Is this the future you wish for?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: dfnj2015

What is the campaign value of taking out a candidate that is taking his own self out just fine on his own? Or are Democrats being polled now extremely bias against Biden because Trump (the most hated and evil of evils to all Democrats) said something negative about Biden?

Seems to me that Biden could be charged with violations of the RICO Act based on his own admission on camera. Imagine the level of the Reeeee if Ukraine asks for Biden to be extradited to face trial under Ukraine’s justice system?

If Biden ever got in, they would start an impeachment and removal right away, for his behavior and bold bragging about his personal crime in Ukraine. If Trump did what Biden did, live on TV, there would be grounds for immediate removal, and anybody who says otherwise is biased up the ying

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: network dude
Sleep well lefties, when you wake up, you might wish you hadn't.

I sleep very well.

Trump clearly broke federal election laws with his quid pro quo leveraging of the Ukraine. Trump broke the law. He broke his oath to uphold the Constitution.

I have said many times I would prefer Pence over Trump. At least with Trump we have a social liberal. However, the rule of law takes precedence over preventing a social conservative become president.

"Today, Common Cause filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that President Donald Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and other political operatives illegally solicited a political contribution from a foreign national—by urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials to investigate Hunter Biden and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. The allegations were first published in The Wall Street Journal, and subsequently President Trump admitted that during a July 25th phone call he pressured President Zelensky to pursue the investigation of his political rival and his son.

Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election. Federal law also prohibits a person from soliciting or providing substantial assistance in the solicitation of such a contribution from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”"

DOJ & FEC Complaints Filed Against President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and Others for Illegal Solicitation of Contribution from Ukrainian President

It seems to me Trump broke the law in my opinion.

And that is super. If he is guilty, then an Impeachment vote should be held and he should have due process on his impeachment. Just as every president before him has had the presumption of having. I don't agree with your stance that this was quid pro quo, but that's not for me to decide. Why do you not have a problem with how this is being handled?

originally posted by: Gorgonite
a reply to: network dude

You are so melodramatic and uneducated. What exactly has taken place in the impeachment inquiry that is so out of the ordinary? They haven’t taken a vote? So what, nothing in the constitution says anything requiring them to have a vote. Call me when they pass articles of impeachment without a vote but you know that won’t happen.

Where was your concern when they did not have a vote to begin the Benghazi investigation? Where was your concern about “secret investigations” when everyone of the 103 witnesses not named Hillary Clinton called to testify in the Benghazi investigation did so in private? Most of the freaking Watergate testimonies took place behind closed doors.

It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation from a foreign national.

link

It is against the law just to ask. Trump did it on the phone call and again on the White House lawn when he asked for both Ukraine and China to investigate Biden. His only defense is “I was joking”. So yes, the crime is real. It could be more than this, it could involve a quid pro quo, but we don’t know yet. What we do know is Trump has already broken the law.

Are you truly this ignorant or is this just an attempt at gaslighting? I thought this place was all about denying ignorance?

I’m a conservative. I voted for Trump. I have however realized the error of my ways. I don’t agree with many Democratic policies but Trump doesn’t support my conservative values either.

in previous impeachment hearings, did the accused have any rights to call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, or have council present during the impeachment process in the house?

I only ask, as you seem to think yourself an authority on this and I'm just stupid. So I eagerly await your answers.

LMAO. What future?

What future does anyone think America has under the left-right delusion?

a reply to: dfnj2015

You said: "Trump clearly broke federal election laws with his quid pro quo leveraging of the Ukraine."

Ahhhh, no. He didn't. And why do I know that? Because as frothing-at-the-mouth crazy the Dems are at wanting to get rid of? If they could have - they already would have.

Even the Ukraine said it 'didn't happen'.

The future I want is for Dems to get behind Trump instead of fighting him all the time.

peace

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
LMAO. What future?

What future does anyone think America has under the left-right delusion?

No doubt. It's been touch and go for a while now, since those ruffians dumped all that tea into the harbor.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gorgonite
a reply to: network dude

You are so melodramatic and uneducated. What exactly has taken place in the impeachment inquiry that is so out of the ordinary? They haven’t taken a vote? So what, nothing in the constitution says anything requiring them to have a vote. Call me when they pass articles of impeachment without a vote but you know that won’t happen.

