The One Question No Democrat On These Boards Can Answer

[Lutherf]

In the last election, Trump invited a foreign power to interfere in our election (and afterwards told them that he didn't care that they did), he told a reporter he would do it - accept dirt on an opponent form a foreign nation, and now he is insisting that a country do it in order to get their nation's Congressional allocation. Is all this really all news to you?

Great. You guys have the goods. It's cut and dried. Now commit to the damned impeachment!

 

[Cordelier]

He was ordered by a federal judge to investigate and report to Congress of his findings. He did that with 12 criminal recommendations. he was found guilty of 3 and had his law license suspended over it.

So how did Starr abuse his power?

This is a personal opinion. You can take it as you will.

I think there are two types of Special Counsel:

1. The Professional - these are investigators who stay within the parameters of their assigned scope, investigate the matter as fully and completely as possible, without seeking to expand the scope of their investigation. If they come across potentially incriminating information that falls outside of the scope of their investigation, they refer that information to the relevant authorities. If no incriminating evidence is found, they won't have any compunctions about saying so... and if potentially incriminating is found, they won't inflate it into any more than it is.

2. The Grand Inquisitor - these are investigators who are convinced of the guilt of their subject and will do just about anything to find something incriminating. They'll relentlessly expand the scope of their investigation from one area to another, will adopt questionable tactics, and employ every weapon at their disposal to "take the subject down." They will not accept the possibility that the subject may be innocent, and if they do succeed in digging up potentially incriminating evidence, they will inflate it's importance to the greatest extent possible.

Obviously, I put Special Counsels like Robert Mueller and Robert Fiske in the first category. Ken Starr is squarely in the second. He had no business whatsoever going beyond the Whitewater Investigation.... not to White House Travel office, nor to the FBI files, Madison Guaranty, Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster, or Paula Jones.... or all of the other areas I've forgotten about. His investigation was a circus from first to last - some Great Crusade to take down the Clintons. You can call that whatever you want, but it wasn't Justice.

 

[Cordelier]

So I would assume you respect his findings of NO collusion or conspiracy exist between Trump and Russia to effect the outcome of the election.

Such as they are, yes... but with the provisio that there are still ongoing matters in relation to the Mueller investigation. Several key individuals are still under indictment and awaiting trial as a result of the investigation, and so not all of Mueller's evidence has seen the light of day yet.

 

[Cordelier]

The Constitution states that the House of Representatives had the sole power of impeachment. In other words, they lack the authority to delegate that decision to the speaker.

They haven't.... technically, what's going on now is oversight. If the oversight accumulates evidence to support a formal impeachment inquiry, then the House will and must pass a resolution authorizing one.

 

[HumblePi]

That administration fought Congress. Nobody had charged Mr. Obama or Mr. Holder with obstruction of justice.
It was standard struggle between the executive and legislature that happens in every administration.
What is going on now is no different.

What is going on here, right now, today is going to affect millions of Kurds who have been the target of discrimination by Turkey for generations. There's more than 2 million of them right over the border from Turkey who are at risk of death. So, no this is not at all like any political power struggle that has ever happened since the American Revolution.

 

[ultmd]

Uh huh, Except the IC IG ICWSP
Urgent Concern Disclosure Form
Page 2

View attachment 67265756

What are you going to say now, I just made it up? Fail

So now it's clear. Your problem is one of comprehension. You don't know how ignorant you are of the facts...and you have no interest in ANY facts which conflict with your existing biases.

Why am I completely UN-surprised by this "revelation"?:roll:

But again (for the, what, 3rd time now???)....you need to READ! READ the links provided, or just hush up about this because you're coming across like a bit of a dullard.

If you READ my previous posts with links (and I am doubtful that you have the interest), you'll LEARN that the original ICWB FORM and instructions were poorly worded and NOT in compliance with the federal LAW. If you READ, you'll LEARN that "forms don't change rules; rules are set by laws and policies". If you READ, you will LEARN about ICD 120 and 50 U.S. Code 3033 and PPD-19 which CLEARLY state that the standard for filing a credible ICWB Complaint is NOT "first hand knowledge", but ONLY "reasonable belief that a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety" has been committed.

