Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I thought the impeachment trial they were meant to be impartial....They're supposed to be, but many of the "jurors" announced their verdicts before the trial even started. Not impartial by any standard.
All this impeachment did was embolden Trump to act even worse than he already was. To be beholden to a person is a dangerous path to follow and is very much how a dictator operates.
The bill to be able to recall a senator is probably actually a good idea to have, but scary that it has come about because that senator dare vote his conscience instead of the party.
Strange...Ummmm.... You do know that Trump can't legally stop aide due to 'concerns of corruption' yes? That's illegal. Only congress can stop that money.This post is so wrong it's laughable!
The President can withhold foreign aid for any reason he wants to withhold it.
Please stop posting nonsense.
Or post the law that backs your silly claim.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim
There ya go.
What you provided actually states the President can delay foreign aid.
Got another one?
Nope.Quote(b) Consistency with legislative policy
Deferrals shall be permissible only—
(1) to provide for contingencies;
(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or
(3) as specifically provided by law.
No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.
He (or his administration) failed to report the defferrment to congress in the required time.Oh? Why? Isn't the point for America to win, not "abide by other nation's laws". But even so, couple of problems with this line of thinking.Blah, blah, and blah.I believe there are 65 million US Citizens who are interested if Joe Biden has engaged in corrupt practices in the Ukraine and other foreign countries.
Therefore, US Interests and the president's interest jive.
1. Why now? The crime is years old. Is it because its political?
2. Since Joe Biden has nothing to do with the military aide, it makes no sense to hold it until they investigate.
3. Joe Biden has already been cleared of any wrongdoings by Ukraine.
4. Why not start the investigation in America? Why didn't Trump ask his own justice department to investigate?
Also: You know Trump is a criminal in Iran, right? That matters to the 65 million Americans too, yes?
There seems to be a glimmer of hope that witnesses could be called.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mcconnell-says-gop-lacks-votes-to-block-impeachment-witnesses-wsj-2020-01-28
No high crimes and misdemeanors. Haven't shown that his intention in asking Ukraine to investigate was for his own political interest and not the country's. (It can be beneficial to both and still be completely legal. If not, many if not most presidents should have been impeached) The subpoenas they issued weren't even valid because of procedural errors. Most of the testimonies were people's opinions. Ambassador Sondland was the only one to testify who had first hand knowledge. He testified that Trump specifically said no quid pro quo. (In reality there was a quid pro quo, but there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo per se. Again, it has to be shown that Trump's intent was for personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.)
To commence the investigation was ill-advised. But an ill-advised investigation is not what needs to be demonstrated.
Let's break this down.
Extorting Ukraine and obstructing congress falls under the definition of high crime and misdemeanor.
Everyone under oath swears that he had the intention of extorting Ukraine. Anyone who would have spoken directly to Trump about it is blocked from testifying. Why are they blocked from testimony? Is it because they don't want to make Trump too innocent? Jesus tap dancing Christ, his former national security advisor is releasing a book with a chapter on it. Contemplate this... no one who would exonerate Trump is being asked to testify. Why is that?
Trump specifically said "no quid pro quo"? Oh. Case closed. Because if the defended said they didn't do it then that's it.
Oh hold the phone. Procedural errors! Holy Shit, man. I'm sorry. I didn't know. These monsters didn't accurate fill out the A0 88 authorization for a subpeona? MADNESS! Obviously conspiracies to defraud the public and cheat in an election pale in comparison to not having a notary public notarize the subpoenas.
And, oh my lord. I just found this out with some research. I have no choice but to go full #MAGA after this atrocity. I don't mean to upset you so please sit down before you read this. Those monsterous house democrats failed to honor House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1). THIS WILL NOT STAND! I'm booking a flight to DC and I'm demanding the immediate resignation from Adam Schiff.
This is a dark day my friends. They say that there's two things that people will never forget. The first being where they were on 9-11 and how they found out that the Democrats didn't follow House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1)
In other news, Trump is still your president. So deal with it.
