that this would be what the founders would do.

And this realization has become highly influential on how I view the world today.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040645
late wrote:It started because Trump was dirty.

Mueller said that if he thought Trump was innocent, he would have said so.

No collusion was between Trump and Russia was ever proven. The evidence simply wasn't there. There wasn't even evidence for probable cause.

late wrote:Obstruction is also impeachable, and that is constant now.

It's not. The chief law enforcement officer cannot obstruct himself. His subordinates do not have authority over him. He has to commit a crime. Merely exercising his powers under Article II is insufficient.

late wrote:I'd have to guess how many counts, but at least a dozen.

You realize Congress doesn't have Article II law enforcement powers right?

Hindsite wrote:That was not Mueller's job. He was supposed to prove guilt, because the law requires a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not the other way around as you Trump haters want it for those you hate.

Mueller's job was ill-defined, because Rosenstein did not cite a crime to investigate as was required per the regulations.

Verv wrote:@blackjack21 , I think that, if they knew what would result from these ideas, there would have been a clause firmly laying down requirements for voting rights and naturalization, and citizenship would have been something that resembled Roman citizenship.

There might have also been a push for a hereditary executive & judicial branch, not unlike what Bolivar proposed in the Cartagena manifesto, with their sole focus on setting up a timeless, iron Republic not subject to change or to the will of the people.

I think even liberals would admit that this would be what the founders would do.

And this realization has become highly influential on how I view the world today.

Indeed. I think they would have seen Jefferson's rhetoric as dangerous, too.
By late
#15040648
blackjack21 wrote:
No collusion was between Trump and Russia was ever proven. The evidence simply wasn't there. There wasn't even evidence for probable cause.


It's not. The chief law enforcement officer cannot obstruct himself. His subordinates do not have authority over him. He has to commit a crime. Merely exercising his powers under Article II is insufficient.


Mueller's job was ill-defined, because Rosenstein did not cite a crime to investigate as was required per the regulations.


Indeed. I think they would have seen Jefferson's rhetoric as dangerous, too.



First, repeating BS doesn't improve it.

Second, no, Barr can't obstruct himself. But thanks for making me smile. He can, and does, obstruct justice. Your unstated premise is that he is above the law. He is not.

Third, ain't that simple. There were violations of law, you investigate to establish the facts, what happened, and who did it...

Where are you getting this pathetic crap?? We need sources.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040653
late wrote:Second, no, Barr can't obstruct himself.

Trump is the chief law enforcement officer. Barr is Trump's attorney general. He's an attorney. He exercises powers on behalf of someone else. The US has a unitary executive. No cabinet official has power that isn't delegated by the president.

late wrote:He can, and does, obstruct justice.

A constitutional officer cannot obstruct actions taken in his own name. Barr could in theory. However, it's not clear to me what law you think he could be violating.

late wrote:Your unstated premise is that he is above the law. He is not.

The president cannot be subject to prosecution while in office. However, he can be impeached. So Pelosi can impeach him.

late wrote:There were violations of law, you investigate to establish the facts, what happened, and who did it...

Mueller's office was created without specifying a legal violation to investigate. All of the things Mueller prosecuted had nothing to do with Trump colluding with Russians. They were either process crimes or unrelated to Trump and Russia somehow colluding with each other--noting again that collusion itself is not a crime.

late wrote:Where are you getting this pathetic crap?? We need sources.

Uh, the founding fathers believed in hard currency, uniform excises, capitations, and voting only for free born white men. So I'm sure they'd be horrified by women having the right to vote, or illegal aliens voting, and so forth.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15040724
Verv wrote:No, Jimjam, our ancestors clearly fought and died for replacement migration and government funded sex changes for anyone who asks [1].

Excellent point. A guy fucked a horse in the ass in the back country up here …. ergo Obese Donald is special. He doesn't have to obey the law.

blackjack21 wrote:Hillary Clinton doesn't have to obey the law, so none of us should have to.

Oh no! Not this one again. "(fill in the blank) didn't obey the law therefore Obese Donald and Al Capone don't (didn't) have to obey the law."

Hail King Donald, Long live the King. The American revolution is hereby revoked.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15040725
Clearly, this president believes that he is above the law and not subject to subpoenas or Congressional investigations. He has muzzled his administration officials the way he did the Republican Party. He’s not a president, he’s an absolute ruler who will crush anyone who opposes him. Americans elected a dictator in 2016. His open defiance of the rule of law must end.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15040731
jimjam wrote:Oh no! Not this one again. "(fill in the blank) didn't obey the law therefore Obese Donald and Al Capone don't (didn't) have to obey the law."


The obvious point, which apparently has sailed effortlessly over your head, is that liberals are hypocrites. You have no problem with the fact that a Democrat did it, but you want want Trump drawn and quartered for doing what you perceive to be illegal.

