ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 22:09:13 GMT -5
No i'm saying she and obama is responsible for Benghazi. I'm saying she is not being held accountable for the deleted emails, i'm saying she is walking free because no one could prove other wise so she is innocent until proven guilty. Beyond knowing the word Bengazi, u don't know crap beyond hearing the word in relation to a problem of the Obama administration and Hillery being Sec of State at that time is also brought into the conversation...Since conservative sites have used theincident and throw the word out loosly whenever they want to criticize the Obama administration or Hillery u have gotten in the habit of of using the word in your complaints about the two.. Naturally those conservative sites have it all wrong as u do too but I am posting a article that does explain the whole of the Bengazi situation, both for u , though am sure u won't read it or allow it to correct your beliefs, but might be helpful to others who have heard the word "Bengasi" but really don't really know the details of the incident. ------------------------------ www.vox.com/2018/11/20/17996104/benghazi-attack-clinton-obamalike i said she is innocent until proven guilty. It will not happen so she can go away she is no longer relevant in the political sphere
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 22:10:33 GMT -5
No i'm saying she and obama is responsible for Benghazi. I'm saying she is not being held accountable for the deleted emails, i'm saying she is walking free because no one could prove other wise so she is innocent until proven guilty. Of course the President is ultimately responsible, but why would the Secretary of State be responsible for an attack on the CIA? In my view she had the responsibility as secretary of state to make sure the post was secure.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 22:12:37 GMT -5
No i'm saying she and obama is responsible for Benghazi. I'm saying she is not being held accountable for the deleted emails, i'm saying she is walking free because no one could prove other wise so she is innocent until proven guilty. So George W. Is responsible for 9/11 and don’t forget Reagan and the Marine barracks and on and on and on. Yet when will the Repo-Cons get all blamed on that shit, Ed? Obama was so weak on foreign policy. He was nothing more than an ass sucking bitch. A suave speaker but still an ass sucker
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 25, 2020 22:23:44 GMT -5
So George W. Is responsible for 9/11 and don’t forget Reagan and the Marine barracks and on and on and on. Yet when will the Repo-Cons get all blamed on that shit, Ed? Obama was so weak on foreign policy. He was nothing more than an ass sucking bitch. A suave speaker but still an ass sucker Not really, just used diplomacy which is something jingoistic hegemonists are opposed to.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 25, 2020 22:37:00 GMT -5
Of course the President is ultimately responsible, but why would the Secretary of State be responsible for an attack on the CIA? In my view she had the responsibility as secretary of state to make sure the post was secure. As I mentioned, I knew u wouldn't take the time to explore that site I posted that explains the incident... ------------------------- "Moreover, the mission’s confusing legal status made meeting its security needs particularly hard. The Benghazi mission wasn’t an embassy or even an official consulate; it was so off-book that the Libyan government was never officially notified of its existence. This strange legal status put the mission outside the normal State Department procedures used to allocate security funding and personnel. Finally, since no one in the US intelligence community had evidence of an imminent attack, neither Ambassador Stevens nor the State Department made Benghazi security a very high priority. Stevens’ trip to Benghazi on the day of attack wasn’t coordinated with the US security team based with the US embassy in Tripoli, so they didn’t go. The ambassador, according to the review board, “did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale.” So while Stevens did ask for more security, his requests weren’t taken as urgent enough to overcome the bureaucratic muddle standing in their way."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 25, 2020 22:49:36 GMT -5
Tell me this: Why would there be ANY reason to have to go to court if there was no obstruction in the first place? Answer that. House Democrats sought the testimony of several key witnesses. They were denied the opportunity. Why? Because of obstruction by the White House. Why was there obstruction? Because the evidence was there, and the president could not let it come out. If he had no reason to fear, he would have jumped at the opportunity to be proven right so he could crow about it for years. You know that. You also know the reason they did not go to court. All it would have done, through the initial phase and the subsequent appeals, was draw out the clock. Trump would never have been held accountable and would have been free to corrupt another election. Even your contention that "they should have gone to court" stipulates that the obstruction existed. Obstruction is impeachable, and Trump should be convicted at least on Article 2. The reason he won't is because there is no longer any honor or integrity left in the Republican Party. Only self-interest. If they fail on this, they will hasten their demise as a major political party in this country. Rightly so. He is well within his right to order govt employees not to comply the house is not higher than the president. It is then up to the house to have the subpoenas enforced. Yes they can charge him with obstruction like they have done but it will go nowhere only a judge can make him comply ergo no obstruction. No, he is not within his rights here. A president can generally invoke executive privilege in certain cases. That does not apply (and has historically never applied) to impeachment, either actual or theoretical. Think about it. Privilege cannot apply to impeachment without destroying the constitutionally-mandated role of Congress to have oversight over the president. The remedy of impeachment would no longer exist if it were so. A president cannot shield himself from investigation into his own criminal behavior, whether it is actual crimes or the "high crimes and misdemeanors" commonly used in impeachment talks. You can try to assert otherwise, but you will be no more correct than on anything else you have claimed here.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 26, 2020 0:06:22 GMT -5
