- 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: What crime do they think TRUMP committed? Need a specific provision of the US Code.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:58 pm to SoulBrotha91
Posted on 10/21/19 at 5:58 pm to SoulBrotha91
quote:
1. BIDEN BLACKMAILED A FOREIGN ALLY OVER HIS SON'S CORRUPT COMPANY AND PUT WORLD SECURITY AT RISK
2. HUNTER BIDEN (a complete incompetent by any measure) RECEIVED $1 BILLION FROM CHINA THEREFORE IMPLYING THE VP OFFICE IS COMPROMISED
Can you provide any facts to support this? Any at all? If facts are necessary to accuse Trump of wrongdoing, surely it is a two way street. If Biden was wielding that money in exercise of foreign policy, how is it any different?
quote:
Negotiation is bribery/quid pro quo by definition: you're using leverage to receive concessions from another side and vice versa. The fact you can't make the logical connection speaks volumes.
I like how you left out parts of my quote to suit your narrative.
Webster defines negotiate as the following : "to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise"
Bribe (verb) is defined by the same source as : "to influence the judgment or conduct of (someone) with or as if with offers of money or favor"
Do you think that the thesaurus lists bribe as a synonym for negotiate? You are being ridiculous.
quote:
THE HELL IT IS, he's serving the country by asking them to do this, YOU WANT VPs BLACKMAILING FOREIGN ALLIES OVER HIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST?? We gotta drain the swamp with this stuff, man. HE'S ABDICATING HIS DUTY IF HE DOESN'T PURSUE THIS.
So Biden should be investigated on an accusation, but not Trump?
You are just irate and spewing the same nonsense over and over again, without any evidence.
1
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:03 pm to IceTiger
quote:
He's retarded if he thinks he's some political agent...
Dude is the head of state, acting within the realm of his duties...
If he wants to give our arch-enemies 100s of millions of laundered cash...he has the levity to do so...
My thing is, if it benefits both him politically and the country at the same time and done through the President's negotiation power of Article II, who cares? Biden admitted ON CAMERA to extorting an ally over his son's corrupt company. Everything Presidents do when it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy comes with another motive to benefit themselves electorally bc when the country does great, the President gets re-elected. Criminalizing these communications (that should've never been leaked in the first place) would set a horrifying precedent when it comes to constitutional responsibilities. I hope the people arguing Trump and bribery realize this. When the Swamp continues to do Swamp things, we'll blame them first.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:09 pm to SoulBrotha91
quote:
Biden admitted ON CAMERA to extorting an ally over his son's corrupt company.
Here is the video of that comment Biden made on camera, please timestamp when he says anything about his son's company:
LINK
Hint: It isn't in there.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:10 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Can you provide any facts to support this? Any at all? If facts are necessary to accuse Trump of wrongdoing, surely it is a two way street. If Biden was wielding that money in exercise of foreign policy, how is it any different?
The fact you're dumb enough to ask this shows how biased you are, at this point after a few years, it's basically public knowledge.
quote:
So Biden should be investigated on an accusation, but not Trump?
Bc all the evidence that doesn't include the discredited and felonious "whistleblower" complaint clearly disproves any hint of wrongdoing aside from the fact the President has Article II negotiation powers and Biden did corrupt shite during his time as VP, yes we should investigate Biden and not Trump BC TRUMP DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG AS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE SHOWS. The Executive Branch and therefore the people shall not be bothered with another bogus witch hunt striving to strip the Presidency of his Article II powers. YOU CANNOT COMMIT A CRIME IF THE CONSTITUTION EMPOWERS YOU TO DO SOMETHING, THAT NOTION VIOLATES SEPARATION OF POWERS.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:16 pm to wookalar1013
quote:
quote:
Let's go over some simple facts here: 1. BIDEN BLACKMAILED A FOREIGN ALLY OVER HIS SON'S CORRUPT COMPANY AND PUT WORLD SECURITY AT RISK 2. HUNTER BIDEN (a complete incompetent by any measure) RECEIVED $1 BILLION FROM CHINA THEREFORE IMPLYING THE VP OFFICE IS COMPROMISED
none of those things are facts
Well, the established facts certainly suggest something was rotten on Ukraine and in China with Joe and Hunter's dealings.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:19 pm to PhDoogan
i didn't see hunter mentioned
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:24 pm to SoulBrotha91
Alright, well if you are going to resort to refrains like "it's basically public knowledge" because you can't produce any evidence, than we are done talking about it. If it is in fact public knowledge, after all these years, and it is the President's duty to go after that sort of corruption, why hasn't the President sicced the FBI on him yet?
