Mitch is whining that all these pesky votes about evidence are taking too long! Schurmer said, put on another pot of coffee, Turkey Neck.
But in a nice way.
Mitch is whining that all these pesky votes about evidence are taking too long! Schurmer said, put on another pot of coffee, Turkey Neck.
But in a nice way.
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
were you asleep? Trump ordered exec branch people not to testify, and for the most part they did not. So no, the Congress could not have 'whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.'
Trump ordered the exec branch not to supply any documents. They did not supply any documents. So no, the Congress could not have 'whatever evidence they felt necessary.'
You know this but you say it anyway. you are a troll.
Quit with the troll crap. I am not. Obama similarly ordered his people to refuse testifying. Remember Lois Lerner? She was the IRS head who committed terrible crimes. She was never held accountable. She refused to testify even though what she did was terrible. Every recent president has ordered their minions to not testify. I think they should testify but this is the way it is.
But Obama! Wah wah!
-its_baddude wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
It is being reported that Tiny tried to repeal the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This is a very effective law that keeps companies around the world from engaging in bribery and extortion. Other developed nations have similar laws and these laws are broad enough that they cover a huge proportion of all businesses all over the world. Basically, any entity that does business in a country with a FCPA law can be prosecuted no matter where the corruption actually took place.
But Tiny argued that businesses should be allowed to demand and accept bribes. He said it wasn't fair.
You (and you liberal friends) are taking a narrow view of the corruption legislation. No sane republican is for corruption. The problem is the laws the libs want to pass have side effects. Yet simple and effective anti corruption legislation such as term limits for politician are ignored.
As usual, the issue is not as simple as the headlines imply. For a more in depth view of the situation you can read this paper.
https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/9/2/153/4952051
FCPA was passed with massive support from both sides of the isle and it has been effective. It isn’t some “lib” law all of a sudden just because trump doesn’t like it. JFC do some basic research.
Just keep in mind:
90,000 documents for a president lying abou my sex
0 documents for a president bribing a foreign leader to cheat in an upcoming election
Sally Vix wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
Typo, wrong data, incorrect information, misunderstanding of information, and just plain wrong on other things in just about all ways possible. You never get anything right and yet you have the gall to criticize anyone here. You deserve all the negatives that come your way from all the people who give it to you. When everyone is telling you that you are wrong all the time, it's time to look in a mirror and ask yourself why that is. Laziness on your part? Inability to determine what is correct and what isn't? Amoral attitude that your team is right no matter what? I think it's the first two. You are in over your head in this thread. Complicated discussions where facts are necessary are not for you.
I would never take advice from you. Let me emphasize that ... I would NEVER take any advice from you. I have no idea - none whatsoever - but you come here and spew your filth day after day and day after day. I was graduated (past passive which you have no idea what that even means) from the top of my class at a top 40 school in the world and I hear your BS and your insults day after day after day. For all I know you are a truck driver or work at Circle K. Doesn't matter - your continued insults makes you a very very very bitter person. So lets agree to never talk to each other. Agreed?
Not agreed. Get off the "was graduated" thing. That is not the most accepted form. Go look it up. Also, you have been told and then agreed that you were wrong about Texas at Austin being a top 40 school in the world, and yet you continue to spew this nonsense. You don't have a graduate degree, and that ranking only has to do with graduate schools. Either you are immoral and continue to lie there, or you are just so stupid that you forgot this has already been determined. Only you really know if you are a liar or just unbelievably stupid. You are unbelievably stupid, but only you know what drives you to continue to say that noise. You have shown yourself to be stupid and a bad person. I will let you know whenever it is you continue to show those things. You do not belong on a thread such as this. It is beyond you.
Sally Vix wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
WH before: We will not participate in this process.
WH now: We were prevented from defending trump.
To get back on Zoe for a bit. The Senate has a gym She is a gym member. The gym has trainers. How did she let herself look like this? She gets paid quite well and can hire personal trainers. To be blunt - she looks like crap. Why has she allowed herself to look like this?
You are an a-hole.
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
comback of the year.
you won LRC.
That was indeed a nice comeback. I am sorry if I was hard on Zoe but she has a fluff job and can go to the gym with her personal trainers and chooses not to.
You did it because you are an ass. You get slammed here due to your lack of intelligence, so you abandon trying to present yourself as smart for a minute and you go bust on the appearance of a 72-year-old woman. How low can you get? And by the way, she "graduated from" Stanford University and has a J.D. on top of that, so she's way better than you where it matters. Idiot. Ass.
Trollminator wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I am fit as a fiddle Troll. Maybe you are okay with letting yourself go - I am not. So if you want our congressladies weighing 300 pounds then that is what you like.
It’s a little weird to be obsessing about her looks don’t you think? Haven’t seen you voice this kind of superficial criticism of your orange goddess. Usually I hear women scrutinizing other women’s looks.
Shows the character of Sally. Make fun of how a 72-year-old woman looks. WTF is wrong with that guy?
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
were you asleep? Trump ordered exec branch people not to testify, and for the most part they did not. So no, the Congress could not have 'whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.'
Trump ordered the exec branch not to supply any documents. They did not supply any documents. So no, the Congress could not have 'whatever evidence they felt necessary.'
You know this but you say it anyway. you are a troll.
Quit with the troll crap. I am not. Obama similarly ordered his people to refuse testifying. Remember Lois Lerner? She was the IRS head who committed terrible crimes. She was never held accountable. She refused to testify even though what she did was terrible. Every recent president has ordered their minions to not testify. I think they should testify but this is the way it is.
I agree that you are not a troll. You are just a partisan Trump-loving dumb*ss with the biggest part of that being that you are really really stupid.
