A question the left won't answer?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

but does it negate the entire process regardless of the method used?

Yes, as you might recall from any number of cop shows (or cases tossed out of courts.) FindLaw has a nice summary of this: criminal.findlaw.com...

I suspect that some readers are not aware that it's actually a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution: en.wikipedia.org...

Wait, so the entire IC is against Trump, and lied and cheated to try to get him (as has been proven FISA court, ect.) but he was supposed to trust that they would be totally on his side, when he asked them to look into the corruption in Ukraine? You are supposed to be pretty smart. Explain that please.

The method he employed is against the Constitutional Amendment (4) that guarantees due process and a fair search.

Are you saying that the President should be above the Constitution (and able to, for instance, negate the 2nd Amendment by a stroke of the pen and that no court could overturn this on constitutional grounds?)

No, and I don't claim to understand constitutional law, I can only go on what I have heard and learned. And I remember hearing about some agreement the US had with Ukraine in regards to all this corruption.

But if Trump went against the constitution and broke the law, I would think that might be one of the articles of impeachment, don't you?

Covered under "abuse of power."

The Constitution (which Mr. Trump swore to uphold in the oath of office) is quite interesting. I remember learning about it in Civics and reading the document. It was kind of a legal slog, but I felt it was important to read back when i was in school. Can't say that I'm anywhere near good enough on it, but I do remember basic rights and how the government is supposed to operate.

Civics, I'm afraid, is one of those boring topics that got tossed in favor of testing. You had to be kind of a government nerd to love it.

Edited to add: this has been covered in the news sources that I read. Perhaps your news sources neglected or minimized it?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

but does it negate the entire process regardless of the method used?

Yes, as you might recall from any number of cop shows (or cases tossed out of courts.) FindLaw has a nice summary of this: criminal.findlaw.com...

I suspect that some readers are not aware that it's actually a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution: en.wikipedia.org...

Wait, so the entire IC is against Trump, and lied and cheated to try to get him (as has been proven FISA court, ect.) but he was supposed to trust that they would be totally on his side, when he asked them to look into the corruption in Ukraine? You are supposed to be pretty smart. Explain that please.

The method he employed is against the Constitutional Amendment (4) that guarantees due process and a fair search.

Are you saying that the President should be above the Constitution (and able to, for instance, negate the 2nd Amendment by a stroke of the pen and that no court could overturn this on constitutional grounds?)

No, and I don't claim to understand constitutional law, I can only go on what I have heard and learned. And I remember hearing about some agreement the US had with Ukraine in regards to all this corruption.

But if Trump went against the constitution and broke the law, I would think that might be one of the articles of impeachment, don't you?

Covered under "abuse of power."

The Constitution (which Mr. Trump swore to uphold in the oath of office) is quite interesting. I remember learning about it in Civics and reading the document. It was kind of a legal slog, but I felt it was important to read back when i was in school. Can't say that I'm anywhere near good enough on it, but I do remember basic rights and how the government is supposed to operate.

Civics, I'm afraid, is one of those boring topics that got tossed in favor of testing. You had to be kind of a government nerd to love it.

Edited to add: this has been covered in the news sources that I read. Perhaps your news sources neglected or minimized it?

LOL, so is asking for two scoops of ice cream. I limit my scope of news to what I want to hear, then I come here and find out how true it is from the opposition. I've found that all news is biased, and if I'm going to be lied to, I like it to sound nice.

So I understand you, Trump simply asking Zalinsky what he did in the transcript is against the constitution, and no other argument is needed for his removal. Is that right? I've simplified it, but if that's not the case, then please explain what is.

a reply to: network dude

The original question is if the left had answered...this is getting old, stop it already.

NBC news

Vox

NPR

USA Today

That's enough reading for you, I'm not going to link everything, look it up yourself!!!! The OP saying the left has never answered is WRONG. The OP is flat out TROLLING.

originally posted by: network dude
never seen a response.