I could bother to ask for your evidence of to call the complaint "felonious", but instead I will say this:
If you go back and read what I have written I am in no way biased. I have presented my reasoning and evidence to back up my assertions that an argument of "Article II allow President to bribe whatever foreign leader, for whatever purpose he wants" is false.
I haven't said either way if I think what he did was for personal gain, simply that if he did in fact do it for personal gain, that is an abuse of his power, and against numerous laws. I debunked a particular argument, while leaving the door wide open for ones I think are more reasonable.
If you don't come to the same conclusions I do, that's fine, but at least I presented my reasoning.
On the other hand, you have presented zero evidence to back up your claims, and instead just repeat whatever you picked up from the Federalist. Grow the frick up and think for yourself.
I could bother to ask for your evidence of to call the complaint "felonious", but instead I will say this:
If you go back and read what I have written I am in no way biased. I have presented my reasoning and evidence to back up my assertions that an argument of "Article II allow President to bribe whatever foreign leader, for whatever purpose he wants" is false.
I haven't said either way if I think what he did was for personal gain, simply that if he did in fact do it for personal gain, that is an abuse of his power, and against numerous laws. I debunked a particular argument, while leaving the door wide open for ones I think are more reasonable.
If you don't come to the same conclusions I do, that's fine, but at least I presented my reasoning.
On the other hand, you have presented zero evidence to back up your claims, and instead just repeat whatever you picked up from the Federalist. Grow the frick up and think for yourself.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:36 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Here is the video of that comment Biden made on camera, please timestamp when he says anything about his son's company:
LINK
Hint: It isn't in there.
You are literally too stupid to respond to but I'll oblige you one
1. Biden admitted to the quid pro quo/bribery straight up on camera
2. Just so happened the same time Biden made this demand, the prosecutor was investigating Biden's son's corrupt AF company and set to question Biden's son CONFLICT OF INTEREST MUCH?!
The Executive Branch must retain significant latitude to conduct foreign diplomacy and Article II does permit "bribing" foreign leaders in that pursuit bc of the necessity of candor in the effective fulfillment of this duty. Taking that into consideration, Biden abused his power with this one, I suppose one could argue bribery as the Constitution permits impeaching an Executive Branch member over that but likely wouldn't be successful for removal bc of Article II diplomacy responsibilities.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:36 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:Volunteers can do opposition research:
I think the definition of volunteerism is restricted by the FEC, and the issue here is that opposition research, if that was what was actually being sought, is normally paid for, making at in in-kind contribution
quote:LINK
campaigns may send staffers or volunteers to shadow the opposition candidate’s events recording all policy pronouncements to determine any inconsistencies as the campaign progresses.
This is what Donald Trump Jr. was saying he was doing in the Trump Tower meeting as a volunteer, in-house opposition research.
Also, if so many people including legal scholars and the DOJ can disagree on the legality of this phone call, I don't see how Trump could have believed he did something illegal. Knowingly violating this law is a requirement for breaking it.
quote:
Thank you for the respectful discourse.
I always learn this way, people get too emotional some times.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:41 pm to TommyStGeorge
quote:
This is what Donald Trump Jr. was saying he was doing in the Trump Tower meeting as a volunteer, in-house opposition research.
I agree.
quote:
Also, if so many people including legal scholars and the DOJ can disagree on the legality of this phone call, I don't see how Trump could have believed he did something illegal. Knowingly violating this law is a requirement for breaking it.
I disagree. I have not seen anything that suggests ignorance of this law is a protection from it.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:45 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
On the other hand, you have presented zero evidence to back up your claims
I've spent the last few weeks presenting evidence about this on various platforms, I can easily present a mountain of evidence to establish this but I prefer not to feed biased arse trolls.
quote:
instead just repeat whatever you picked up from the Federalist.
Generally the response I receive from biased hacks because they disagree with the content no matter how well-sourced
quote:
I haven't said either way if I think what he did was for personal gain, simply that if he did in fact do it for personal gain, that is an abuse of his power, and against numerous laws.