Where was your concern when they did not have a vote to begin the Benghazi investigation? Where was your concern about “secret investigations” when everyone of the 103 witnesses not named Hillary Clinton called to testify in the Benghazi investigation did so in private? Most of the freaking Watergate testimonies took place behind closed doors.

It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation from a foreign national.

link

It is against the law just to ask. Trump did it on the phone call and again on the White House lawn when he asked for both Ukraine and China to investigate Biden. His only defense is “I was joking”. So yes, the crime is real. It could be more than this, it could involve a quid pro quo, but we don’t know yet. What we do know is Trump has already broken the law.

Are you truly this ignorant or is this just an attempt at gaslighting? I thought this place was all about denying ignorance?

I’m a conservative. I voted for Trump. I have however realized the error of my ways. I don’t agree with many Democratic policies but Trump doesn’t support my conservative values either.

in previous impeachment hearings, did the accused have any rights to call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, or have council present during the impeachment process in the house?

I only ask, as you seem to think yourself an authority on this and I'm just stupid. So I eagerly await your answers.

You tell me. You are the one making the accusations therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Go back to Watergate.

Did Nixon cross examine any of those witnesses in the House? Nope.

Did Nixon have council present during the impeachment process in the House? Nope.

Clinton Impeachment

Did Clinton cross examine any witnesses in the House? Nope.

Did Clinton have council present during the impeachment process in the House? Nope.

Do you happen to know why? Because the Constitution set it up that way. The House serves as the prosecution in an impeachment hearing. They collect the evidence and lay the charges. The president can cross-examine and have his counsel present at the impeachment trials which take place in the Senate if it gets that far.

If you would had done a modicum of research you would have known that already. To give an example of what you are arguing for it would be like a murder suspect demanding to cross-examine witnesses and have his counsel present when the police are conducting the investigation.

Trump's presidency has created some very ignorant people.

a reply to: network dude

What will the future look like?

Pretty much like this, I'd reckon. Petty partisan tactics being slung around in the mud-pit, only that the poles are free of ice (free at last!) and the main sea level is way higher. Plus you can't really leave your moon/ mars/ earth colony without a suit due to all the radiation and/ or the lack of oxygen to breath.

Space-cookie, anyone? Have two for the price of one and get a can of Perri-air for free!

Not at all important, when the task at hand is to remove a duly elected president. The will of the people must be overturned.

Maybe the people should overcome a more or less ineffective representation, and start to act like grown ups with direct democracy.
At least this way the will of the people will be overturned by the will of the people. You might actually get sh!t done for once! How about draining the swamp and making healthcare affordable yourself, in this future you actually wish for?

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Gorgonite

So you guys are doubling down on your take that it's wrong to investigate corruption?

I don't know what you mean by "you guys". I suppose since I'm a conservative and lifelong Republican, that in this case "You guys" is anyone who isn't told their opinion by Fox News. Or maybe anyone who doesn't blindly support Trump. Or maybe anyone who chooses to stand by the rule of law.

Either way, if this was about stamping out corruption why is Trump allowing his kids to get international deals? Why is Bill Barr's kid working in the White House? Why is Jared and Ivanka working in the White House? Why is Ivanka getting hundreds of Chinese patents the day after her dad talked with XI? What is Jared getting millions from Saudi Arabia?

Where is a shred of evidence that proves Hunter did anything wrong? This entire conspiracy theory requires a person to listen to the Biden speech in isolation and draw incorrect conclusions. Biden was expressing a position shared by Democrats, Republicans (They wrote a letter to Ukraine supporting Biden in 2016), the IMF, the EU, and Canada. Also, Hunter's company wasn't under investigation when Shokin was fired. Ukrainians attempted to assassinate the guy in 2015 because he wasn't prosecuting anyone. Also, where is the FBI investigation of Biden? If this was about rooting out corruption why did Trump funnel this through his personal attorney and not the FBI?

a reply to: network dude

We should all be dumping our smart phones into the harbor. This constant access to media is killing our morale. Let politicians do what politicians do. Let the democrats impeach Trump. It will finish off their dying credibility. Let the GOP keep pushing dominionism. They're alienating the secular majority.

Its only when we stop giving our attention to the left-right delusion that it lose energy and dissipate.

originally posted by: Gorgonite

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gorgonite
a reply to: network dude

You are so melodramatic and uneducated. What exactly has taken place in the impeachment inquiry that is so out of the ordinary? They haven’t taken a vote? So what, nothing in the constitution says anything requiring them to have a vote. Call me when they pass articles of impeachment without a vote but you know that won’t happen.