From your OP.... 🤔 Never seen a response from the left??? 👀

2nd line

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: Alien Abduct

You quoted me what I said, so why are you trolling me? I gave my answer. Took me two seconds to debunk the OP. Give it a shot. www.google.com "left proves Biden no corruption" search that. That's what the OP said, "the left never answered" and they did, GOOGLE IT. You might not like their answer, but the OP said they NEVER answered, which is WRONG.

So your answer is "google it". How weak. Is that all you got? Saying "google it" is the same as saying "go look for an answer" so you still dont have an answer, gotcha.

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: network dude

The original question is if the left had answered...this is getting old, stop it already.

NBC news

Vox

NPR

USA Today

That's enough reading for you, I'm not going to link everything, look it up yourself!!!! The OP saying the left has never answered is WRONG. The OP is flat out TROLLING.

talk about trolling. You are going with the "it's all been debunked" lie. Well, even with links to news sites saying that, those with working brains have noticed, nobody has explained how it was debunked or by whom, just that it is.

You seem to think that by getting angry and repeating that it's all been debunked, you somehow win. Sorry, it's not like that ITRW.

Has the entire Burisma corruption been exposed, and corrected, or did it never happen? Was Ukraine a very corrupt nation, or was that a lie? Who debunked that theory? Why was Hunter employed by Burisma? What skills made him the guy for the job, and what was his job?

See, there are some significant questions here, and when you are talking about reversing a national election, and removing a president from office, (something that has never been done in the history of the United States), then there needs to be iron clad proof of wrong doing, and it needs to be so bad that to not remove him would be criminal. If that isn't the case, then all that is happening is a bunch of folks pissing in the wind.

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: network dude

The original question is if the left had answered...this is getting old, stop it already.

NBC news

Vox

NPR

USA Today

That's enough reading for you, I'm not going to link everything, look it up yourself!!!! The OP saying the left has never answered is WRONG. The OP is flat out TROLLING.

It'll be debunked once an investigation is done and no wrong doing is found.

Like with the Mueller report.

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: network dude

The original question is if the left had answered...this is getting old, stop it already.

NBC news

Vox

NPR

USA Today

That's enough reading for you, I'm not going to link everything, look it up yourself!!!! The OP saying the left has never answered is WRONG. The OP is flat out TROLLING.

Quote from any of your sources where it answers the question presented by the OP. I read all of your sources and didnt see it answered, perhaps you could shed some light?

originally posted by: network dude
I know I have asked it a few time, and never seen a response. But perhaps others have and there is a reasonable answer to this.

Question:
If any evidence exists that Either Joe Biden or Hunter Biden did ANYTHING corrupt while in Ukraine, anything at all, would't that totally negate the impeachment, and all the arguments over what Trump did or said? If corruption exists, or existed, his asking that it be looked into would not only be important, but necessary.

If that idea is off base, I'd love to hear why.

That evidence does exist - and everyone already knows it.

1. Biden bragged to the CFR about getting the prosecutor fired
2. Hunter doesn't know ukrainan, doesn't have any experience in energy but was getting paid a million dollars a year.

Please someone explain how that is not enough evidence to launch a corruption investigation.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: network dude

The original question is if the left had answered...this is getting old, stop it already.

NBC news

Vox

NPR

USA Today

That's enough reading for you, I'm not going to link everything, look it up yourself!!!! The OP saying the left has never answered is WRONG. The OP is flat out TROLLING.

talk about trolling. You are going with the "it's all been debunked" lie. Well, even with links to news sites saying that, those with working brains have noticed, nobody has explained how it was debunked or by whom, just that it is.

You seem to think that by getting angry and repeating that it's all been debunked, you somehow win. Sorry, it's not like that ITRW.

Has the entire Burisma corruption been exposed, and corrected, or did it never happen? Was Ukraine a very corrupt nation, or was that a lie? Who debunked that theory? Why was Hunter employed by Burisma? What skills made him the guy for the job, and what was his job?

See, there are some significant questions here, and when you are talking about reversing a national election, and removing a president from office, (something that has never been done in the history of the United States), then there needs to be iron clad proof of wrong doing, and it needs to be so bad that to not remove him would be criminal. If that isn't the case, then all that is happening is a bunch of folks pissing in the wind.

