weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 31, 2019 13:29:55 GMT -5
IOTW report? Lol! Sure, I'm going to trust a "news" website that portrays Biden like this, and gets its info from Breitbart. No, not biased at all!
|
|
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 Dec 31, 2019 13:50:21 GMT -5
In otherwords Biden seeing that the prosecutor was fired was totally justified and that Congress is also justified in ferreting out the Trump corruption in Ukraine. Got it!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2020 16:44:48 GMT -5
right, that treaty doesn't have anything to do with Clinton or Trump, or any other president. it is basically a cooperation agreement between law enforcement agencies.
in other words, it allows the CIA to cooperate with their local law enforcement, and their equivalent of the CIA to cooperate with OUR local law enforcement. it doesn't allow or require the president to interact with their law enforcement, nor does it allow the president to single out an individual for prosecution.
sorry, but I am not buying it.
neither should u.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 2, 2020 20:38:39 GMT -5
New coverup questions in Trump’s Ukraine scandalOne of the GOP’s chief talking points in its impeachment defense of President Trump has been this: The U.S. military aid to Ukraine was withheld, yes, but it was released without any quid pro quo being satisfied. Ipso facto, nothing to see here. That already strained talking point suffered a significant blow Thursday. Just Security’s Kate Brannen was able to view unredacted emails in which the Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department discussed the withholding of military aid. The big new takeaway is that there was significant concern within the Pentagon about the legality and sustainability of the hold. Despite that, according to one email from top OMB official Michael Duffey on Aug. 30, there was “clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.” The even bigger takeaway, though, may be how much this fact was obscured. The emails were previously released in redacted form, but many of the redaction choices are puzzling and even suspicious. The redactions include repeated references to legal problems with withholding the aid, basic questions about that subject, and warnings that waiting until too late in the fiscal year (which ended Sept. 30) might mean that some of the funds would never get to Ukraine. That latter fact appears to have been doubly obscured — including in an official communication. OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta wrote a letter to the Government Accountability Office on Dec. 11 that suggested that the Defense Department had not flagged such a risk. Complete article here: New coverup questions in Trump’s Ukraine scandal
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 14:08:21 GMT -5
right, that treaty doesn't have anything to do with Clinton or Trump, or any other president. it is basically a cooperation agreement between law enforcement agencies.
in other words, it allows the CIA to cooperate with their local law enforcement, and their equivalent of the CIA to cooperate with OUR local law enforcement. it doesn't allow or require the president to interact with their law enforcement, nor does it allow the president to single out an individual for prosecution.
sorry, but I am not buying it.
neither should u.
andi9899 (I'm quoting this for DJ, but in case your still interested) Read the Letter of Transmittal, and the name at the bottom. (first bolded) You'll need to jump forward to about 1 minute. You're not advancing your credibility with this DJ. (second bolded) Just sayin. www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Bill+Clinton+Signed+treaty&view=detail&mid=9F5EDBEE738C673C43889F5EDBEE738C673C4388&FORM=VIRE
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 3, 2020 22:05:10 GMT -5
right, that treaty doesn't have anything to do with Clinton or Trump, or any other president. it is basically a cooperation agreement between law enforcement agencies.
in other words, it allows the CIA to cooperate with their local law enforcement, and their equivalent of the CIA to cooperate with OUR local law enforcement. it doesn't allow or require the president to interact with their law enforcement, nor does it allow the president to single out an individual for prosecution.
sorry, but I am not buying it.
neither should u.
andi9899 (I'm quoting this for DJ, but in case your still interested) Read the Letter of Transmittal, and the name at the bottom. (first bolded) You'll need to jump forward to about 1 minute. You're not advancing your credibility with this DJ. (second bolded) Just sayin. www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Bill+Clinton+Signed+treaty&view=detail&mid=9F5EDBEE738C673C43889F5EDBEE738C673C4388&FORM=VIREsorry, I guess I wasn't clear:
it has nothing to do with the office of the presidency, as far as I can tell.
please quote the specific caption that says that the measure enables Clinton to personally go after persons of interest, if you disagree, because that would form a basis for the disagreement which you appear to think we have.