I just finished watching the video of this mornings part of the trial. Trumps lawyers made the house managers look like idiots....then that is not that hard to do. Methink your slip is showing..u are such a homer...so obvious..your love for the GOP, the Donald and his cohorts …. Actually there were some GOP members who praised Schiff on his over long presentation...guess u missed that or your so biased u only hear what u want to hear....like keeping "Fox" on 24/7...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 26, 2020 1:12:36 GMT -5
So the Judicial Branch is higher than the President? No but they can enforce the subpoena, can't they? ... No. The Judicial Branch has no way to enforce anything.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 26, 2020 3:12:56 GMT -5
He is well within his right to order govt employees not to comply the house is not higher than the president. It is then up to the house to have the subpoenas enforced. Yes they can charge him with obstruction like they have done but it will go nowhere only a judge can make him comply ergo no obstruction. No, he is not within his rights here. A president can generally invoke executive privilege in certain cases. That does not apply (and has historically never applied) to impeachment, either actual or theoretical. Think about it. Privilege cannot apply to impeachment without destroying the constitutionally-mandated role of Congress to have oversight over the president. The remedy of impeachment would no longer exist if it were so. A president cannot shield himself from investigation into his own criminal behavior, whether it is actual crimes or the "high crimes and misdemeanors" commonly used in impeachment talks. You can try to assert otherwise, but you will be no more correct than on anything else you have claimed here. "You can try to assert otherwise, but you will be no more correct than on anything else you have claimed here."
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by tbop77 on Jan 26, 2020 7:25:43 GMT -5
The circular defense. The House didn't have enough evidence/witnesses which they were never going to get because.....well, President Trump. LOL And that is their defense.
At least it will be over soon.....President Trump may have someone else he needs Rudy and his rouge swamp dwelling mob to investigate.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 26, 2020 12:16:55 GMT -5
I just finished watching the video of this mornings part of the trial. Trumps lawyers made the house managers look like idiots....then that is not that hard to do. I can't imagine what you were watching that would lead to that conclusion. The Trump lawyers were making the Democrats' case for them. By continually pointing to the fact that there was no testimony tying things to Trump personally, they were effectively making the case that the new witnesses Democrats seek should be called now. All of their other contentions are easily countered as well. Additionally, the constitutional expert the GOP called on their behalf has called Dershowitz' contentions "fundamentally mistaken." The ones looking like idiots in the impeachment trial are Trump's attorneys. The ones looking like idiots here are just as easily seen.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 26, 2020 12:29:07 GMT -5
I just finished watching the video of this mornings part of the trial. Trumps lawyers made the house managers look like idiots....then that is not that hard to do. I can't imagine what you were watching that would lead to that conclusion. The Trump lawyers were making the Democrats' case for them. By continually pointing to the fact that there was no testimony tying things to Trump personally, they were effectively making the case that the new witnesses Democrats seek should be called now. All of their other contentions are easily countered as well. Additionally, the constitutional expert the GOP called on their behalf has called Dershowitz' contentions "fundamentally mistaken." The ones looking like idiots in the impeachment trial are Trump's attorneys. The ones looking like idiots here are just as easily seen. Talk about living in the land of make believe....anyway it doesn't matter trump will be acquitted and we can get back to putting america first. Democrats already threw in the towel with this election. They can have a shot in 2024, but showing how inept they are more like 2928--no wait 2032 that would give more a chance of the current dem ass clowns of dying off.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 26, 2020 12:47:53 GMT -5
Trump is not putting America first. Trump is putting Trump first. Trump is not making America great. Trump is making America alone. That being said, Trump will not be convicted and removed from office. Republicans in the Senate are too corrupt and cowardly for that to happen. It will cost them. History will not be kind, either to them or their party. The party of Trump will expire. Will there be anything left afterward?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,474
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 26, 2020 12:57:39 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,474
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 26, 2020 13:01:04 GMT -5
Democrats are having a field day after Trump's lawyers accidentally made the strongest case to call witnesses in his impeachment trial