So you have heard the response from the left? Then you lied in your thread saying you have seen no response...but you have, you're a liar...waste of time....you're trolling non right wingers, yes you are.

The political mud pit forum on ATS is just a forum for right wingers to hear the sound of their own voice.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Quoting is unnecessary and my opinion isn't necessary....troll thread, you're a troll too. You're literal question is why isn't the left reporting like the right? You could say the same thing why isn't the right reporting like the left, or the up like the down or the down like the up, or should I have a cookie or brownie, to be or not to be, all dumb questions.... seriously who cares what major corporate news agency is reporting on. I could type with my elbows and you would still think I'm someone important to talk to. I'm not....what on Earth made you and others feel obligated to engage with me, other than you're all trolls?

a reply to: game over man


You think we are trolling. We aren't, dude.
It just feels that way when we spank you in this debate.

Welcome to what happens when you meet good logic and reason.

Looks like for you its "game over man".

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: CynConcepts

I think Biden is seen as a safe pair of hands for those who on either side can't vote for Trump but don't want the far left vision that's being peddled by the other candidates , a placeholder President for hopefully a better choice next election.

I'm shocked that the opposition haven't learned the lessons of 2016 , politicians are so lightweight these days.

A safe pair of hands you say?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

2 U.S. Code CHAPTER 17B—IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL

He didnt notify congress of the hold per the law because he was trying to use it to pressure Ukraine and if it got public it would ruin his plans.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

You're biased to the right...the mud pit is 99.9% right wingers...grow up.

But you're still wrong, the OP knew what the left said about Biden/Ukraine, dismissed it, and made another right wing circle jerk thread. How was I supposed to know that he knew how the left responded all along? He didn't admit to it til page 5. That is trolling. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted in the CNN vs Fox thread at all if the OP made a more thorough OP. I could care less about CNN and Fox having different spins on things, and unfortunately ATS, especially right wing conspirators don't have any interest in Disney, AT&T, Fox, Comcast, Time Warner etc how they all relate... because you've put all your eggs in the Trump basket. Snoozefest.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Alien Abduct

2 U.S. Code CHAPTER 17B—IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL

He didnt notify congress of the hold per the law because he was trying to use it to pressure Ukraine and if it got public it would ruin his plans.

Interesting. Why didnt the Democrats cite this law in there impeachment proceedings? In fact not a word of "quid pro quo"....why is that?

a reply to: network dude

Although it could suggest a possible reason about Trump's alleged motives, it really shouldn't have any effect on the legal decisions about what to do in regard to his actions.

They are separate cases.

Since there hasn't yet been any such evidence, there's that, too.

If any evidence exists that Either Joe Biden or Hunter Biden did ANYTHING corrupt while in Ukraine, anything at all, would't that totally negate the impeachment, and all the arguments over what Trump did or said?

No. This is evident by the reality we currently face. John Solomon released the goods on Biden months ago, Rudy Giuliani has been building the case in the mean time.

Each case needs to be taken on its own merits.

Trump has upset the status quo of political graft and corruption. With the Supreme Court ruling political donations as free speech and protected by the first amendment it sent this train off the rails a while back. With Ukraine going through a recent civil war does anyone really care that kick backs took place as long as we won? How many pallets of cash have just disappeared in war torn nations and who really cares as long as we keep on winning?

Biden has been working with the standards set by Enron in the international Energy markets, not much room for second place. How effective has things like arkincide and WTC7 been for the cause? Backed up by organizations like the Carlyle group and the global banking markets, as long as everyone gets their cut. The judicial fallout of the 2008 GFC was too hard for them, just let the market sort out its own mess.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: network dude

maybe use proper channels would have been a more logical choice...

But that's just me...

Peace

but does it negate the entire process regardless of the method used? I think it's an important argument.

And if you think the IC was trustworthy and not at all against Trump, you might have missed a few things that have been happening over the last 3 years. Who should he have called?

The Attorney General.

The AG is authorized to speak directly to Ukraine's Prosecutor General and Department of Justice on such matters.

a reply to: kwakakev

Agreed!

Drain the swamp!

Lolz🤪