Biden's Admits Guild again.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EartOccupant

Do you think it would be a good idea for him not to resign if his father is elected?

I don't. An appearance of conflict of interests is not a good thing when it comes to high office. Some people don't seem to understand that.

So who is it in the Obama Admin did you work for again?

Biden couldn't win the Presidency if his life and his sons, why hell his whole dam families lives depended on it. Bernie has a better chance than he does lol. Polls are BS. Trump sells out football stadiums in minutes to this day. Innocent people do not step down until they are told to or have to, to avoid prison time. Its obvious the Chinese want nothing coming their way so this is damage control on their part and both the Biden's will be locked up. They all will, before its all said and done.

a reply to: RudeMarine

So who is it in the Obama Admin did you work for again?

I've never worked in government, federal or otherwise. How about you?

Biden couldn't win the Presidency if his life and his sons, why hell his whole dam families lives depended on it.

You could be right. But having his son as internet troll fodder sure wouldn't help, bad enough as it is. Either way, it won't mollify the Trump base.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

It was ratified by the Senate in October 1999.

Are you sure?

Latest Senate Action

10/18/2000
Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Division Vote.

www.congress.gov...

In such a case, doesn't the president have to finalize the ratification? Did Clinton do so?


In any case, why the back channel? Shouldn't that sort of thing be handled by the DOJ? Instead of Trumps personal attorney?

Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request.

Seems Giuliani's involvement would nullify actions under the treaty. It's specified that the authority lies only with the Attorney General or someone authorized by him.

Yes - I am sure. Agreed with Kiev by the Clinton administration and ratified by Congress.

There's no back channel. The DoJ have been invloved. The transcript specifically mentions Guilliani working with the DoJ.

You've got nothing , except an entrenchment in the Democrat scam.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EartOccupant

Indeed Giuliani stinks to high hell.

Really? You are smarter than that.

Rudy has spent his whole life fighting Corruption. If anyone wants to dispute his creditably then I suggest you go do it to his face.

Are you not aware that the two fools BIDEN put in charge of the new anti-corruption unit of Ukraine, formed after the pro Russian government fled. Those two are now sitting in Jail for their role in trying to frame Trump at the behest of the DNC.

Rudy is the most qualified to investigate this massive corrupt scam Biden set up in Ukraine, or do you not care where billions of OUR tax dollars go?? Especially when it was all to corrupt the 2016 election and to make Joe and others in the DNC filthy rich.

We have documents to prove it. DENY IGNORANCE!!!!! I would have been ticked if someone did this to a Democrat as they involved 4 nations intelligence services to pull off the most dangerous Coup in US History and they are only trying to cover their rears with this whole phone call crap because they know Trump and his team are about to drop indictments against many of them. Read the Ukrainian news if you think the MSM is not hiding what is going on over there.

www.youtube.com...

Dont get anymore easier to understand than that. That's just the tip of the iceberg, the one that is going to crash the Democrats so hard we will have to re-due Congress and the Senate. Install new members with strict laws against corruption or taking money from anyone, anymore.

a reply to: UKTruth

The transcript specifically mentions Guilliani working with the DoJ.

So, Barr had designated Guiliani as the contact, per the treaty. Should be a pretty solid paper trail for that, as well as the written requests required by the treaty.

Easy peasy. Ts crossed, Is dotted.

The House committee might have to rethink things when those documents are presented.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

The transcript specifically mentions Guilliani working with the DoJ.

So, Barr had designated Guiliani as the contact, per the treaty. Should be a pretty solid paper trail for that, as well as the written requests required by the treaty.

Easy peasy. Ts crossed, Is dotted.

The House committee might have to rethink things when those documents are presented.

No idea what you are on about.
Seems you've glossed over the fact that Trump asking the Ukraine for help in investigating corruption is as per the ratified treaty between the US and Ukraine. Poor thing.

a reply to: UKTruth

Seems you've glossed over the fact that Trump asking the Ukraine for help in investigating corruption is as per the ratified treaty between the US and Ukraine

Seems you haven't read the treaty.

It does not give the president the power to do so. Probably a good idea. Congress used to be smarter than they are now, on the whole.

a reply to: Phage

Sure wouldn't help his dads chances if he stayed on board.

I don't think Biden will stand a chance whether Hunter kept the job or not.

a reply to: highvein

I think you're right.
But the fact remains. It wouldn't help.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Seems you've glossed over the fact that Trump asking the Ukraine for help in investigating corruption is as per the ratified treaty between the US and Ukraine

Seems you haven't read the treaty.

It does not give the president the power to do so.

Incorrect.

a reply to: UKTruth

Awaiting follow up.

Patiently.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

The transcript specifically mentions Guilliani working with the DoJ.

So, Barr had designated Guiliani as the contact, per the treaty. Should be a pretty solid paper trail for that, as well as the written requests required by the treaty.

Easy peasy. Ts crossed, Is dotted.

The House committee might have to rethink things when those documents are presented.

No.

The treaty defines two co-equal sides within the treaty bounds as you are referring, read further.

e.g.. DOJ communications defined with counterparts in treaty, written requests 10 days etc etc.

No restrictions on heads of State communicating.

As the president is the absolute chief diplomat, one recognizing the treaty prior to Trump, and is not held to the same criterion as the as the narrowness of "dept to dept" crap. period.



mg

a reply to: missed_gear

The treaty specifies the authority.
And the protocols.

If you're saying the treaty doesn't matter why bring it up?

a reply to: Phage

Is that what I said?

mg

a reply to: missed_gear

I don't know. That's why I asked.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EartOccupant

Do you think it would be a good idea for him not to resign if his father is elected?

I don't. An appearance of conflict of interests is not a good thing when it comes to high office. Some people don't seem to understand that.

I agree! His father should too....

a reply to: Phage

bored with this it's there to read.

The four corners of the treaty are there.

I pointed out the elasticity in a reply earlier.

Article 13 requires the Requested State to use its best efforts to ascertain the location or identity of persons or items specified in a request.

NOT from an agency. Another example.

No the POTUS is not above the law. Diplomatically he has a big brush, under the law. He is protected by this treaty.

mg

a reply to: missed_gear

Article 13 requires the Requested State to use its best efforts to ascertain the location or identity of persons or items specified in a request.

The articles of a treaty are not taken independently of each other.

Article 1 specifies authority under the treaty. It does not include the president. Article 5 specifies the protocols.

If the president acted outside the treaty it may be his prerogative, or not. Why bring up the treaty?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EartOccupant

If it was a descent job when the dad was VicePresident there would not be a problem when the dad is president.

An appearance of conflict of interests is not a good thing when it comes to high office. Some people don't seem to understand that.

Obama-Biden's advisors said the public is "stupid". They didn't worry about any repercussions.

a reply to: Phage

Curious why you didn't reply to either of my post which I tried to make points about your replies to others. I know cherry picking easier arguments looks good for "the almighty Phage debunker of everyone and everything" but I mean I really was interested in hearing what you thought about that missing money and my first reply about the stepping down now rather than later.