President Donald Trump's defense team repeatedly argued on Saturday that there isn't enough evidence to impeach him because Congress hasn't heard from any witnesses who had "direct contact" with the president. Democratic lawmakers seized on those statements, saying they underscore the need to call more firsthand witnesses in Trump's trial. Moreover, while Trump's lawyers complain of not hearing testimony from direct witnesses, the defense could easily solve that problem by retracting Trump's sweeping directive barring all executive branch officials across six agencies from cooperating with Congress' impeachment inquiry. "The president's counsel did something that they did not intend: they made a really compelling case for why the Senate should call witnesses and documents," Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said after opening arguments on Saturday. Democrats are having a field day after Trump's lawyers accidentally made the strongest case to call witnesses in his impeachment trial
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,705
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 26, 2020 15:24:46 GMT -5
He's a weird one, Pres. Trump. He will say anything about anyone instead of ever admitting how corrupt and selfish he is. If he lost his fortune overnight, I doubt the GOP would continue its kissing of Trump's ass.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 26, 2020 15:39:37 GMT -5
I just finished watching the video of this mornings part of the trial. Trumps lawyers made the house managers look like idiots....then that is not that hard to do. I can't imagine what you were watching that would lead to that conclusion. The Trump lawyers were making the Democrats' case for them. By continually pointing to the fact that there was no testimony tying things to Trump personally, they were effectively making the case that the new witnesses Democrats seek should be called now. All of their other contentions are easily countered as well. Additionally, the constitutional expert the GOP called on their behalf has called Dershowitz' contentions "fundamentally mistaken." The ones looking like idiots in the impeachment trial are Trump's attorneys. The ones looking like idiots here are just as easily seen. " The ones looking like idiots here are just as easily seen. "
……………………...
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 26, 2020 15:53:57 GMT -5
He's a weird one, Pres. Trump. He will say anything about anyone instead of ever admitting how corrupt and selfish he is. If he lost his fortune overnight, I doubt the GOP would continue its kissing of Trump's ass. They are scared to death of crossing him...he has no scruples and has shown he will do anything , against anyone, if he feels they have crossed him...to the extremes no one in their right minds would believe from someone in his position..no idea someone at his level would sink to the level he does...just not use to such conduct... Possible Al Capone and others of his ilk....but THE POTUS ? The man has attacked gold star family...a teenage young lady activist..hero native Americans from WW2 being honored in the White House..Black professional athletes...long time foreign allies [friends for years} ...Mayor of London....and praised some of the worst leaders of nations of our times... plus has suggested those folks who are known as espousing hate feelings against Jews, minorities....marched in a torch lite parade mouthing those prejudiced remarks, that they are not all bad...similar to those who oppose them...
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 26, 2020 16:03:33 GMT -5
Of course the President is ultimately responsible, but why would the Secretary of State be responsible for an attack on the CIA? In my view she had the responsibility as secretary of state to make sure the post was secure. Your view is wrong. Embassies are guarded by Marines. Marines work for the Department of Defense, not the Secretary of Defense. Secretary of Defense does not determine if there are enough Marine stationed at each embassy world wide, or monitor local threats to the embassies to determine if all the embassy staff should be withdrawn - the military monitors that. If anyone in the State department had heard intel that there was a potential issue there, they would have forwarded that information to the Secretary of Defense - if Clinton knew about it, she wouldn't have been able to send more marines there, or to order for a withdrawal of all the embassy employees. Even if Clinton called the embassy to personally relay the danger to the head of the Marines stationed there, he would have had to contact his next in command to relay the concern and get instructions on what to do.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 26, 2020 16:06:27 GMT -5
Democrats are having a field day after Trump's lawyers accidentally made the strongest case to call witnesses in his impeachment trial
President Donald Trump's defense team repeatedly argued on Saturday that there isn't enough evidence to impeach him because Congress hasn't heard from any witnesses who had "direct contact" with the president. Democratic lawmakers seized on those statements, saying they underscore the need to call more firsthand witnesses in Trump's trial. Moreover, while Trump's lawyers complain of not hearing testimony from direct witnesses, the defense could easily solve that problem by retracting Trump's sweeping directive barring all executive branch officials across six agencies from cooperating with Congress' impeachment inquiry. "The president's counsel did something that they did not intend: they made a really compelling case for why the Senate should call witnesses and documents," Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said after opening arguments on Saturday. Democrats are having a field day after Trump's lawyers accidentally made the strongest case to call witnesses in his impeachment trial So when will they vote to decide if they will hear witnesses? I believe i heard that Romney would vote for that, I'm curious if Lemar Alexander will, too, and how many other GOPers might.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,474
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 26, 2020 20:50:21 GMT -5
Isn't Parnaz spilling his guts? Should be pretty easy to get this tape confirmed From the linked article: Reads to me Parnas has confirmed the dinner meeting and conversation. Saw this on Twitter regarding the Igor Fruman dinner tape of trump stating "Take her out":
