Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why hasn't the FBI taken the 24 Republican Congressmen into custody?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 99 of 123 (865776)
10-30-2019 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
10-30-2019 5:41 AM


let's keep one or two things straight, please.
... Democrats who hate Trump and are still smarting from Hillary's loss of the election to him.
Curiously I don't hate Humpty Dumbty Trumpty, I think he is incompetent to be president and that he engages in criminal behavior to enhance his person fortune and a narcissist that makes it easy for foreign officials to play him by catering to his need for approval.
Back in the bad old days it used to be that being a homosexual was a security risk because you could be played by threats of exposure. Is this any different? Saudi Arabia as a case in point, early on, made a big celebration of his first visit. They got increased arms then, and since then he has provided them with classified nulcear bomb technology. Saudi Arabia was behind 9-11, if you remember, and this also goes to his inexcusable behavior regarding Jamal Khashoggi's despicable horrid murder.
Second, Hillary lost the election by misplaying several issues, not least of which was dismissing and insulting all the Bernie supporters after corrupting the primary system. You don't make voters angry and then expect them to vote for you because of some lesser-evil metric allowing you to be almost as evil. She also misdirected where campaign energy was spent -- with a lot more in California than was necessary and not enough in swing states. Especially after insulting coal miners. It was one of the worst campaigns I've ever seen. So I blame Hillary for losing, not Trump. It was hers to lose and she did.
Curiously I predicted that outcome right after the Democrat Convention. The DNC is trying the same pogrom with Biden, but more people are not buy into it this time around.
Now ... has or is Trump committing illegal acts?
Does he golf at resorts he owns and has not divested himself from?
Yes OR No  
Does he personally profit from this activity?
Yes OR No  
That is activity that violates the emoluments clause of the constitution.
Has he asked other countries for help by digging up information on Biden?
Yes OR No  
That is activity that violates federal election law.
Has he interfered with and/or obstructed investigations of his and his aides behavior?
Yes OR No  
That is activity that violates federal laws
Has he aided a foreign country that is a US enemy (Russia) by not enforcing congress approved sanctions?
Yes OR No  
Has he aided a foreign country that is a US enemy (Russia) by withdrawal from Syria?
Yes OR No  
Providing aid to enemies is treason.
These are facts, Faith -- you can check them out on the internet if you are not already aware of them.
Take off the rose colored glasses Faith. Calling people that report illegal behavior liars does not change the actual evidence of illegal behavior, especially when it is documented and admitted to.
Trump makes Nixon look good.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : checks backwards, black yes, white no
Edited by RAZD, : selection key
Edited by RAZD, : primary
Edited by RAZD, : formatting

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 10-30-2019 5:41 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 10-30-2019 3:12 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 103 of 123 (865788)
10-30-2019 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Taq
10-30-2019 4:35 PM


Re: All the accusations of Trump are nothing but wishful thinking
Why can't you answer the question?
If the evidence pans out and Trump did in fact do what the Democrats have accused him of, will you give Trump a pass? Yes or no?
Let's ask the question: if Trump shot a random person in Times Square on camera for no reason would she give it a pass.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 10-30-2019 4:35 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 11-01-2019 6:48 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 110 of 123 (865821)
10-31-2019 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by dwise1
10-30-2019 3:12 PM


Re: let's keep one or two things straight, please.
Not Jar btw ...
problem is how the buttons look (on my browser) seems backwards.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that ... /
The filled circle looks like the picked one versus the empty circle
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that ... /
Same code, different background color
I've updated the post in question to alleviate this confusion.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 10-30-2019 3:12 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 113 of 123 (865861)
11-01-2019 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
11-01-2019 6:48 AM