THE HELL IT IS against numerous laws, Article II protects Executive Branch conduct from that scrutiny bc of separation of powers, the need for candor, and what the President's position entails, doesn't protect it from abuse of power scrutiny if committed for an illegitimate purpose, a political measure.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:46 pm to SoulBrotha91
quote:
1. Biden admitted to the quid pro quo/bribery straight up on camera
Biden admitted he went there and withheld funds because Ukraine had not addressed the state prosecutor, which was a condition on the continued receipt of funds, and is what his boss told him to do.
But according to you, that's all gravy baby. Other countries had begun investigations and expressed concern over the same prosecutor for not doing enough to stem corruption in Ukraine, so he was a bad actor and needed to be removed. If it benefited his family and the USA at the same time, no big deal right? He was working within his role as appointed by the POTUS.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:55 pm to wookalar1013
quote:
i didn't see hunter mentioned
Not necessarily the "facts" cited by the prior poster, but the established facts do lead to the reasoned conclusion that Joe was likely abusing his office and strong-armed Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was seeking to uproot the cashcow that Burisma had become for the Bidens.
You gotta admit, Wookalar, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, right?
This post was edited on 10/21/19 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:55 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Biden admitted he went there and withheld funds because Ukraine had not addressed the state prosecutor, which was a condition on the continued receipt of funds, and is what his boss told him to do.
But according to you, that's all gravy baby. Other countries had begun investigations and expressed concern over the same prosecutor for not doing enough to stem corruption in Ukraine, so he was a bad actor and needed to be removed. If it benefited his family and the USA at the same time, no big deal right? He was working within his role as appointed by the POTUS.
COMPLETE AND UTTER horseshite
TAKE THAT TO THE BANK
Biden's exact admission transcript:
quote:
I remember going over and convincing our team, others, to convince that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.
So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Not one statement in this admission establishes this act was "what his boss told him to do"
Bring heavier artillery next time
This post was edited on 10/21/19 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:56 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
I have not seen anything that suggests ignorance of this law is a protection from it.
Well with this law it is. This is from page 187, Volume 1 of the Mueller Report:
quote:
To prove that a defendant acted "knowingly and willfully," the government would have to show that the defendant had general knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 123 (8th ed. Dec. 2017) ("Election Offenses"); see Bluman, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (noting that a willful violation requires "proof of the defendant's knowledge of the law")
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:57 pm to PhDoogan
quote:
Not necessarily the "facts" cited by the prior poster, but the established facts do lead to the reasoned suspicion that Joe likely abused his office and strong-armed Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was seeking to uproot the cashcow that Burisma had become for the Bidens.
My point the entire time, IT'S CORRUPT AF
of course DeathAndTaxes believes too much in the Swamp to admit this so I'll stop feeding the troll
Posted on 10/21/19 at 6:57 pm to SoulBrotha91
quote:
THE HELL IT IS against numerous laws, Article II protects Executive Branch conduct from that scrutiny bc of separation of powers, the need for candor, and what the President's position entails, doesn't protect it from abuse of power scrutiny if committed for an illegitimate purpose, a political measure
Ok, well, I'm not going to re-hash it, and you wouldn't accept it any way. Unless you can provide some sort of evidence to support that claim, we will just have to disagree. Because in all 8 pages of this thread, not once has anyone provided evidence that says a public official can abuse his power for personal gain. If you can come up with something supporting this, other than your words typed in capital letters, I will gladly say you are right.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 7:00 pm to TommyStGeorge
quote:
Well with this law it is. This is from page 187, Volume 1 of the Mueller Report:
I apologize, I stand corrected.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 7:03 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Unless you can provide some sort of evidence to support that claim, we will just have to disagree
ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION
quote:
not once has anyone provided evidence that says a public official can abuse his power for personal gain.
If a President makes a good trade deal for the country, that benefits him or her personally bc it helps re-election chances and retention of office, your logic is completely fricked up. I'm striving to reason with people and you're acting completely obtuse. I'll admit though, you do a tremendous troll job.
Posted on 10/21/19 at 7:04 pm to SoulBrotha91
The part where he tells them to call the President when they protest that he didn't have the authority to do that is not enough indication that he was operating on Obama's orders?
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News