OMB releases hundreds of pages of documents regarding withheld Ukrainian aid just before midnight. Trial gaveled to a close in the wee hours. Sure, that’s normal.
The partisanship is strong even for allowing any evidence or testimony to start the trial.
That makes the idea of 51 votes to convict impossible. 51 doesn't throw him out but sends a signal that most think he's guilty.
I think in the fall Republicans will lose senate seats in Maine, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina.
Susan Collins of Maine is the lowest rated senator. Republicans don't like her because she rides the fence a lot. Democrats don't like her because she ultimately backs Trump on every vote.
Cory Gardner in Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona (who was appointed, not elected) will be gone.
Thom Tillis in North Carolina will have a tough time but corruption is strong in that state and they may suppress enough votes to keep him.
Joni Ernst in Iowa will have a tough time defending her acquittal of Trump.
And I'm not sure how safe Mitch McConnell is even in red Kentucky.
They just voted in a Democrat for governor.
And demographics keep changing. People move from state to state. White people aren't breeding much. Young people are coming of age to vote and many are more interested in voting than in previous times.
It will be a real challenge for Republicans to hold onto any power.
Trollminator wrote:
-its_baddude wrote:
You (and you liberal friends) are taking a narrow view of the corruption legislation. No sane republican is for corruption. The problem is the laws the libs want to pass have side effects. Yet simple and effective anti corruption legislation such as term limits for politician are ignored.
As usual, the issue is not as simple as the headlines imply. For a more in depth view of the situation you can read this paper.
https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/9/2/153/4952051FCPA was passed with massive support from both sides of the isle and it has been effective. It isn’t some “lib” law all of a sudden just because trump doesn’t like it. JFC do some basic research.
FCPA was sponsored by a lib a signed into law by a Jimmy Carter, a lib. This is the definition of a lib law. Modern Democrats don't compromise. They would not sign a conservative law. FCPA has been amended several times.
The "massive support" was due to Republicans trying to be nice after the Nixon impeachment and Jimmy Carter controlled both the house and the senate.
The real Pookie Washington wrote:
agip wrote:
What do you think Trump did that was wrong and illegal?
were you asleep? Trump ordered exec branch people not to testify, and for the most part they did not. So no, the Congress could not have 'whichever witnesses they wanted to testify.'
Trump ordered the exec branch not to supply any documents. They did not supply any documents. So no, the Congress could not have 'whatever evidence they felt necessary.'
You know this but you say it anyway. you are a troll.
^This
Are you on drugs Sally? You know damn well Trump prevented all the key witnesses with first hand knowledge from testifying. We would be looking at a year or more if they choose to fight it in court AND DONALD TRUMP KNOWS THAT! He is obstructing Congress. I couldn’t care less if the whistleblower or Hunter testify. Has absolutely nothing to with whether Trump did what he did.
-its_baddude wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
It is being reported that Tiny tried to repeal the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This is a very effective law that keeps companies around the world from engaging in bribery and extortion. Other developed nations have similar laws and these laws are broad enough that they cover a huge proportion of all businesses all over the world. Basically, any entity that does business in a country with a FCPA law can be prosecuted no matter where the corruption actually took place.
But Tiny argued that businesses should be allowed to demand and accept bribes. He said it wasn't fair.
You (and you liberal friends) are taking a narrow view of the corruption legislation. No sane republican is for corruption. The problem is the laws the libs want to pass have side effects. Yet simple and effective anti corruption legislation such as term limits for politician are ignored.
As usual, the issue is not as simple as the headlines imply. For a more in depth view of the situation you can read this paper.
https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/9/2/153/4952051
And I can cite plenty of articles about how the FCPA is working well.
The point is that Tiny wanted to do away with the law altogether. He wants to live in a world where bribery is the way you do business.
Fat hurts wrote:
-its_baddude wrote:
You (and you liberal friends) are taking a narrow view of the corruption legislation. No sane republican is for corruption. The problem is the laws the libs want to pass have side effects. Yet simple and effective anti corruption legislation such as term limits for politician are ignored.
As usual, the issue is not as simple as the headlines imply. For a more in depth view of the situation you can read this paper.
https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/9/2/153/4952051And I can cite plenty of articles about how the FCPA is working well.
The point is that Tiny wanted to do away with the law altogether. He wants to live in a world where bribery is the way you do business.
And as you said, "No sane Republican is for corruption". I agree.
But Tiny is neither sane nor is he Republican.
I would understand if the GOP was being asked to break some rule in order to allow evidence to be presented, but no such thing is happening. That leaves only 1 reason why they are not allowing evidence.
Joe is finding his path on TV now...he's always been good in person but now he is figuring out how to present himself.
The elevator endorsement at the NYT was amazing, and this sort of interview shows who he is.
You know who this guy is...he' s genuine. That's and his steadiness will make him president.
https://twitter.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1219997372362772482?s=20
agip wrote:
Joe is finding his path on TV now...he's always been good in person but now he is figuring out how to present himself.
The elevator endorsement at the NYT was amazing, and this sort of interview shows who he is.
You know who this guy is...he' s genuine. That's and his steadiness will make him president.
https://twitter.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1219997372362772482?s=20
I think his biggest strength is that even after all these decades in the game he still comes off as someone who genuinely cares about people. Polar opposite of impotus.
---its_baddude wrote:
FCPA was sponsored by a lib a signed into law by a Jimmy Carter, a lib. This is the definition of a lib law. Modern Democrats don't compromise. They would not sign a conservative law.
The 116th House of Representatives passed into law 38 bills introduced by Senate or House
Republicans in the 2019 legislative session.