The point isn't about Democrats breaking the law, it's about liberals being hypocrites...
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15040733
jimjam wrote:Clearly, this president believes that he is above the law and not subject to subpoenas or Congressional investigations. He has muzzled his administration officials the way he did the Republican Party. He’s not a president, he’s an absolute ruler who will crush anyone who opposes him. Americans elected a dictator in 2016. His open defiance of the rule of law must end.


Let Pelosi put the inquiry to a vote. After all, she surely has enough votes to move it forward. So, let her do that and I'll be the first one to stand up and demand that Trump obey the rule of law, and I will be one of his harshest critics here if he doesn't.

But, until that happens, I will support his defiance, simply because his defiance is right. The Democrats in the House don't want to give Trump a level playing field. Well, fuck them. What they're doing is wrong on so many levels...
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#15040744
https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-solo ... l-timeline

Docs show that Ukraine reopened the Burisma probe before the cited phone call.

It's also been reported that the whistleblower is a registered Democrat who has a professional tie to one of the 2020 Democrat Presidential candidates. It hasn't been said which one but if it was Biden then wow :lol:

My latest two cents: the un-voted upon inquiry doesn't allow the other side to call witnesses or to defend themselves. At the same time though, this also means that it doesn't as of yet have any actual legal power. What if they're not even doing anything in there and this is all a prompt for the media?
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15040749
Hong Wu wrote:My latest two cents: the un-voted upon inquiry doesn't allow the other side to call witnesses or to defend themselves. At the same time though, this also means that it doesn't as of yet have any actual legal power. What if they're not even doing anything in there and this is all a prompt for the media?


And this is why the administration should defy the House.

Pelosi and her minions don't will not allow the concept of fairness to come into play here. If it does, the shit's gonna' fly and she knows it.

They're grandstanding. The question is "Why?" They're going to benefit not an iota from this fiasco.

I say let them go. Let them conduct their "investigation" and then, when it's done, the administration will shove it down Pelosi's fucking throat...
User avatar
By jimjam
#15040788
Congress is wise enough to realize that sending only its sergeant-at-arms to the White House will not suffice to resolve the current situation. Instead, it needs to send large enough teams of law-enforcement personnel to the White House and to the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, to ensure that the occupants of those properties who refuse to cooperate are promptly relocated to the D.C. Jail.
User avatar
By Verv
#15040856
jimjam wrote:Clearly, this president believes that he is above the law and not subject to subpoenas or Congressional investigations. He has muzzled his administration officials the way he did the Republican Party. He’s not a president, he’s an absolute ruler who will crush anyone who opposes him. Americans elected a dictator in 2016. His open defiance of the rule of law must end.


I think you are unfamiliar with the nature of the investigations that they are putting forward, Jimjam.

The President isn't allowed to have a counsel present nor is he allowed to cross-examine witnesses, and even more damning:

In addition, the House has not provided the Committees' Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries. 11 The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine


Whitehouse.gov

Would this be considered a fair investigation in other circumstances?

No, of course not.

So, why should the President be very forthcoming with these proceedings?
User avatar
By Verv
#15040857
jimjam wrote:Oh no! Not this one again. "(fill in the blank) didn't obey the law therefore Obese Donald and Al Capone don't (didn't) have to obey the law."

Hail King Donald, Long live the King. The American revolution is hereby revoked.


The beginning of your post is utterly irrelevant and silly. I've cut it out.

But here is an interesting point for you...

One of the common complaints that we receive about America, today, is that blacks are disproportionately impacted by law enforcement and that the lived experience of blacks has them facing real consequences for narco-crime that whites just don't face. Moreover, blacks are in areas that will generally be patrolled and monitored more closely than others, be stopped and frisked, etc., thus are likewise unfairly impacted by the law and the enforcement of the law.

Surely the Left has argued before that there is unequal enforcement of the law, and this is something that can make the law tyrannical.

It is, of course, debatable whether or not this is how the law is actually functioning in the US as it pertains to blacks.

But, certainly, someone who is as objective and intelligent as yourself, JimJam, is very open to the idea that if the laws were unevenly applied, it would not be justice.

Whataboutism may sometimes not apply, but sometimes it is vital to tackle concerns about unequal enforcement of laws in order to assure people that justice is being done. Could you do that for us?
By Hindsite
#15040867
Verv wrote:I think you are unfamiliar with the nature of the investigations that they are putting forward, Jimjam.

That is because jimjam allows CNN and MSNBC to tell him what to think.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#15040890
James Clapper appears to have admitted on CNN that Obama ordered him to spy on Trump; the IG report is said to be coming out on the 18th. Really puts the anonymous hearsay sources on Ukraine into perspective.

I've also noticed that PoFo's usual liberals have largely not touched this thread, leaving it to new posters, trolls and Jimjam. Almost as if they are tired of losing :P
User avatar
By jimjam
#15040911
Hong Wu wrote:Jimjam.

two small j's please …… :)

Hindsite wrote: jimjam allows CNN and MSNBC


truth be known I cannot recall when I last viewed/listened to CNN & MSNBC. they are too highly produced to resemble entertainment and ….. boring. I have my secret sources :lol: .