PS- my credibility is fine. in fact, it is about as sound as it can be for an anonymous poster. worry about your own.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 12:04:30 GMT -5
sorry, I guess I wasn't clear:
it has nothing to do with the office of the presidency, as far as I can tell.
please quote the specific caption that says that the measure enables Clinton to personally go after persons of interest, if you disagree, because that would form a basis for the disagreement which you appear to think we have.
PS- my credibility is fine. in fact, it is about as sound as it can be for an anonymous poster. worry about your own.
I'm not worried. We're just picking nits now. Clinton was involved, or there would be no Transmittal to the Senate with his signature on it. I lived through it when it happened, and I remember him saying things about it in little clips on the news. I only rebutted you saying 'he' wasn't involved, not the office of the presidency as you have changed to in this post.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2020 16:38:37 GMT -5
sorry, I guess I wasn't clear:
it has nothing to do with the office of the presidency, as far as I can tell.
please quote the specific caption that says that the measure enables Clinton to personally go after persons of interest, if you disagree, because that would form a basis for the disagreement which you appear to think we have.
PS- my credibility is fine. in fact, it is about as sound as it can be for an anonymous poster. worry about your own.
I'm not worried. We're just picking nits now. Clinton was involved, or there would be no Transmittal to the Senate with his signature on it. I lived through it when it happened, and I remember him saying things about it in little clips on the news. I only rebutted you saying 'he' wasn't involved, not the office of the presidency as you have changed to in this post. good. hopefully you are not worried about mine, either. nobody on this board should worry about their reputations. we are all just 1's and 0's, here. we are only as good as what we say. nothing more or less.
you are still not understanding me. I am clear about the processes of government. what I am saying is that the law was not designed for the purpose of having the PRESIDENT intervene in international investigations.
if you disagree, that's cool: please tell me how Clinton personally benefitted from this law.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2020 12:11:56 GMT -5
I'm not worried. We're just picking nits now. Clinton was involved, or there would be no Transmittal to the Senate with his signature on it. I lived through it when it happened, and I remember him saying things about it in little clips on the news. I only rebutted you saying 'he' wasn't involved, not the office of the presidency as you have changed to in this post. good. hopefully you are not worried about mine, either. nobody on this board should worry about their reputations. we are all just 1's and 0's, here. we are only as good as what we say. nothing more or less.
you are still not understanding me. I am clear about the processes of government. what I am saying is that the law was not designed for the purpose of having the PRESIDENT intervene in international investigations.
if you disagree, that's cool: please tell me how Clinton personally benefitted from this law.
1) From Clinton not involved. 2) To the office of the president. 3) To how Clinton personally benefitted. I was only answering your first one on Clinton being involved. He was, or there would be no Transmittal to the Senate with his signature on it. Those goalposts are growing wheels. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jan 2, 2020 at 3:44pm djAdvocate said: right, that treaty doesn't have anything to do with Clinton or Trump, or any other president. it is basically a cooperation agreement between law enforcement agencies. in other words, it allows the CIA to cooperate with their local law enforcement, and their equivalent of the CIA to cooperate with OUR local law enforcement. it doesn't allow or require the president to interact with their law enforcement, nor does it allow the president to single out an individual for prosecution. sorry, but I am not buying it. neither should
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 6, 2020 16:42:37 GMT -5
good. hopefully you are not worried about mine, either. nobody on this board should worry about their reputations. we are all just 1's and 0's, here. we are only as good as what we say. nothing more or less.
you are still not understanding me. I am clear about the processes of government. what I am saying is that the law was not designed for the purpose of having the PRESIDENT intervene in international investigations.
if you disagree, that's cool: please tell me how Clinton personally benefitted from this law.
