- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Don Jr is tweeting about Hunter
Posted on 1/18/20 at 5:27 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 1/18/20 at 5:27 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Some of which bears no relationship to any Congressional investigation. And some of which falls under the “abuse” category that I described above.
This is actually a great example of how you defend the filth without technically taking a side. You’ve said absolutely nothing here, yet it’s crystal clear who you support.
Some of the most rampant, political spying we’ve seen in our lifetimes is brushed aside as “abuse” or “mistakes”. Clear influence peddling is excused away as you declare “no laws were broken”. Congress gets tweezed away somehow from the sins of their IC hit men.
Yet Trump asking for cooperation in an investigation with strong probable cause and at the core of anti corruption efforts by both nations is grounds for impeachment because of “political motivation”.
WFB is your beard
0
Posted on 1/18/20 at 5:32 pm to ShortyRob
quote:It was done in THIS thread, Shorty.quote:Except no one actually does this.
If the generic “you” accuses me of taking a given position,
This post was edited on 1/18/20 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 1/18/20 at 5:32 pm to redneck hippie
quote:
What US law did Baby Biden violate?
I’ve asked the same thing several times. No one ever answers the question.
That's what investigations are for B. And that's been answered in various places throughout the thread. For the sake of convenience, I'll say this, generally: whatever Joe would be guilty of....conspiracy to do same on Hunter's part.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 5:39 pm to ShortyRob
quote:I seldom call people liars, but this is an outright lie.
You specifically avoid taking actual positions
Someone makes this stupid, false claim about once every few months, and I ALWAYS give them the chance to ask my position on ANY one prominent issue. The poster usually disappears without a response. Most of the few times that someone accepted the offer, they disappeared without comment after I answered the question. Occasionally, someone will whine if my answer is not as binary as their own,
So, ask away.
This post was edited on 1/18/20 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 1/18/20 at 5:59 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Nothing to see here. Move along folks
Posted on 1/18/20 at 6:04 pm to Gevans17
The dems literally called people with zero knowledge of the Burisma issue or the Zelensky call as “fact witnesses”.
But the guy at the center of it all... his testimony is “inadmissible” and “irrelevant” according to the Hon. ProggyHank.
But the guy at the center of it all... his testimony is “inadmissible” and “irrelevant” according to the Hon. ProggyHank.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 6:19 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Who would you like to see as President come January, 2021?
So, ask away.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 6:23 pm to Diamondawg
quote:Among folks with enough prominence to be taken seriously, Ted Cruz. Rand Paul would be even better.
Who would you like to see as President come January, 2021?
This post was edited on 1/18/20 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 1/18/20 at 6:25 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Just because Hunter may have been the subject of the call doesn’t make him relevant to the the crime committed on the call though which is what the investigation is over.
Thats irrelevant. The actual subject is bribing a foreign official to drop an investigation into a family member, resulting in an alcoholic, drug addict, military reject getting 57-80k a month for knowing nothing about the "job" he was hired to do.
Criminally corrupt actions using tax payer dollars to bribe.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 6:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
statutory authority
The icig whistleblower law pertains to intelligence not I don’t like what omb is doing.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 6:29 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
What US law did Baby Biden violate?
He and joe conspired to take foreign money in exchange for joes influence.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 6:33 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
He should have went through the justice department to investigate though, especially given the ties to his political opponent.
He did. He told them to talk to Barr, you know, the ag.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 6:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Rand Paul would be even better.
Do you have any idea how opposite anything you’ve said on this thread is to anything Rand Paul has said about this (completely ridiculous) impeachment sham.
Up to, and including Hunter Biden.
If it were up to Dr. P: Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden, Eric
Ciamarella and Papa Joe himself would all be giving testimony about how and why Trump was framed and how and why an investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden was merited. You know. shite that’s relevant to Trump’s defense of the ludicrous assertion by Democrats that The Bidens did nothing illegal.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 6:54 pm to Wednesday
quote:Not sure where you get that impression. His own words:
Do you have any idea how opposite anything you’ve said on this thread is to anything Rand Paul has said about this (completely ridiculous) impeachment sham.
If it were up to Dr. P: Adam Schiff, Hunter Biden, Eric Ciamarella and Papa Joe himself would all be giving testimony about how and why Trump was framed and how and why an investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden was merited. You know. shite that’s relevant to Trump’s defense of the ludicrous assertion by Democrats that The Bidens did nothing illegal.
quote:
”My first preference would be to be done with it as soon as possible and not to have any witnesses,” Paul said.
This post was edited on 1/18/20 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 1/18/20 at 7:02 pm to AggieHank86
Oh Hank. Bless your heart.
You obviously didn’t watch the Trump Rally in Kentucky, or hear the news the other day where he said that if there are witnesses. Hunter Biden will be a witness.
I too think this should be over after the arguments bc there is no legal or factual basis presented by the HR that would support the bullshite articles of Impeachment.