Verv wrote:One of the common complaints that we receive about America, today, is that blacks are disproportionately impacted by law enforcement

I do not pay attention to this issue.

Verv wrote:someone who is as objective and intelligent as yourself, JimJam

I agree that I am a very unstable genius but objective ?……… only when I am spending my money. :lol:

Well Verve you have come close to doing the near impossible: Getting jimjam involved in a quasi serious debate. As I have noted, I am a cheap shot artist and eschew "debates" with people who start out by calling me a typical deluded and uninformed liberal moron and THEN ask me ever so nicely: "Sources please" :lol: .

Verv wrote:I think you are unfamiliar with the nature of the investigations that they are putting forward

I am not, it seems, alone on this count.The House of Representatives has undertaken the impeachment inquiry of a president only four times in American history. Each time, the House has set its own ground rules. The Constitution prescribes no specific process, nor does federal law.

Verv wrote:The President isn't allowed to have a counsel present nor is he allowed to cross-examine witnesses


This flamboyant concern with due process and precedent is a distraction, an attempt to shift attention away from Mr. Trump’s gross misbehavior and to promote his divisive fantasy that he is the victim of a coup attempt. It would be naïve to believe for a second that, if the House addresses every one of the White House’s stated objections, then the president’s team will endorse this inquiry as legitimate.

Due process protections like these are provided at criminal trials, where a defendant could be convicted and sent to prison. Mr. Trump is not facing that in the House. To the extent that an impeachment can be analogized to a judicial proceeding, the House operates like a grand jury deciding whether to hand up an indictment to the Senate, which then holds a trial. Grand juries are not required to provide due process.

"The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries."

This ^ has been done in the past and needs to be done in the current situation.

" The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine”

Obviously true. ^

As I see it …… the two advisories (Donald and Nancy) are presently circling each other pursuant to the main battle/attraction. The details of the drama must be worked out in time consuming and painstaking detail.

In typical Trump M.O. the White House is trying to divert attention away from the substance of Mr. Trump’s actions and toward smaller-bore procedural fights. It wants to confuse the public and delay any final judgment by Congress.
By Hindsite
#15040920
jimjam wrote:truth be known I cannot recall when I last viewed/listened to CNN & MSNBC. they are too highly produced to resemble entertainment and ….. boring. I have my secret sources :lol: .

Such as The Moscow Times, Caracas Chronicles, and Havana Times. :lol:
jimjam wrote:I am not, it seems, alone on this count.The House of Representatives has undertaken the impeachment inquiry of a president only four times in American history. Each time, the House has set its own ground rules. The Constitution prescribes no specific process, nor does federal law.

There is such a thing as precedent in the law. The use of precedent provides predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law.

jimjam wrote:"The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries."

This ^ has been done in the past and needs to be done in the current situation.

" The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine”

Obviously true. ^

As I see it …… the two advisories (Donald and Nancy) are presently circling each other pursuant to the main battle/attraction. The details of the drama must be worked out in time consuming and painstaking detail.

In typical Trump M.O. the White House is trying to divert attention away from the substance of Mr. Trump’s actions and toward smaller-bore procedural fights. It wants to confuse the public and delay any final judgment by Congress.

Even you admit that without co-equal subpoena power that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine and violates fairness as required by law. President Trump's lawyers are just standing up for their client's legal rights in the process.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15041022
Two associates of the president’s private lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who helped fund efforts to investigate one of President Trump’s political rivals, were charged in a separate case with violating campaign finance laws, according to court documents.

The two men, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, believed to be important witnesses in the House’s impeachment inquiry of Mr. Trump, were arrested on campaign finance charges.

Image
Rudy Giuliani, left, and Lev Parnas at the Trump International Hotel in Washington last month.

Take a good look at Rudy Wack Job Giuliani …………. the corrupt face of America to the world. And the accoutrements of power that go with that way cool face: the BEST cuffs and links, extra fancy rings, the tacky American flag adorning the sugar bowel and matching (mandatory) American flag lapel pin. And it looks like Rudy's BFF Lev is sporting one of those $40,000 solid gold watches. It will be a great day when Giuliani himself is arrested for being a lying traitor who has aided and abetted the lying and criminality of the traitor in the White House.

Men of the people for sure. Looking out for the welfare of the little guy just like Don Obese Donald. Hey, I like that ….. Don Don ….. :lol:
User avatar
By jimjam
#15041024
Hindsite wrote:predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency


Yup ….. describes Obese Donald to a T :lol:

I must admit to a morbid fascination in watching The Fat Guy morph into increasing lunacy right before our eyes. :eek:

Image
  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 64
Trump's Dumb Economics

I was thinking about your earlier comment. That i[…]

Capital Punishment

The death penalty is an absurdity because the rac[…]

The left have created a pathetic fantasy world. In[…]

The biggest scandal in American history

Sprinkling incriminating adjectives doesn't help[…]