1) From Clinton not involved. 2) To the office of the president. 3) To how Clinton personally benefitted. I was only answering your first one on Clinton being involved. He was, or there would be no Transmittal to the Senate with his signature on it. Those goalposts are growing wheels. no, not at all.
the whole issue with Trump is that he personally benefitted from the aid.
you claimed that the law allows him to do that.
I am questioning that.
so- when I said "was Clinton personally involved", I wasn't talking about his ink on the law. I meant "how did he benefit"? and when I said "this law does not allow the president to personally benefit" I was talking about the same thing. i only resorted to the third statement when it was clear that you didn't get what i meant.
so, now that you do- how did Clinton personally benefit?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2020 11:53:07 GMT -5
1) From Clinton not involved. 2) To the office of the president. 3) To how Clinton personally benefitted. I was only answering your first one on Clinton being involved. He was, or there would be no Transmittal to the Senate with his signature on it. Those goalposts are growing wheels. no, not at all.
the whole issue with Trump is that he personally benefitted from the aid.
you claimed that the law allows him to do that.
I am questioning that.
so- when I said "was Clinton personally involved", I wasn't talking about his ink on the law. I meant "how did he benefit"? and when I said "this law does not allow the president to personally benefit" I was talking about the same thing. i only resorted to the third statement when it was clear that you didn't get what i meant.
so, now that you do- how did Clinton personally benefit?
I have no idea.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 10, 2020 20:26:47 GMT -5
Trump impeachment: Live updates and the latest news
Trump says 'you have to' block Bolton from testifying 'for the sake of the office'President Donald Trump told Fox News that he thinks he would "have to" invoke executive privilege to block former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying in the Senate impeachment trial, saying it would be "for the sake of the office." In an interview excerpt released Friday, Trump said when asked by the network's Laura Ingraham why he wouldn't allow Bolton to testify, "I have no problem, other than one thing: You can't be in the White House as president — future, I'm talking about future, many future presidents — and have a security adviser, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things. ..." "You're going to invoke executive privilege?" Ingraham asked. "Especially — well, I think you have to. For the sake of the office," Trump said. Trump impeachment: Live updates and the latest news"For the sake of the office." aka 'To protect my ass.'
|
|
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 10, 2020 21:01:25 GMT -5
They keep mentioning the Demos won’t allow witnesses. Even McConnell is on record as is Trump and numerous other Repo-Cons. Yet Trump has already requested many subpoenaed insiders not testify. Now this. I wish they would make up their minds so it wouldn’t continue to be obstruction of justice.
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 11, 2020 9:40:52 GMT -5
Trump impeachment: Live updates and the latest news
Trump says 'you have to' block Bolton from testifying 'for the sake of the office'President Donald Trump told Fox News that he thinks he would "have to" invoke executive privilege to block former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying in the Senate impeachment trial, saying it would be "for the sake of the office." In an interview excerpt released Friday, Trump said when asked by the network's Laura Ingraham why he wouldn't allow Bolton to testify, "I have no problem, other than one thing: You can't be in the White House as president — future, I'm talking about future, many future presidents — and have a security adviser, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things. ..." "You're going to invoke executive privilege?" Ingraham asked. "Especially — well, I think you have to. For the sake of the office," Trump said. Trump impeachment: Live updates and the latest news"For the sake of the office." aka 'To protect my ass.' Trump can't let Bolton testify because Bolton has said he would spill the beans about Trump's involvement in what Bolton called this 'drug deal.' But Trump has to hide the reason for silencing Bolton under this fake story about having to protect the rights of future presidents. What a crock of bullshit, and yet Trump's loyal toadies sit by quietly and suck in the bullshit because that's what they've been reduced to. Mindless shit eating toads.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jan 11, 2020 11:43:49 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?
