The One Question No Democrat On These Boards Can Answer

[Condor060]

In fact, she did not say anything about any requirement for a vote.

But hey, why don’t you tell us about all the campaign money Trump has, that always seems to make you feel better. :lamo

You mean like he has raised more money than all Democrats combined? That must hurt. Ouch

 

[lurchadams]

Where did you ever get the idea of Biden running for president gained him some immunity from any crimes? Barr and the DOJ already knew what was in the call transcript before they released it.

So either Barr and the DOJ are just idiots and have no clue as to what the powers of the office are or its just you.

Think I will take the DOJ's word for it.

You dodged the question. What other corruption besides going after his main political rival has trump attempted to root out? And please don't bring up Barr as if he's some type of objective law enforcement officer. He's already proven he's in the tank for trump many times.

 

[Condor060]

No vote is required

And neither is the WH providing any subpoenaed information when you don't have the vote.

 

[jnug]

And neither is the WH providing any subpoenaed information when you don't have the vote.

They don't need it. But they will subpoena for it. They have enough material already.

And NOOOOOOO the House committees so authorized by the Speaker can subpoena and those subpoenas are legitimate. Trump is just building another Article of Impeachment for himself.

 

[lurchadams]

That's difficult, since your definition of credible is one that agrees with you. You freely discard facts whenever they don't fit the story.

Yeah, you go with that. trump has been a conspiracy theorist since his leadership of the birther scam. Now you're going with him being a straight shooter rooting out corruption wherever he sees it? And it's just a coincidence he's starting with his main political rival?

Please.

 

[Condor060]

And the House will vote in due time. It did not and does not require a vote on the floor for Pelosi to authorize the actions she has authorized to date. You really do need a better understanding of US governance. Pelosi will not be bullied. Blather all you want. She won't be bullied.

She already was by the fraud squad, who are actually running the House right now.

No vote in the House, no Impeachment Inquiry exist, no subpoenas will be complied with by the WH. Good luck

 

[vegas giants]

She already was by the fraud squad, who are actually running the House right now.

No vote in the House, no Impeachment Inquiry exist, no subpoenas will be complied with by the WH. Good luck

Good. I hope he ignores every subpoena.



That would be great!

 

[Cordelier]

The House acts by voting. It has never voted to conduct an inquiry into whether President Trump should be impeached. Consequently, there is no House impeachment inquiry. There is a partisan exhibition of synchronized dyspepsia.

Under federal law, the offense of obstructing Congress applies when “any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House.” Again, neither the House nor any of its committees has voted to conduct an impeachment inquiry. There is no formal impeachment proceeding to obstruct. Furthermore, the letters in question are not actually demands carrying the compulsory force of law; technically, they are just informal requests. No one is required to comply with a mere request, and refusing to do so is not evidence of anything, let alone obstruction.

The WH has already declined to provide documents or testimony without a vote from the House daring Pelosi to hold a vote.

If she had the vote she would ram it down Trumps throat. You are being lead around by a bunch of partisan hacks and its going to lead you right back to empty hands and empty threats.

Fair enough... I understand what you're getting at, but let's be frank here... we're not to that point yet. The Resolution (H Res 396) authorizing the formal inquiry has already been introduced. It's been lingering in the Rules Committee since May 22. What the House is deciding on now is whether to give it a rule and send it the floor. All Pelosi has done is to re-open the consideration of H Res 396 in light of new information. It might be that Rep. Jackson Lee's Resolution will have to be amended to account for new facts.

 

[jnug]

She already was by the fraud squad, who are actually running the House right now.

No vote in the House, no Impeachment Inquiry exist, no subpoenas will be complied with by the WH. Good luck

You don't know what you are talking about. But keep blathering if you must. Neither the Constitution nor the rules of the House demands a vote.

 

[Condor060]

Then you have nothing to worry about.

It's just that you sound worried

I haven't been worried since the election was concluded but the Democrats have put on a great show ever since. As long as Democrats move for sentence first, Impeachment last, it will get even more entertaining.

 

[lurchadams]

Why didn’t FBI do it’s own investigation with the DNC server? Why let Crowdstrike and not FBI analyze the data?

Is there a law against hiring a consultant to shore up your cyber security? My company does it. He's another article - this time from Forbes debunking the right-wing nut/trump conspiracy theory:

The CrowdStrike Conspiracy: Here’s Why Trump Keeps Referencing The Cybersecurity Firm

According to the theory, which has been prominent on right-wing blogs and news websites and repeated by Trump and former campaign consultant Roger Stone, Democrats and CrowdStrike concocted evidence to frame Russia for the hack in order to discredit Trump’s win in 2016.
The supposed evidence of Russia’s innocence relies on the belief that a DNC server has been hidden in Ukraine, possibly by CrowdStrike’s cofounder Dmitri Alperovitch.
That belief may stem from a statement by President Trump in a 2017 interview with the Associated Press, in which he questioned why the FBI didn’t look at the DNC server, that CrowdStrike is owned by “a very rich Ukrainian.” Alperovitch is actually a Russian-born American citizen.

 

[jnug]

Fair enough... I understand what you're getting at, but let's be frank here... we're not to that point yet. The Resolution (H Res 396) authorizing the formal inquiry has already been introduced. It's been lingering in the Rules Committee since May 22. What the House is deciding on now is whether to give it a rule and send it the floor. All Pelosi has done is to re-open the consideration of H Res 396 in light of new information. It might be that Rep. Jackson Lee's Resolution will have to be amended to account for new facts.