This is a shitty attitude to have. This is, quite literally, how dictators get power. A bunch if die hard fans allow him to do as he pleases, praising him for it, and tells/pushes down anyone who criticizes.
So yeah.
I thought everyone knew by now to never take me seriously.
Its always hard to tell.
No high crimes and misdemeanors. Haven't shown that his intention in asking Ukraine to investigate was for his own political interest and not the country's. (It can be beneficial to both and still be completely legal. If not, many if not most presidents should have been impeached) The subpoenas they issued weren't even valid because of procedural errors. Most of the testimonies were people's opinions. Ambassador Sondland was the only one to testify who had first hand knowledge. He testified that Trump specifically said no quid pro quo. (In reality there was a quid pro quo, but there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo per se. Again, it has to be shown that Trump's intent was for personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.)
To commence the investigation was ill-advised. But an ill-advised investigation is not what needs to be demonstrated.
Let's break this down.
Extorting Ukraine and obstructing congress falls under the definition of high crime and misdemeanor.
Everyone under oath swears that he had the intention of extorting Ukraine. Anyone who would have spoken directly to Trump about it is blocked from testifying. Why are they blocked from testimony? Is it because they don't want to make Trump too innocent? Jesus tap dancing Christ, his former national security advisor is releasing a book with a chapter on it. Contemplate this... no one who would exonerate Trump is being asked to testify. Why is that?
Trump specifically said "no quid pro quo"? Oh. Case closed. Because if the defended said they didn't do it then that's it.
Oh hold the phone. Procedural errors! Holy Shit, man. I'm sorry. I didn't know. These monsters didn't accurate fill out the A0 88 authorization for a subpeona? MADNESS! Obviously conspiracies to defraud the public and cheat in an election pale in comparison to not having a notary public notarize the subpoenas.
And, oh my lord. I just found this out with some research. I have no choice but to go full #MAGA after this atrocity. I don't mean to upset you so please sit down before you read this. Those monsterous house democrats failed to honor House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1). THIS WILL NOT STAND! I'm booking a flight to DC and I'm demanding the immediate resignation from Adam Schiff.
This is a dark day my friends. They say that there's two things that people will never forget. The first being where they were on 9-11 and how they found out that the Democrats didn't follow House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1)
In other news, Trump is still your president. So deal with it.
This is a shitty attitude to have. This is, quite literally, how dictators get power. A bunch if die hard fans allow him to do as he pleases, praising him for it, and tells/pushes down anyone who criticizes.
So yeah.
No high crimes and misdemeanors. Haven't shown that his intention in asking Ukraine to investigate was for his own political interest and not the country's. (It can be beneficial to both and still be completely legal. If not, many if not most presidents should have been impeached) The subpoenas they issued weren't even valid because of procedural errors. Most of the testimonies were people's opinions. Ambassador Sondland was the only one to testify who had first hand knowledge. He testified that Trump specifically said no quid pro quo. (In reality there was a quid pro quo, but there is nothing wrong with a quid pro quo per se. Again, it has to be shown that Trump's intent was for personal advantage against a political rival and not to investigate corruption on behalf of the country.)
To commence the investigation was ill-advised. But an ill-advised investigation is not what needs to be demonstrated.
Let's break this down.
Extorting Ukraine and obstructing congress falls under the definition of high crime and misdemeanor.
Everyone under oath swears that he had the intention of extorting Ukraine. Anyone who would have spoken directly to Trump about it is blocked from testifying. Why are they blocked from testimony? Is it because they don't want to make Trump too innocent? Jesus tap dancing Christ, his former national security advisor is releasing a book with a chapter on it. Contemplate this... no one who would exonerate Trump is being asked to testify. Why is that?
Trump specifically said "no quid pro quo"? Oh. Case closed. Because if the defended said they didn't do it then that's it.