The same day you admit something good about Trump
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 11, 2020 14:05:11 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump There is nothing good about Trump. You want us to make something up?
|
|
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 11, 2020 16:12:21 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump Most awesome die job combover combo ever! Puts Benghazi and Solyndra to shame.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,715
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 11, 2020 16:37:02 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump Trump as a person or Trump as a President? I'll have an easier time with the former.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,715
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 11, 2020 16:39:19 GMT -5
Trump impeachment: Live updates and the latest news
Trump says 'you have to' block Bolton from testifying 'for the sake of the office'President Donald Trump told Fox News that he thinks he would "have to" invoke executive privilege to block former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying in the Senate impeachment trial, saying it would be "for the sake of the office." In an interview excerpt released Friday, Trump said when asked by the network's Laura Ingraham why he wouldn't allow Bolton to testify, "I have no problem, other than one thing: You can't be in the White House as president — future, I'm talking about future, many future presidents — and have a security adviser, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things. ..." "You're going to invoke executive privilege?" Ingraham asked. "Especially — well, I think you have to. For the sake of the office," Trump said. Trump impeachment: Live updates and the latest news"For the sake of the office." aka 'To protect my ass.' The man spews more fiction than fiction writers. He doesn't care about the office of President. Where were all his tweets and public outcry for the office of President when Nixon and Clinton were impeached?
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 11, 2020 16:55:35 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump He used to be a Democrat. He used to talk about infrastructure. He used to be pro-choice.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jan 11, 2020 17:03:22 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump hold onto your ass, because I can say 1 good thing about him.
Because of him I now understand how my gov't works better than I ever did before. I can name not only my Senators & Representatives, but many many many many others. I have learned about my gov't because it was too important to not know how everything works. Not that I was completely ignorant before, but I know so much more about it than I did 3 years ago. I learned to pay attention because he's fucking us up hard core.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,160
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 11, 2020 17:06:36 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump He is a world-class con-man. He has an unmatched ability to claim credit for things. His narcissism and self-absorption reach levels previously unseen in our history. Do those count? Should I go on?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 11, 2020 18:57:25 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump He's doing a fantastic job of uniting the world. (Not with the USA, but against it, but still.........)
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,368
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 11, 2020 19:04:40 GMT -5
He is making sure the world will shortly run out of butt-ugly orange face paint and that really is a good thing.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jan 11, 2020 19:10:16 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump He's doing a fantastic job of uniting the world. (Not with the USA, but against it, but still.........) Actually, he's united the world against HIM, not all Americans. When Iran comes out and makes it clear that Americans aren't their targets, but he, his properties & the military are, that's a pretty big deal. It does lessen the odds we're going to have a random foreign terrorist attack (IMO). We're more likely to have a homegrown terrorist kill Americans. Other countries know that he doesn't have support from the majority of Americans. He's been impeached, he's a puppet, & literally knows NOTHING about how anything works in the big picture/real world. And the entire world knows it.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,409
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 12, 2020 19:02:25 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump He didn't veto that prison reform bill.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 12, 2020 19:49:30 GMT -5
Now when will anyone here on the right comment on this duality without it just being troll chat?The same day you admit something good about Trump He used to be a Democrat. He used to talk about infrastructure. He used to be pro-choice. Then he became a republican now it's make America great, and better to kill terrorist
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 12, 2020 21:16:31 GMT -5
He used to be a Democrat. He used to talk about infrastructure. He used to be pro-choice. Then he became a republican now it's make America great, and better to kill terrorist Then he bragged that he could sexually assault women. He attacked a Gold Star family and distrespected tne military. He mocked disabled people. He lies daily. He’s the laughing stock of the world. America USED TO BE great. Not so much anymore.
|
|
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 12, 2020 21:20:14 GMT -5
Not to forget his despicable ripoff business history, criminal fraud, probable money laundering and who knows what with his tax returns. Wife rape....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 7:21:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 12:24:17 GMT -5
Then he became a republican now it's make America great, and better to kill terrorist Then he bragged that he could sexually assault women. He attacked a Gold Star family and distrespected tne military. He mocked disabled people. He lies daily. He’s the laughing stock of the world. America USED TO BE great. Not so much anymore. Hmmm.
|
|