You actually think he is going to understand any of that or even cares to? Brother you have faith!

 

[lurchadams]

See, that's the problem. You guys already have Trump convicted of all this stuff and are generally unwilling to listen to any arguments contrary to your opinion. That isn't justice. It's railroading the guy. Just because you believe in your heart of hearts that Trump committed some crime or other doesn't make it true.

Oh, my gosh. You know, you're right. Don't believe the transcript trump released - don't believe his own confession on the white house lawn. I should believe you rather than my own lying eyes and ears.

Thanks for setting me straight :roll:

 

[Condor060]

Fair enough... I understand what you're getting at, but let's be frank here... we're not to that point yet. The Resolution (H Res 396) authorizing the formal inquiry has already been introduced. It's been lingering in the Rules Committee since May 22. What the House is deciding on now is whether to give it a rule and send it the floor. All Pelosi has done is to re-open the consideration of H Res 396 in light of new information. It might be that Rep. Jackson Lee's Resolution will have to be amended to account for new facts.

They need to hold a vote so the evidence is provided and the House members make a decision. Then you wouldn't have both sides guessing. THis is a dumb way to try and Impeach a president and only divides the country farther.

 

[Jay59]

Yeah, you go with that. trump has been a conspiracy theorist since his leadership of the birther scam. Now you're going with him being a straight shooter rooting out corruption wherever he sees it? And it's just a coincidence he's starting with his main political rival?

Please.

More whataboutism. Goody.

The Democrats are desperate. They don't have time for a special counsel, they have massive exposure from the various Obama era scandals and the Bidens really are crooked. So, they are piling everything they have on one final attempt. They have to hope their double standard is not obvious to deplorables that they count on for votes.

 

[jnug]

They need to hold a vote so the evidence is provided and the House members make a decision. Then you wouldn't have both sides guessing. THis is a dumb way to try and Impeach a president and only divides the country farther.

No its a very strategically minded way to do it. Has the WH going in circles.

 

[Condor060]

Good. I hope he ignores every subpoena.



That would be great!

They already have and told Pelosi, no vote, no cooperation.

 

[vegas giants]

They already have and told Pelosi, no vote, no cooperation.

That's wonderful. The house can start fining people everyday and then move to jailing them

 

[jnug]

They already have and told Pelosi, no vote, no cooperation.

Pelosi doesn't care at this point. They will take WH cooperation if they get it. Charge them with another Article of Impeachment if they don't. Happy now!

 

[Cordelier]

investigations rely on lots of people...Barr is one of those. The facts are the facts.

Mueller Report was very independent report...Mueller had no idea what was going on...total figurehead

Noooo.... Barr ISN'T one of those people - that's why he appointed Durham. The way it's supposed to work is that Durham and his team do the investigation, they compile a report of their findings, and then they present it to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General is going to be an active part of the investigation, then why bother to appoint Durham in the first place?

This ought to have been waaaaay below his pay grade.

As for Mueller being a figurehead.... your assessment doesn't seem compatible with any facts of which I am aware. Can you back it up with any factual material?

 

[Condor060]

They don't need it. But they will subpoena for it. They have enough material already.

And NOOOOOOO the House committees so authorized by the Speaker can subpoena and those subpoenas are legitimate. Trump is just building another Article of Impeachment for himself.

If you you are saying is true, then why doesn't Pelosi get the vote and ram it down Trumps throat. He set her up for a HUGE win and she won't take it.

That tells everyone what they wanted to know. She has squat.

 

[vegas giants]

If you you are saying is true, then why doesn't Pelosi get the vote and ram it down Trumps throat. He set her up for a HUGE win and she won't take it.

That tells everyone what they wanted to know. She has squat.

She doesnt need a vote

 

[Cordelier]

They need to hold a vote so the evidence is provided and the House members make a decision. Then you wouldn't have both sides guessing. THis is a dumb way to try and Impeach a president and only divides the country farther.

This is a serious matter - if we're going to launch an inquiry about whether to impeach a President, then wouldn't you agree that it's important for the terms of such an inquiry and the matters that lie within it's jurisdiction be precisely laid out beforehand?

 

[roughdraft274]

Its in a dozen speeches she gave during the Clinton Impeachment. You can find them all on youtube.

So I need to go watch random youtube videos? There's no site with a link to a transcript of her saying it? Mmmkay. I'm going to assume that you just posted it without checking and it's fake unless you can provide evidence.

 

[jnug]

Noooo.... Barr ISN'T one of those people - that's why he appointed Durham. The way it's supposed to work is that Durham and his team do the investigation, they compile a report of their findings, and then they present it to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General is going to be an active part of the investigation, then why bother to appoint Durham in the first place?

This ought to have been waaaaay below his pay grade.

As for Mueller being a figurehead.... your assessment doesn't seem compatible with any facts of which I am aware. Can you back it up with any factual material?

Mueller did a fine job of running a PROSECUTION. He was a Special Counsel. Made a fair number of cases and even indicted Russians for the hacking. That is really all we should ever have expected of him. He has been made a fall guy for something he was NEVER going to do and got stabbed in the back by Barr at the end. I am not sure we will ever see an Institutionalist have his foundational principles tested more than Mueller's were tested.