 |
Parnas is a disgruntled associate of Rudy? There is something about being up for felony charges that makes you start making stories up....and digging your hole deeper: PARNAS IS A JOKE! Did you know Parnas is one of the turd's that helped fabricate the Steele Dossier? He is also tied in with Hillary Clinton: The Demos keep finding scum and trying to make them into something nice: YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD AND MAKE IT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A TURD!
Why didn't the House do that? Wasn't that their job?Quote:
Instead of ignoring and dismissing the allegations by Parnas and his accompanied documentation should we investigate?
When have I done that?Quote:
You always have a pattern of defending conservative rumors and holding it as fact
As to the Impound Act, you might have a legitimate gripe there, but I imagine that it is routinely violated and has been for years by other presidents. If that is true, then are you suggesting we prosecute all of them?
BTW, there is a counter argument about Trump's violating that act. "The funds were a special appropriation, not a budget line item. Congress is working on a continual string of appropriations bills and continuing resolutions, rather than passing a budget as they’re supposed to.
By The Impoundment Act of 1974 ( more properly, Article X of The Budget Act of 1974) the President may hold funds (impound them) for up to 45 days to ask Congress to rescind an appropriation. Since Congress has always ignored such requests, and never honored one - the practice has become to impound for not more than 45 days, then release.
The President didn’t violate the letter or spirit of either the non-existent budget nor the appropriation nor the Bufget Act of ‘74, Article X.
He says he impounded the funds over concern that other European countries were doing more to help Ukraine. I suppose one would have to examine the evidence that any other country did anything more than they would’ve otherwise in order to see if the President was effective at his stated purpose."
https://www.quora.com/Did-President-...s-from-Ukraine
basically it is a classic bill Congress passes when they decide to abrogate their constitutional mandate until it is convenient for them to assume their defined role. Think the war power's act .
Nothing like getting caught doing dirt to make you sing like a bird and that's just the way criminal and criminal enterprises work Vac. You can't catch a turd without using a turd can you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
I'll make it simple for you. The dufus is using every trick in the book to keep people from knowing the truth about his antics and is covering up bad behavior hiding behind the law, courts take time, and with holding evidence using executive privilege which is illegal when wrongdoing is suspected and thus we have a charge of obstructing the congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And your evidence for that is what? You are assuming facts NOT in evidence.Quote:
As to the Impound Act, you might have a legitimate gripe there, but I imagine that it is routinely violated and has been for years by other presidents. If that is true, then are you suggesting we prosecute all of them?
I think the impound act covers ALL appropriations by the congress and signed into law by the president.Quote:
BTW, there is a counter argument about Trump's violating that act. "The funds were a special appropriation, not a budget line item. Congress is working on a continual string of appropriations bills and continuing resolutions, rather than passing a budget as they’re supposed to.
Here's the timeline, so lets actually count the days.Quote:
By The Impoundment Act of 1974 ( more properly, Article X of The Budget Act of 1974) the President may hold funds (impound them) for up to 45 days to ask Congress to rescind an appropriation. Since Congress has always ignored such requests, and never honored one - the practice has become to impound for not more than 45 days, then release.
Quote:
Sept. 11: The hold is lifted on the Ukraine assistance, 85 days after the Pentagon announced that aid had become available. That leaves only 19 days to obligate that funding. Sept. 30: End of the fiscal year. According to OMB's Sandy, $35 million in funds do not get spent in time to meet the deadline. Congress includes that same amount in a continuing resolution to ensure the aid reaches Ukraine.
That's what the impeachment trial is all about!Quote:
The President didn’t violate the letter or spirit of either the non-existent budget nor the appropriation nor the Bufget Act of ‘74, Article X.
You mean it took him several months to get those documented facts that are public records? Really? Sounds like a dodge, an excuse to justify HIS actions and why ignore his asking for a PERSONAL favor, get dirt on his political opponents and clear Vlad of meddling with the 2016 election by blaming the Ukraine. Man that's some favor.Quote:
He says he impounded the funds over concern that other European countries were doing more to help Ukraine. I suppose one would have to examine the evidence that any other country did anything more than they would’ve otherwise in order to see if the President was effective at his stated purpose."
https://www.quora.com/Did-President-...s-from-Ukraine
At least we are arguing facts and not just throwing rocks and talking trash.
Thank Nixon for the need of congress to CTOA!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
An absolutely incredible statement for you to make, especially considering this statement from you. "Sounds like a dodge, an excuse to justify HIS actions and why ignore his asking for a PERSONAL favor, get dirt on his political opponents and clear Vlad of meddling with the 2016 election by blaming the Ukraine. Man that's some favor." Where are your facts here? It's all just conjecture.Quote:
You are assuming facts NOT in evidence.
