The DNI guy is making them look like fools. They keep trying to trip him up, but he truly believes in the letter of the law and has followed it to a "T".
The DNI guy is making them look like fools. They keep trying to trip him up, but he truly believes in the letter of the law and has followed it to a "T".
Smorbun wrote:
Once Again Man wrote:
And once again:
https://thebulwark.com/truth-lies-and-the-nonsense-trump-biden-ukraine-false-equivalency/?fbclid=IwAR2eytAzSaDvcpm9kB3Bz4fde7T_XbB6bQswYCRcCn43mb1z5XKxelD3oGUREAD, Sally. It's not too painful of a process.
Please read and then stop asking painfully stupid, blatantly partisan questions.
Thanks!
Sally is intellectually challenged and has no ability to understand much beyond how to toast a Pop Tart.
Definition of Extortion:
The practice of obtaining something through force or threats. Joe Biden, in his capacity as VP of the United States, threatened to withhold $1 billion (the threat) unless the prosecutor was fired (what was obtained).
Rexxing wrote:
Once Again Man wrote:
It is acting on behalf of the United States of America for the interests of the United States of America.
Or acting on the behalf of your son.
Well, yeah.
Also, The Earth is round. Or it is flat.
Sally Vix wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
Sally is intellectually challenged and has no ability to understand much beyond how to toast a Pop Tart.
Definition of Extortion:
The practice of obtaining something through force or threats. Joe Biden, in his capacity as VP of the United States, threatened to withhold $1 billion (the threat) unless the prosecutor was fired (what was obtained).
So, you are saying that the United States attaching conditions to the provision of foreign aid is extortion.
Got it. My, you are an intellectual giant!
Who is this Congressman asking questions now? He's an idiot.
Calm Man . . . Supernaturally Calm Man wrote:
kibitzer wrote:
Okay, calm down, everybody. Yes, I detest Donald Trump, but let's get real.
Trump is unlikely to resign, in my supernaturally calm opinion (IMSCO). However, it is not clear that his resignation, if it were to come, would be an admission of failure. Instead it would be advertised as proof of the DEEP STATE and a weird victory for The Forgotten Man.
After resignation, Trump would launch Trump TV. Expect Hannity to join up as lead talking head.
Trump would ask his MAGats for donations to fund his venture. Of course, he is rich enough to fund it himself but he doesn't actually have enough enough cash, so he his supports will throw money at him like he was a strip dancer.
MAGats will be glued to Trump TV and forgo work for the chance to hear their "chosen one" tell them what they want to hear.
political expert wrote:
one thing is clear. TRUMP IS throwing PENCE under the bus to SAVE HIMELF.
^ FIXED
Democrats have completely missed the boat on this. They need to realize the rules have changed and a different game is being played. Drop all the impeachment stuff and just engage some of these foreign countries. Without being blunt about it just let them know that if in power you have the purse strings and policy power. Then let them know how nice it would be to have information about various republicans and leave it at that. If you cast a big enough net you will get some dirt. What are your opponents going to say. They’ve already conceded it’s ok.
SRMartin wrote:
^ Nothingburger . . . . frightened little Trumper.
You are missing the fact that Republican voters don't care about ethics but Democrat voters do.
So, Trump can lie and cheat and his base won't care.
If a Democrat acted that way, they'd be asked to resign by their party members or voted out by the Democrat base.
Two Sides wrote:
You are missing the fact that Republican voters don't care about ethics but Democrat voters do.
So, Trump can lie and cheat and his base won't care.
If a Democrat acted that way, they'd be asked to resign by their party members or voted out by the Democrat base.
Hillary Clinton was demanded to turn over her e-mails in her capacity as Secretary of State. What did she do? She destroyed 30,000 e-mails. She bleached her server and smashed it to smithereens. Did you Democrats raise a stink because of that? Of course not, she was worshiped by you Libs.
Sally Vix wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
Sally is intellectually challenged and has no ability to understand much beyond how to toast a Pop Tart.