But BACK to the point of the OP - If DJTJR can be forced to testify for 30 hrs based on the fact that he once had a meeting with a Russian person, and what would that say about he and his father “colluding”, then Hunter Biden’s testimony would certainly be relevant to determining whether he and his dad were colluding with a Foreign Government
You obviously didn’t watch the Trump Rally in Kentucky, or hear the news the other day where he said that if there are witnesses. Hunter Biden will be a witness.
I too think this should be over after the arguments bc there is no legal or factual basis presented by the HR that would support the bullshite articles of Impeachment.
But BACK to the point of the OP - If DJTJR can be forced to testify for 30 hrs based on the fact that he once had a meeting with a Russian person, and what would that say about he and his father “colluding”, then Hunter Biden’s testimony would certainly be relevant to determining whether he and his dad were colluding with a Foreign Government
Posted on 1/18/20 at 7:18 pm to Wednesday
quote:Again, not what he said.
Oh Hank. Bless your heart.
You obviously didn’t watch the Trump Rally in Kentucky, or hear the news the other day where he said that if there are witnesses. Hunter Biden will be a witness.
He said his first preference is no witnesses.
His second preference, if witnesses are to be allowed, is witness reciprocity… as opposed to an individual vote on each witness. In other words, he doesn’t want the Democrats to be able to call any witnesses they wish, and then (with the assistance of a few Republicans) preclude the presentation of witnesses by Trump.
From an earlier thread
quote:Politically, it is reasonable advice
I think that many folks fail to understand the point that Rand is making here. It is basically an analysis containing two elements: procedural and political.
First, the procedural. The 1986 Rules do not require the Senate to hear from ANY witnesses. They can vote to convict (or not) based solely upon the Articles and the arguments of the advocates.
In order to hear ANY witnesses at all (in a general sense), a majority of the Senate must vote to include witness testimony in the process. He is advocating AGAINST that procedure. If that procedure is approved, however, a majority of the Senate must vote as to whether they will allow the testimony of EACH proposed witness.
Now the political. He is also reminding his GOP colleagues (if such a proposal to hear ANY witnesses should pass) that the votes regarding each individual proposed witness have the potential to be politically damaging to individual Senators at the next election.
For example, Senator Purple is from a swing state. Senator Purple votes to allow testimony from Bolton (because the Senator thinks it is relevant) and votes to exclude Biden (because he thinks it is irrelevant).
Rand is reminding his colleagues that a certain percentage of Trump voters will read those decisions as “failing to support GEOTUS” and suggesting that Senator Purple will likely be unseated by those voters.
He is SAYING, “vote against allowing ANY witnesses, so you can avoid voting against (or “for”) SPECIFIC witnesses and thereby losing your job.”
Like me, he sees the impeachment trial as a waste of the Senate’s time and resources. Hence, his desire to hear the arguments, then vote and get rid of it. Honestly, I think he would vote to dismiss, if not for the bad optics.
This post was edited on 1/18/20 at 8:00 pm
Posted on 1/18/20 at 7:29 pm to AggieHank86
Hank, I theorize that when it comes down to it, Dems don't really want to call any witnesses. As I've asked many a time, who is there that could possibly say what that would bridge that gap between what's plainly stated in the transcript....over to proof of intent for personal gain??
Say Dems gain the ability to call 4 witnesses, and 3 or even all 4 are subject to executive privilege. POTUS will assert it. That puts Dems right back where they were in the House. That's a near certainty for the witnesses whose names have been tossed around.
Knowing this, in your view what's their actual plan here? I say they only gain any benefit from the lead up to calling witnesses, i.e. the "we're being stonewalled and obstructed" game. Avoiding the ole "dog who caught the car" scenario.
Say Dems gain the ability to call 4 witnesses, and 3 or even all 4 are subject to executive privilege. POTUS will assert it. That puts Dems right back where they were in the House. That's a near certainty for the witnesses whose names have been tossed around.
Knowing this, in your view what's their actual plan here? I say they only gain any benefit from the lead up to calling witnesses, i.e. the "we're being stonewalled and obstructed" game. Avoiding the ole "dog who caught the car" scenario.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 7:59 pm to davyjones
quote:I think you nailed it.
davyjones
The final outcome is a given at this point. Both sides are playing to an audience of 300 million in November, not an audience of 100 in January.
This post was edited on 1/18/20 at 8:04 pm
Posted on 1/18/20 at 8:02 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
HOW MANY times must I say that an investigation of Baby Biden in the ordinary course would have been ENTIRELY proper,
Should Ukraine be allowed to investigate Burisma through their proper channels?
Posted on 1/18/20 at 8:16 pm to AggieHank86
It's an interesting quandary that those few question mark Republicans are in right now. On the one hand, what would they potentially risk by stepping over the aisle to vote with Dems on the witness issue.....versus.....what the hell would even be the reward because we all know there aint anything new gonna come out that sheds light on the Trump intent issue.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News