Those LAWS and POLICIES have been in place, unchanged, since the ICWB Act was signed and enacted by President Obama in 2012. The re-writing of the ICWB form had ZERO effect on the LAWS and POLICIES that have been in place since 2012. It merely cleared up confusion from the wording in the previous form.

 

[Athanasius68]

What is going on here, right now, today is going to affect millions of Kurds who have been the target of discrimination by Turkey for generations. There's more than 2 million of them right over the border from Turkey who are at risk of death. So, no this is not at all like any political power struggle that has ever happened since the American Revolution.

I get it that you dislike Trump, but the setting of bad precedent is a very bad way of getting rid of him.
Take the Syria concern to the voters.

 

[Deuce]

What you see as bullying, I see as holding her accountable. She owes it to the country to bring it to a vote.
But ultimately, it's her choice to delay. For the rest of us, the optics are looking like just another Democratic Party temper tantrum.

She owes it to the country to bring it to a vote after investigation is complete and the case is presented to the House of Representatives. Why on earth would you not want proper investigation before an impeachment vote?

 

[jnug]

Great. You guys have the goods. It's cut and dried. Now commit to the damned impeachment!

Oh my.... suddenly its the Right that is all bent around the axle. If I was as rotten a patriot and as rotten a citizen as there exists in factions of the Right in this country I would talk about how much fun it is to see the Right going GA-GA....batcrap crazy. But Independents and Dems just don't roll that way. WE take Government and Governance seriously. Its not some game show to us or comic relief to us. We love our country. So I won't talk about that.

 

[jaeger19]

This complaint could be taken more seriously is:

1. The Obama Admin had NOT investigated the Trump campaign in 2016.
2. That the Obama Admin HAD NOT received foreign information about the Trump campaign.
3. The Obama Admin did not use foreign information in order to justify that investigation of the Trump campaign.

At that point, Perhaps your hysteria in the subject would be valid.
But presently, it isn't.

Yeah.. you will have to help me out here.

1. Obama isn't president. Trump is president
2. The Obama administration is not in charge now.. Trump administration is
3. Obama administration is not in charge now.

When the Obama administration and Obama was in charge I held him and his administration responsible.

Why is it "hysteria".. to hold trump responsible for what he has done?

Please explain. Is your argument that as long as OBama did something wrong... then Trump is free to do wrong as well.. and any other president going forward?

Does this mean that if Biden gets to be president.. and HE solicits a foreign power to help him win elections in the future... you will defend him by saying... "well Trump did it too?"

Please explain your position.

 

[Jay59]

And now given us the tyranny of the minority. Well done founders! Probably done to protect the white, male property owning minority.

Well said.

What white, male, property owning minority? That was everyone who had a vote, with few exceptions.

 

[ludin]

When the FBI questions me on a specific meeting, I would imagine it would sharpen my memory somewhat.

Michael Cohen plead guilty to campaign finance violations.

which has nothing to do with trump. now you are just making stuff up because your prior argument fell to pieces.
which always happens with leftist run into facts.

 

[ludin]

It's been pointed out a hundred times in this thread. There is no need for a vote. No rules or law or anything in the constitution says you must vote to start an impeachment inquiry. They have to vote to send it to the senate. An incredibly stupid op-ed from a ****ty little paper doesn't change that.

which is why this isn't an impeachment inquiry. congrats you read the article.
actually that isn't how it works so you obviously didn't read the article which is why
your post is so uninformed.

Maybe you should read the actual article so that you can have some knowledge on what we are talking about.
the article knows more about it than you do, but i see you resort to ad hominem which is the leftist default when
they can't refute what is said.

 

[ludin]

Then there is no reason for for the president to consider that there is an impeachment inquiry.

ACtually he came out today and pretty much put a nail in their coffin. If pelosi wants an actual inquiry she is going to have to bring it to a vote.

 

[bluesmoke]

Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia


They can take steps and go through other similar process to remove a senator. But they can't be impeached.

Thanks for the correction. I like expulsion better. Never thought of why bother with impeachment when the less involved expulsion was available. Impeachment requires both the House and Senate to impeach and thus remove a Senator or Representative. Expulsion only requires the individual branch of Congress to remove it's own member.

 

[Condor060]

So now it's clear. Your problem is one of comprehension. You don't know how ignorant you are of the facts...and you have no interest in ANY facts which conflict with your existing biases.