So have the dems put accusations about the Impound Act into the articles of impeachment?Quote:
That's what the impeachment trial is all about!
Why should it be a surprise to call you on a broad hypothetical situation you presented? As to the impound act we will just have to see how they present their case. It may well be just one example for his abuse of power charge.
This is what you present as a response???Quote:
Why should it be a surprise to call you on a broad hypothetical situation you presented?
Kind of like, "We will have to pass the bill in order to know what is in it?" I'm going to bet it's not even included. As always, so glad that Madame Pelosi is not a repub.Quote:
As to the impound act we will just have to see how they present their case. It may well be just one example for his abuse of power charge.
Yes you have to have an impeachment to know what is in it afterall you haven't had one in a generation
Well the wait is over folks as repubs begin the rigged senate trail Tuesday at 9am eastern time. Non stop until the dufus is exonerated or shortly before the SOTU address.
“Now for the evidence,” said the King (McConnell) , “and then the sentence”. “No!” said the Queen (Pelosi) , “first the sentence, and then the evidence!”
When you have no more evidence than the dems have, then that's about the only strategy you can employ.Quote:
“Now for the evidence,” said the King (McConnell) , “and then the sentence”. “No!” said the Queen (Pelosi) , “first the sentence, and then the evidence!”
No wonder you guys talk so dizzy, all you do is spin, spin spin, because ole Mitch doesn't want evidence or documentation, he wants a quick dismissal like his dufus said he wants. If repubs wanted evidence then he simply has to allow witnesses and documentation. It is that simple gentlemen, unless you want to continue this repub assisted cover up.
That would be funny if I didn't think you were serious. Evidence? Documentation? Just needs to allow witnesses and documentation? The dems brought forward, day after day, many witnesses and assured us their testimony would be devastating. Well, didn't turn out that way, so all we are left with is an assurance that if they can just get MORE witnesses and documentation then, by George, they'll prove guilt then. Sorry to tell you, but it has become tiresome and tedious. Get this nonsense out of the way and move on. It's over.Quote:
ole Mitch doesn't want evidence or documentation, he wants a quick dismissal like his dufus said he wants. If repubs wanted evidence then he simply has to allow witnesses and documentation. It is that simple gentlemen, unless you want to continue this repub assisted cover up.
The evidence and testimony in the House was very clear to many that didn't just dismiss it and rubber stamp it as NO evidence. I think it telling you complain of NO evidence while the dufus with holds and hides what we all want to see. You have dismissed and ignored the Mueller Report and with held the grand jury notes, dismissed and ignored the cronies going to jail, and continue dismissing and ignoring the repubs lack of interest in hearing from the protected inner circle and the evidence that continues to flow from this mess.
Great strategy dismiss and ignore you have going on for you...while it lasts, but if that's all you got, then that's all you got.
Try putting that mess into a court and see how far you get. It's a joke. Even Mueller, after two years, declined to recommend that charges be brought.
So just ignore that he was prohibited by rule and policy to bring charges against the executive? How convenient.
Then why did they appoint a special prosecutor when he did not have authority to bring charges? Wasn't that kind of dumb?Quote:
So just ignore that he was prohibited by rule and policy to bring charges against the executive? How convenient.
You will have to ask the DOJ about that since THEY made that call, however Mueller did catch a bunch of fish because of it, and there are a few lingering criminal cases they referred to local AG's, and despite Barr's spin it gave the House plenty of probable cause in which to proceed. Few know that a cases are still tied up in the court system from subpoenas brought by the House based on Mueller's findings, some to be ruled on soon and a few yet to be determined which is why no charges have been brought forth based on those proceedings as YET, and the executive has the right of appeal, which is where a few filings still reside.
Yeah the courts are slow, but those are the rules WE are bound by.
From 2nd link
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4zDCypW...g&name=900x900
You do realize that Trump was free to fire Mueller, Comey, or any other member of the executive branch at any time he wanted to? It is his authority as president. What liberal group put that chart together?
Yeah we heard him brag about his reliefat firing Comey, and beetch about his AG Sessions recusing himself and Mueller being assigned by the next guy, and the heads started to roll. Yeah firing all those guys would be sort of suspicious in my book, even if he has the authority to fire anyone whether he appoints them or not. Like he can recall an ambassador too, especially if she gets in the way of his back channel re election scheme. The problem with all that power is it can be abused and that's exactly where we are at. You need more evidence than Rudy and Parnas shenanigans?