Where was your concern when they did not have a vote to begin the Benghazi investigation? Where was your concern about “secret investigations” when everyone of the 103 witnesses not named Hillary Clinton called to testify in the Benghazi investigation did so in private? Most of the freaking Watergate testimonies took place behind closed doors.

It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation from a foreign national.

link

It is against the law just to ask. Trump did it on the phone call and again on the White House lawn when he asked for both Ukraine and China to investigate Biden. His only defense is “I was joking”. So yes, the crime is real. It could be more than this, it could involve a quid pro quo, but we don’t know yet. What we do know is Trump has already broken the law.

Are you truly this ignorant or is this just an attempt at gaslighting? I thought this place was all about denying ignorance?

I’m a conservative. I voted for Trump. I have however realized the error of my ways. I don’t agree with many Democratic policies but Trump doesn’t support my conservative values either.

in previous impeachment hearings, did the accused have any rights to call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, or have council present during the impeachment process in the house?

I only ask, as you seem to think yourself an authority on this and I'm just stupid. So I eagerly await your answers.

You tell me. You are the one making the accusations therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Go back to Watergate.

Did Nixon cross examine any of those witnesses in the House? Nope.

Did Nixon have council present during the impeachment process in the House? Nope.

Clinton Impeachment

Did Clinton cross examine any witnesses in the House? Nope.

Did Clinton have council present during the impeachment process in the House? Nope.

Do you happen to know why? Because the Constitution set it up that way. The House serves as the prosecution in an impeachment hearing. They collect the evidence and lay the charges. The president can cross-examine and have his counsel present at the impeachment trials which take place in the Senate if it gets that far.

If you would had done a modicum of research you would have known that already. To give an example of what you are arguing for it would be like a murder suspect demanding to cross-examine witnesses and have his counsel present when the police are conducting the investigation.

Trump's presidency has created some very ignorant people.

I'm not a member of the house of representatives, but when I watch them, and I hear them, I continue to hear them say that because there isn't an official vote and an actual impeachment inquiry, they don't have the option to do the things I mentioned. If I'm wrong, and all of them are wrong, that's cool, I can deal with that. But if I find out you are wrong, we will have to revisit this. You are 100 sure you are right, and nothing being done in the house is impeding anything for Trump or republicans in general with regards to impeachment?


ETA:
this is why I asked that question. I have heard many others say the same thing, and bring up specific examples, but are these house members just uninformed, and if so, can you prove it?

“Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it,” Cipollone said.

House Republicans have also cried foul, stating that the proceedings, led by House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., do not allow Republican lawmakers to issue subpoenas of their own. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Callif., called the ongoing investigation “a total sham,” citing a lack of due process, and House Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., accused Pelosi and Schiff of keeping “the truth and their unfair tactics hidden from public scrutiny.”

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: network dude

We should all be dumping our smart phones into the harbor. This constant access to media is killing our morale. Let politicians do what politicians do. Let the democrats impeach Trump. It will finish off their dying credibility. Let the GOP keep pushing dominionism. They're alienating the secular majority.

Its only when we stop giving our attention to the left-right delusion that it lose energy and dissipate.

I'm sorry, but I feel as if we ignore this blatant disregard for decorum, we invite this kind of activity to continue.

These aren't kids, they are the one's we elected to run our nation. If we have to live by the rules they make, they shouldn't they have to abide by some rules in order to govern us?

originally posted by: Gorgonite

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Gorgonite

So you guys are doubling down on your take that it's wrong to investigate corruption?

I don't know what you mean by "you guys". I suppose since I'm a conservative and lifelong Republican, that in this case "You guys" is anyone who isn't told their opinion by Fox News. Or maybe anyone who doesn't blindly support Trump. Or maybe anyone who chooses to stand by the rule of law.

not liking Trump is fine. But cheering on the current coup attempt kind of puts you into the left category. In order to give them the pass they need, you have to champion their causes. You have to cheer lead for their team. Trump supporters come in quite a few shades. Some tolerate him and just object to the obvious bias and way he's treated by the media. Some are full on fanboys. And some are in between. But all who wish for Trump to be removed from office via some other channel than re-election, are friends of the left, and will be seen as just that, due to the nature of their arguments.

Plus, I think you are full of crap.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: network dude
Sleep well lefties, when you wake up, you might wish you hadn't.