Oh hold the phone. Procedural errors! Holy Shit, man. I'm sorry. I didn't know. These monsters didn't accurate fill out the A0 88 authorization for a subpeona? MADNESS! Obviously conspiracies to defraud the public and cheat in an election pale in comparison to not having a notary public notarize the subpoenas.
And, oh my lord. I just found this out with some research. I have no choice but to go full #MAGA after this atrocity. I don't mean to upset you so please sit down before you read this. Those monsterous house democrats failed to honor House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1). THIS WILL NOT STAND! I'm booking a flight to DC and I'm demanding the immediate resignation from Adam Schiff.
This is a dark day my friends. They say that there's two things that people will never forget. The first being where they were on 9-11 and how they found out that the Democrats didn't follow House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1)
My fiancé likes my rod, does that count?Wait a minute, what are you talking about...?
My fiancé likes my rod, does that count?Nice to find a partner who also likes fly fishing.
Are there alot of rivers in LA (born on the bayou), or is the bayou just one river?
Ivanka's hot.
Deal with it libtards!
Let he who doesn’t want to bang Ivanka cast the first stone.I have no interest in banging Ivanka.
I threw up in Shreveport. Does that count for anything?
https://twitter.com/SpaceForceDoD/status/1218335200964464650?s=20QuoteThe first #SpaceForce utility uniform nametapes have touched down in the
Pentagon.
@EsperDoD
@SecAFOfficial
@SpaceForceCSO
@GenDaveGoldfein
@DeptofDefense
@usairforce
I will give his administration credit for giving us a space force, but I won't be satisfied until they invent space camo.
My Dad recentlt went on a trip to louisiana, I'd really like to see it myself as i'm french canadian.
Are you cajun?
Did you really just copy and paste all that? lol
Is that Louisiana state?
We will see what will happen to CIA agents downed the aircraft work in Iran Airforce.
we must also consider the attempt by the Ukrainian aircraft to try confuse air defense to open a way to possible American attack. I don't trust Ukranians at all. Why are they carrying Canadians and Iranians from Iran to Canada? Conspiracy?
You really need to shut the fuck up.
No, you.
All in all it's look good so far. Iraq informed our military bases of the attacks hours in advance. This seems like a carefully executed PR operation for Iran to save face.
Now it's all up to Trump to act like a normal human and just let it go. So in other words we're probably all fucked.
In his news conference he said they'll ramp up the sanctions on Iran.
Yeah but it's hard to know what he means by sanctions though. It would be easy to do sham retaliation sanctions that don't really do anything.
All in all it's look good so far. Iraq informed our military bases of the attacks hours in advance. This seems like a carefully executed PR operation for Iran to save face.
Now it's all up to Trump to act like a normal human and just let it go. So in other words we're probably all fucked.
Me neither, but for some reason Trump is droning Iranians instead of the Pentagon.All you're doing now is confirming that you'd like the drone strikes if Trump was doing them (which is true for most republican voters).People are overlooking something significant here: this wasn't just about killing Soleimani, it's about terrorising rivals. The message this gives to opponents of the US is "no matter who you are and where you are, we don't give a fuck about repercussions and international law, we're just gonna kill you with a drone if you get too uppity".
Kind of like Obama did with all his drone strikes, which also killed countless civilians.
And if Obama had airstriked Soleimani that would have been at least one thing I agreed with him on.
I have no problem droning the fuck out of some terrorists.
All you're doing now is confirming that you'd like the drone strikes if Trump was doing them (which is true for most republican voters).People are overlooking something significant here: this wasn't just about killing Soleimani, it's about terrorising rivals. The message this gives to opponents of the US is "no matter who you are and where you are, we don't give a fuck about repercussions and international law, we're just gonna kill you with a drone if you get too uppity".
Kind of like Obama did with all his drone strikes, which also killed countless civilians.
And if Obama had airstriked Soleimani that would have been at least one thing I agreed with him on.