Yeah. All those rumors should certainly be enough to prove Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt??? Like I've been saying, take that trash into a court and see how long it takes a judge to reprimand you big time and throw your "case" out of court.Quote:
You need more evidence than Rudy and Parnas shenanigans?
They aren't rumors, they are allegations and made for a court of law, or a trial in the senate. Ask ANY prosecutor.
allegations based on rumour, hearsay, which would not be admitted as evidence in a court of law
I hope you realize what a funny statement that is.Quote:
They aren't rumors, they are allegations
LOL, a real court would have allowed the interview of suspects and witnesses BEFORE a trial. Imagine a mob boss telling a cop he can't interview his henchmen in connection with a crime. Imagine a suspect or witness IGNORING a subpoena and not get picked up by the cops. Does THAT happen in real life?
Why is it allowed to happen NOW? Have repubs and conservatives abandoned the LAW? Or do they think the dufus is above the law?
Because of this pesky thing called the Constitution.Quote:
Why is it allowed to happen NOW?
https://www.history.com/news/foreign...unding-fathers
That's my take what's yours?
So the founding fathers placed impeachment in the constitution to guard against foreign influence and Trump is impeached for influencing a foreign government, sounds backwards to me, or just plain opportunisticQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It's illegal to involve another government into a US election. He got away with "Russia if you're listening...", and so came back with "do us a favor..." to the Ukrainians. Not so hard to understand Clete. Common sense.
Common sense is what is sadly lacking in this whole business. The Dems speak about facts and the Repubs reply with "process". Some Repubs are looking at their shoes as they hear the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Common sense isn't very common and certainly not in congress
I find it disturbing the prez's men keep lying about the prez and repubs were shut out of the House process. Don't they know the invitation to the dufus and his lawyer were made public, as was his decline? Don't repubs know that we know they were in the depositions and hearings and had the same time to answer questions as dems did?
Why are they LYING still?
because it was a Star chamber, a Kangaroo courtQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's the $64,000 question. Nadler gave a fact-filled presentation with video of witness testimony, official documents and overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing by Trump. His lawyers, Cippolone and Sekulow, gave disastrous rebuttals saying not a word about the facts but accusing Nadler of bad behavior and not being nice. You had to see it to believe it.
It's true that Trump can't get top-flight legal help because he doesn't pay his bills.
Are you saying repubs who have full control of everything, are running a kangaroo court? I find it amazing that after all this time neither the dufus nor repubs has answered the allegations, just hollered how unfair, or untrue the dems allegations are, and the unfair way the conducted their inquiry, which we KNOW for FACT to be an out and out flat a$$ LIE, while the dufus did everything he could think of to block any information whatsoever. No documents, no witnesses, no testimony.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Instead he has used the entire repub party to engage in the biggest smear campaign ever mounted against the dems. This is after 17 members of the dufus administration have given testimony both behind closed doors and in public hearings about the corruption they witnessed while in his employ. Amazing they have all said the same thing. 17 of them who went against the dufus's blanket orders and under oath to tell the truth. LOL Clete, I do know for fact neither you or JL has reviewed any of the documentation beginning with the Mueller Report to even put forth an informed opinion of the facts of the case that dems have pursued against the dufus so I can dismiss both your opinion of a kangaroo court, and his protests of no evidence very easily.
Unless of course your sarcasm font is on the blink. Darn font never works when you want it to.
Robert's slapped both sides for incivility, but never said a darn thing about the obvious LIES. Not mistruths, but bald face verifiable LIES! Isn't there a law against lying in a court or to the congress?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I'm glad you're finally beginning to see the ways of the dems.Quote:
Not mistruths, but bald face verifiable LIES! Isn't there a law against lying in a court or to the congress?
No Tal, I meant as you well know that the House had conducted a star chamber examination
That's the best you got ? That of course was an ironic throw away line to mock how the FBI colluded to cover up evidence of the disappearance of Evita's and the DNCs emails. But you already knew that . You don't believe for one second that on national tv Trump would ask Russia to interfere in the election .You are not that naïve even if the Dems think you are .Quote:
. He got away with "Russia if you're listening..."
When was that 70 days after the Dems began holding hearings in the Capitol basement ?Quote:
Don't they know the invitation to the dufus and his lawyer were made public, as was his decline?
Yeah. They should try that in something other than the previous kangaroo court setting. "Your Honor, we, the prosecution, have now decided to allow the defendant to have counsel present in the courtroom during the last 10% of this trial." See how far that would get you.Quote:
When was that 70 days after the Dems began holding hearings in the Capitol basement ?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:30 AM. |