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,474
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 26, 2020 20:54:25 GMT -5
Democrats are having a field day after Trump's lawyers accidentally made the strongest case to call witnesses in his impeachment trial
President Donald Trump's defense team repeatedly argued on Saturday that there isn't enough evidence to impeach him because Congress hasn't heard from any witnesses who had "direct contact" with the president. Democratic lawmakers seized on those statements, saying they underscore the need to call more firsthand witnesses in Trump's trial. Moreover, while Trump's lawyers complain of not hearing testimony from direct witnesses, the defense could easily solve that problem by retracting Trump's sweeping directive barring all executive branch officials across six agencies from cooperating with Congress' impeachment inquiry. "The president's counsel did something that they did not intend: they made a really compelling case for why the Senate should call witnesses and documents," Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said after opening arguments on Saturday. Democrats are having a field day after Trump's lawyers accidentally made the strongest case to call witnesses in his impeachment trial So when will they vote to decide if they will hear witnesses? I believe i heard that Romney would vote for that, I'm curious if Lemar Alexander will, too, and how many other GOPers might. Lamar Alexander is not running for reelection. And Romney I believe is not running for reelection as a senator. I read he plans on running for governor of Utah. So neither of them have anything to lose voting for witnesses and others to testify.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 26, 2020 21:19:33 GMT -5
In my view she had the responsibility as secretary of state to make sure the post was secure. Your view is wrong. Embassies are guarded by Marines. Marines work for the Department of Defense, not the Secretary of Defense. Secretary of Defense does not determine if there are enough Marine stationed at each embassy world wide, or monitor local threats to the embassies to determine if all the embassy staff should be withdrawn - the military monitors that. If anyone in the State department had heard intel that there was a potential issue there, they would have forwarded that information to the Secretary of Defense - if Clinton knew about it, she wouldn't have been able to send more marines there, or to order for a withdrawal of all the embassy employees. Even if Clinton called the embassy to personally relay the danger to the head of the Marines stationed there, he would have had to contact his next in command to relay the concern and get instructions on what to do. I see, so Hillary had no part in making sure the agencies under her were covered! OK!!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 26, 2020 21:45:07 GMT -5
Your view is wrong. Embassies are guarded by Marines. Marines work for the Department of Defense, not the Secretary of Defense. Secretary of Defense does not determine if there are enough Marine stationed at each embassy world wide, or monitor local threats to the embassies to determine if all the embassy staff should be withdrawn - the military monitors that. If anyone in the State department had heard intel that there was a potential issue there, they would have forwarded that information to the Secretary of Defense - if Clinton knew about it, she wouldn't have been able to send more marines there, or to order for a withdrawal of all the embassy employees. Even if Clinton called the embassy to personally relay the danger to the head of the Marines stationed there, he would have had to contact his next in command to relay the concern and get instructions on what to do. I see, so Hillary had no part in making sure the agencies under her were covered! OK!! The reason for minimal security was that the CIA did not want to draw attention to the activities that were taking place at either of the facilities that were attacked in Benghazi.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 27, 2020 0:48:20 GMT -5
It wasn’t an embassy after all. Maybe OC thinks we should have a 10th Benghazi investigation while he mindlessly forgets 9/11, the Marine barracks etc. all much worse and all the responsibility of Repos.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,122
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 27, 2020 1:29:39 GMT -5
From the linked article: Reads to me Parnas has confirmed the dinner meeting and conversation. Saw this on Twitter regarding the Igor Fruman dinner tape of trump stating "Take her out": I listened to the tape tonight.
what I gather from this is that Parnas is now about 10x as believable as Trump's inner circle.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 27, 2020 16:15:41 GMT -5
I just tuned into the defense side of the trial...The one currently speaking...is drawling on and on...putting me to sleep
Grant u the verdict is all but in but if this is the defense the Donald is counting on, beyond the blind obedience of GOP members to acquit him...he would be in trouble if it was a open fair trial...{had to nudge myself awake...good thing UConn Woman are in a exhibition tonight on espn3 with USA womans team at 7:00 to keep me occupied...got to switch channels now, got to wake up first..
I do feel sorry for the Senators who have to sit through this...Are they allowed to put their keppies{heads} down on the desk..? Sgt of Arms comes by to poke them..
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,888
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 27, 2020 20:44:36 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,474
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 27, 2020 21:31:51 GMT -5
Because he couldn't see over the Situation Room table?
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by tbop77 on Jan 28, 2020 6:01:39 GMT -5
I guess Nervous Nancy's decision to hold the articles of impeachment was genius. Poor old Mitch wanted so bad to ram this trial through. Let the shoes continue to drop!
|
|