EDITED: ever heard "where there's smoke there's fire?"
Not doing hypotheticals. ...
Can I hold you to that? No more hypotheticals about evolution and the age of the earth? Certainly no more hypotheticals about an imaginary flood?
... That's all the Left has I understand, ...
Actually the adults in the room have quite a bit of real solid evidence on impeachable offensives, some committed in full view in public.
Awarding the G7 summit location to his Doral Resort for starters. He owns it, he will profit from it, this violates the emoluments clause.
Asking a foreign government for political help for two.
Obstruction of justice for three.
And his latest: bribing senators:
quote:
Trump Is Committing 'Felony Bribery' by Giving Fundraising Cash to GOP Senators Ahead of Impeachment Trial: Ex-Bush Ethics Lawyer
By Jason Lemon On 10/31/19 at 10:28 AM EDT
Attorney Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, warned on Thursday that President Donald Trump appeared to be committing "felony bribery" by giving Republican senators fundraising cash ahead of an increasingly likely impeachment trial in the Senate.
The lawyer shared an article published by Politico on Thursday morning. Titled "Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash," the article outlined how the president is turning to his large network of donors to raise funds for a few senators facing difficult re-election campaigns in 2020. All of those senators have also signed a resolution condemning the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry.
"This is a bribe. Any other American who offered cash to the jury before a trial would go to prison for felony bribery. But he can get away with it?" Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, wrote on Twitter. "Criminal."
There's more. Ever heard the phrase "where there's smoke there's fire?"
... This recent supposedly transparent official Impeachment Inquiry or whatever they call it simply isn't, no surprise there. The Republicans have due process except when Schiff or Pelosi say they don't. Ha Ha. And meanwhile there has not yet been one CHARGE they've established to impeach him over. Isn't that kind of fundamental? You come up with a charge and go from there. ...
The impeachment inquiry hearings were held to determine if there were sufficient grounds to launch a formal impeachment hearing. They did, so now we have the formal public hearing to determine the charges to be made.
... You come up with a charge and go from there. ...
You gather evidence of a wrongdoing, then you make a charge of wrongdoing -- that is where we are.
Funny with all those lists of Trump's supposed wrongdoings everybody keeps throwing around here you'd think they'd have one or two or a few charges to announce as what they are going to try to impeach him for. Gee, maybe they don't have any. Guess they'll have to make up a few. Which is of course all they've done so far anyway. ...
Yep, lists of evidence for wrongdoings, lots of them. So now we go to the part where they are formalized into charges of impeachable offensives. What's made up are the pathetic excuses by the White House for not complying with the subpoenas.
... But this is just another stall, nothing official is underway yet. What a miserable charade.
Curiously it is the White House that is stalling and putting out smoke screens and trying to hide further evidence of their malfeasance.
Why do that if they are innocent? Smoke. "where there's smoke there's fire?"
We will see this unfold.
EDIT to correct in italics:
Trump has already made history: he is the FOURTH president to face impeachment (Nixon faced it but resigned before the votes to impeach were made).
Trump has done the same as Clinton regarding charges of impeachment (weasel out of that one), he was not convicted by the senate, but Trump has done more than have illicit affairs that he covered up. Things that may rise to treason.
Trump has done the same as Nixon regarding charges of impeachment (obstruction of justice, coverup), and Nixon resigned because he was told he would lose in the Senate.
Where there's smoke there's usually fire. Looks like a LOT of fires to me ...
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : correction

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 11-01-2019 6:48 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 11-01-2019 10:43 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 121 by dwise1, posted 11-01-2019 1:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 116 of 123 (865871)
11-01-2019 12:25 PM


absolute immunity???
quote:
Judge Pushes Back On Trump Lawyers Trying To Block Possible Impeachment Witnesses
A federal judge on Thursday fired skeptical questions at lawyers for the Trump administration who argued that current and former senior White House aides have "absolute immunity" from being questioned by House impeachment investigators.
The hearing, before U.S. District Judge Ketanji Jackson in Washington, was the first time Trump lawyers tested in open court their attempt to block White House aides from cooperating with the impeachment inquiry into the president.
Jackson at times struggled with the Trump administration's argument that former White House counsel Don McGahn does not have to comply with a subpoena filed by House Democrats for him to sit for testimony related to conversations he was party to that could implicate Trump in possible articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice.
"So what does the separation of powers mean to you then?" Jackson asked Trump administration lawyers. "How can the legislature actively exert its oversight power unless it has the ability to exercise its investigative powers?"
James Burnham, a lawyer with the Justice Department, responded that applying "absolute immunity" to current and former aides close to the Oval Office is "not an exotic thing that we just cooked up." Burnham said it has been the legal position of the White House for decades so that information covered by executive privilege will not be exposed.
Jackson sounded incredulous at this line of argument, noting the difficulty in enforcing it given the number of White House aides who have cycled through the Trump administration. The judge said Trump does not invoke that concern when former White House staff appear on cable news.
"For some reason, the president doesn't own it when former officials appear on MSNBC," Jackson said.
House attorney Doug Letter, who previously spent decades working in the Department of Justice, said the Trump administration "made up" the concept that all senior Trump aides have an absolute shield from any kind of testimony.
"This is what they wish the law were. It is not what the law is," Letter said.
He said it may be the current position of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, but those opinions change with administrations and sometimes conflicting opinions exist at once. More importantly, Letter said, a Justice Department legal opinion should not persuade a federal court.
"It's interesting like a law review article is interesting, but it's not binding on you or Congress," Letter said to the judge.
This "absolute immunity" argument could have serious impact on the balance of power.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024