Definition of Extortion:
The practice of obtaining something through force or threats. Joe Biden, in his capacity as VP of the United States, threatened to withhold $1 billion (the threat) unless the prosecutor was fired (what was obtained).
As an almost uncountable number of posters here have correctly determined, you know nothing, and you continue to prove that to be true including your insistence on this issue. You are indeed an idiot.
present, MBA wrote:
XY wrote:
Donald is probably most worried about his taxes being subpoenaed.
I suspect that you are exactly correct here.
Almost everything else can be spun or "whatabouted" with various degrees of success, but the tax returns will speak for themselves.
/
Now that a formal impeachment inquiry is underway, I cannot imagine that SCOTUS would stand in the way of Congress's getting those returns--as long as they're material to the inquiry, and they surely would be. This reminds me of SCOTUS's 8-0 ruling in United States v. Nixon, ordering the delivery of subpoenaed materials. Executive privilege has limits.
TBH I really have no idea what the tax returns would show--but DJT's unrelenting insistence on holding them back speaks volumes.
/
Incidentally, shout-out to the IRS et al. I'm genuinely pleased that President Trump's returns haven't been leaked already--nice to see that privacy can be maintained, even in the face of what must be massive temptation to leak 'em.
His tax returns have nothing to do with his phone call to the Ukrainian president. How are they material?
Sorry to break this news to the Trumpers and anti-Trumpers.
As most likely the only poster who has read the memo, the complaint, and the OLC info, it is apparent that this is not enough to bring the end to Trump, but will harm him significantly.
Maguire is doing a good job of protecting himself.
Before this hearing, there was a question about whether he broke the law by not forwarding the whistleblower complaint to congress in a prompt manner.
I find his explanation to be credible. Maguire makes the argument that, legally, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He had to try to comply with both the whistleblower law and the laws concerning executive privilege. So he tried to get clearance on the privilege matters then complied with the whistleblower law as promptly as he could.
As long as Maguire is telling the truth, any reasonable judge and jury would sympathize with his situation and conclude that he acted in good faith.
And the most interesting thing about this hearing is that Maguire appears far more concerned with following the law than protecting the president. That is the thing that is most telling. And I'm glad to see it.
ARNO wrote:
Sorry to break this news to the Trumpers and anti-Trumpers.
As most likely the only poster who has read the memo, the complaint, and the OLC info, it is apparent that this is not enough to bring the end to Trump, but will harm him significantly.
read this and see what you think.
it's an argument that trump committed exaclty the kind of 'high crimes' the founders meant when they wrote the impeachment/removal rules.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/opinions/trump-ukraine-call-if-this-isnt-impeachable-nothing-is-bowman/index.htmlSRMartin wrote:
Democrats have completely missed the boat on this. They need to realize the rules have changed and a different game is being played. Drop all the impeachment stuff and just engage some of these foreign countries. Without being blunt about it just let them know that if in power you have the purse strings and policy power. Then let them know how nice it would be to have information about various republicans and leave it at that. If you cast a big enough net you will get some dirt. What are your opponents going to say. They’ve already conceded it’s ok.
BZZZZ! INCORRECT!
Fat hurts wrote:
Maguire is doing a good job of protecting himself.
Before this hearing, there was a question about whether he broke the law by not forwarding the whistleblower complaint to congress in a prompt manner.
I find his explanation to be credible. Maguire makes the argument that, legally, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He had to try to comply with both the whistleblower law and the laws concerning executive privilege. So he tried to get clearance on the privilege matters then complied with the whistleblower law as promptly as he could.
As long as Maguire is telling the truth, any reasonable judge and jury would sympathize with his situation and conclude that he acted in good faith.
And the most interesting thing about this hearing is that Maguire appears far more concerned with following the law than protecting the president. That is the thing that is most telling. And I'm glad to see it.
I agree with this. We probably need a change to the law so that it is clear it is not necessary to go to an accused to get permission on whether a complain should be sent to Congress or wherever its destination lies.