I sleep very well.

Trump clearly broke federal election laws with his quid pro quo leveraging of the Ukraine. Trump broke the law. He broke his oath to uphold the Constitution.

I have said many times I would prefer Pence over Trump. At least with Trump we have a social liberal. However, the rule of law takes precedence over preventing a social conservative become president.

"Today, Common Cause filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that President Donald Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and other political operatives illegally solicited a political contribution from a foreign national—by urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials to investigate Hunter Biden and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. The allegations were first published in The Wall Street Journal, and subsequently President Trump admitted that during a July 25th phone call he pressured President Zelensky to pursue the investigation of his political rival and his son.

Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election. Federal law also prohibits a person from soliciting or providing substantial assistance in the solicitation of such a contribution from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”"

DOJ & FEC Complaints Filed Against President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and Others for Illegal Solicitation of Contribution from Ukrainian President

It seems to me Trump broke the law in my opinion.

And that is super. If he is guilty, then an Impeachment vote should be held and he should have due process on his impeachment. Just as every president before him has had the presumption of having. I don't agree with your stance that this was quid pro quo, but that's not for me to decide. Why do you not have a problem with how this is being handled?

Well isn't the crux of the issue the fact that the Senators deciding if his actions were worthy of impeachment have no legal grounds for a determination other than whether they believe he was acting for or against the country. Since its unconscionable to think any Republican senator would vote to impeach Trump regardless of ANY crime, it seems logical the Democrats would game the system in the only way that's advantageous to them (just as the Republicans are crying for a vote to be held so they can instantly shoot it down and get on with sweeping all this under the rug as quickly as possible before the election).

Feels kind of silly arguing the legality of something that's really more dinner theater than jurisprudence.

a reply to: Wayfarer

why even reply to a post if it's that unimportant?

Not that you noticed, but the way the idiot left is playing this, they are secretly digging dirt on Trump and only releasing the things they think help their case for impeachment to get the public on their side, disregarding all things that go against their narrative. And they are using the media to do it.

You can go back to sleep, I'll try not to bother you with this stuff in the future.

a reply to: network dude

Have you watched any political debate within the past decade? They are kids...elected by a nation of big whining babies, on both sides. America's collective maturity level is that of a rich sheltered 13 year old girl.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Wayfarer

why even reply to a post if it's that unimportant?

Not that you noticed, but the way the idiot left is playing this, they are secretly digging dirt on Trump and only releasing the things they think help their case for impeachment to get the public on their side, disregarding all things that go against their narrative. And they are using the media to do it.

You can go back to sleep, I'll try not to bother you with this stuff in the future.

You misunderstand me. Its not unimportant (to the contrary you're posts piqued my interest enough to make me want to respond), but rather I believe mis-categorized as some legal endeavor, when I think its more accurately viewed as just more political cat-fighting. I totally get why you (and many others here) are very upset at whats transpired (especially when viewed through a basic lens of tribalism), I just feel we might veer into a better understanding of the situation if we weren't constantly trying to one up each other with some legalistic gotcha when so little of impeachment hinges on the legal system.

a reply to: Wayfarer

the house is supposed to have a certain level of jurisprudence by nature. If they just go about things like the meeting 5 guys have just before robbing a bank, then they sure don't need nice buildings and taxpayer funded income. We can eliminate the entirety of DC and just let the Mafia control the important things. (If they even existed I mean)

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Wayfarer

... they sure don't need nice buildings and taxpayer funded income....

You're preaching to the choir on that one. The concept of such easy and obvious personal enrichment as a reward for the position is pretty odious to me.

Regarding the house's legal powers, in some cases they are a lot more codified/delineated and its a much more cut and dry case to assess. Impeachment and the House/Senate's roll on the other hand feels like a play about lawyers (we hear legal jargon but its all hokum/fake and for the benefit of the audience, rather than actually being an accurate portrayal of law).

I'm not saying it because I'm trying to raise yours or anyone else's hackles, but rather it feels a lot easier to understand all that's going on if we view it more from the perspective of politicians being politicians (and all the hideously maladjusted and immoral actions that go along with it).

originally posted by: dfnj2015
In corporate computer security you just assume the criminals know your algorithms for security. What keeps you safe is key management and strength of passwords.

Seriously? Seriously? I'm just curious, do you work in information security in any fashion? If so, I'd be curious to know where, because something tells me based on this statement alone, you're doing it wrong.