Why am I completely UN-surprised by this "revelation"?:roll:

But again (for the, what, 3rd time now???)....you need to READ! READ the links provided, or just hush up about this because you're coming across like a bit of a dullard.

If you READ my previous posts with links (and I am doubtful that you have the interest), you'll LEARN that the original ICWB FORM and instructions were poorly worded and NOT in compliance with the federal LAW. If you READ, you'll LEARN that "forms don't change rules; rules are set by laws and policies". If you READ, you will LEARN about ICD 120 and 50 U.S. Code 3033 and PPD-19 which CLEARLY state that the standard for filing a credible ICWB Complaint is NOT "first hand knowledge", but ONLY "reasonable belief that a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety" has been committed.

Those LAWS and POLICIES have been in place, unchanged, since the ICWB Act was signed and enacted by President Obama in 2012. The re-writing of the ICWB form had ZERO effect on the LAWS and POLICIES that have been in place since 2012. It merely cleared up confusion from the wording in the previous form.

NOTHING in those documents state anything about 1st, 2nd, or 3rd hand knowledge. What changed is the disclosure form. The Urgent Disclosure form has remained unchanged since it was put into place in 1989 and clearly states First Hand Knowledge required.

You can read every law yo want but that fact remains that only first hand knowledge allowed you to take protects under WB laws. This document was changed to allow any claim.

You can piss and moan all you want but I Provided you with the actual document required before you can take WB status.

 

[jnug]

NOTHING in those documents state anything about 1st, 2nd, or 3rd hand knowledge. What changed is the disclosure form. The Urgent Disclosure form has remained unchanged since it was put into place in 1989 and clearly states First Hand Knowledge required.

You can read every law yo want but that fact remains that only first hand knowledge allowed you to take protects under WB laws. This document was changed to allow any claim.

You can piss and moan all you want but I Provided you with the actual document required before you can take WB status.

You are welcome to keep holding on to the guardrail as the "RS" Trumpkin slides into the ocean by the bow.

 

[Integrityrespec]

BS....proper protocol is what the Speaker says it is. Beyond the Speaker's prerogative there is no such thing as Proper Protocol.

Ultimately you get to hard an fast House Rules but how fast the House gets there and when and how is the business of House which in reality means its the business of the Speaker.

Oh and the whip count is now 227 plus one independent. SHE HAS THE VOTES. She won't be bullied on issues of process.

Why are democrats always changing the established way of doing things. The standard precedant has been to debate and vote to begin an investigation and then have the floor vote once the evidence was gathered and the House had voted on the results. If they impeach it would go to the Senate for the trail. Democrats are playing politics because they either fear they don't have the votes, they can't get any republicans to vote with them making the entire affair look like partisan politics or they are afraid a vote will sink some of the house members chances to get reelected in 2020.

 

[jnug]

Why are democrats always changing the established way of doing things. The standard precedant has been to debate and vote to begin an investigation and then have the floor vote once the evidence was gathered and the House had voted on the results. If they impeach it would go to the Senate for the trail. Democrats are playing politics because they either fear they don't have the votes, they can't get any republicans to vote with them making the entire affair look like partisan politics or they are afraid a vote will sink some of the house members chances to get reelected in 2020.

loaded question and irrelevant.

 

[Integrityrespec]

loaded question and irrelevant.

That is the question. Why do democrats say one thing and do another. They know what the established precendent is for a situation such as they are trying to portray. The only reason they are taking a different path is they have lost on every front, 2016 election,collusion, obstruction, campaign finance, Mueller report, Mueller hearing, now they revisit collusion but with Ukraine. The Ukrainian President says no quid pro quo, he never was pressed to do something for any payment. In fact they didn't know the money was even on hold. So intent is absent and in the emails from ambassadors the no quid pro quo was plainly stated as the message from the president. Come democrats, try to be a stand up party and just win an election with your pitiful cast of Presidential hopefuls if you don't like the President. A President with better than 90% support from his party. Those are voters who will turn out against this action and the democrats will feel the backlash.

 

[nitroexpress]

Trump is a hell of a fighter - for himself. You're kidding yourself if you think he fights for anything else. - well, for Putin too.

Yea, sure. Now where do we send your blue pills?