- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Let’s ask it this way libs...
Posted on 9/26/19 at 4:56 pm to cahoots
Posted on 9/26/19 at 4:56 pm to cahoots
quote:
Well that is exactly what was done/started by the prior executive branch, right?
You tell me. Are you okay with it?
Knowing what we do now I dont think this compares with the ball that the Obama administration got rolling against a political foe.
0
Posted on 9/26/19 at 5:01 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
Then recently, they apparently tried again to contact folks in our State Dept. who then went directly to Rudy Guiliani and asked him to personally intervene and help them acquire whatever it was the Ukrainians were trying to get to our DOJ. And he did.
So Pompeo wasn't gonna let it happen? Had to go to Guiliani?
Posted on 9/26/19 at 5:16 pm to cahoots
quote:
You tell me. Are you okay with it?
This is rich. There must be a correspondence course by leftists on how to not be absolutely ashamed by hypocrisy.
1). Clinton paid a foreign agent to fabricate a dossier that was 100 percent false. No leftist outrage.
2) this was after she kept an unsecured server for her state dept email used to dodge FOIA. It had classified info on it. It was hacked. No leftist outrage
3) Clinton used a sham foundation to charge gigantic sham speaking fees for access to the presidency in exchange for access to the presidency. She even pushed through an arms deal to the Saudis , that had been denied, after a large “donation”. Using office for personal gain.
4) Comey and company take the dossier to the FISA court, lie while saying that it’s true to the best of their knowledge (perjury), and use it to spy on a rival campaign. No leftist outrage
5) a Special counsel is formed with two people bragging an “insurance plan” in case Trump was elected along with other partisan hacks with a puppet special prosecutor who is damn near in full dementia. No leftist outrage.
And on and on and on.
And you are asking us if we are ok with a review of a corrupt business deal that gave the Vice Presidents ( now presidential candidate) son a do nothing job for 83 grand a month and threatening to withhold aid in exchange for a firing of a prosecutor that was looking in to it??
Buh. Buh. he was corrupt. IT DOESNT MATTER! THE ACTION IN ITSELF IS ILLEGIAL.
What other corruption did Biden uncover in 8 years?? He randomly found a prosecutor in Ukraine to do it? None else?
You really not see that what you are claiming about Trump... Biden has admitted on video of doing?
This post was edited on 9/26/19 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 9/26/19 at 5:22 pm to cahoots
quote:This happened around the time that Trump, Guiliani, and others on the Right were discussing Trump's defense against the ongoing collusion accusations. One of those defenses was in regards to CrowdStrike, which is based in Ukraine.
So Pompeo wasn't gonna let it happen? Had to go to Guiliani?
It was also about the time that Sara Carter and John Solomon wrote some articles about somebody in Ukraine making claims that the DNC approached them in 2016 asking if they would dig up dirt on Paul Manafort and Trump.
This is about the time that Rudy, as Trump's defense attorney, stated he was willing to go to Ukraine and meet with them to discuss these things and collect any evidence they had to help his client.
But the media went nuts about this for some reason and Rudy ultimately cancelled his plans to go to Ukraine.
Shortly after this, our State Department asked Rudy to meet the Ukrainians somewhere else, not in Ukraine, and to collect not just the evidence of Democrats asking Ukraine for dirt on Manafort and Trump, but all of Shokin's investigation into Burisma too.
So it's a safe bet Rudy became the point-man on this because he was already in contact with the Ukrainians while working as Trump's defense attorney.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 5:30 pm to cahoots
quote:
So you think that's a call that should be made by the executive branch? Whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed with prosecuting a political rival?
You have no idea what the executive branch is, do you?
Who should investigate crimes? Is your issue with the fact that Biden is a candidate for president today, years after having committed said alleged crimes? Is the loophole to criminal enterprise to simply run for elected office?
I really had no intention of coming away with the belief that you are either incredibly uninformed or you prefer to appear to be for some weird reason. Yet, here we are.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 5:33 pm to davyjones
quote:
Well that is exactly what was done/started by the prior executive branch, right?
The Obama admin went well beyond its normal powers of law enforcement and investigation. In theory, had they not been the ones to create the false information that lead to a deep intelligence probe of a candidate, and simply conducted a normal investigation, yes that would have been extremely routine and exactly what the executive branch does.
What Trump is doing is what Obama should have done (though without their fabrications, there wouldn't have been a need to investigate anything, as we now know).
Posted on 9/26/19 at 5:41 pm to cahoots
Your name is one that biden would love, cahoots.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 5:52 pm to GRTiger
quote:
You have no idea what the executive branch is, do you?
What?
quote:
Who should investigate crimes?
The DOJ. And there is a longstanding belief that the DOJ should operate independently of the executive branch and in accordance with the rule of law.
It's not a controversial position. It's held by many conservatives too. But yeah, it isn't really settled by congress or the supreme court. Hence the debate
Of course, a lot of Trump supporters are proudly authoritarian. So it's no surprise that they believe a president has the right to direct and/or push the DOJ in certain directions.
This post was edited on 9/26/19 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 9/26/19 at 5:56 pm to cahoots
Setting aside the straw man for a second, which branch of government does the DOJ fall under? I'll give you 3 guesses.
Now when I speak in accurate terms and you reply with some smarm about how authoritarian I am sounding, consider how ridiculous you sound.
Now when I speak in accurate terms and you reply with some smarm about how authoritarian I am sounding, consider how ridiculous you sound.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 6:02 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Setting aside the straw man for a second, which branch of government does the DOJ fall under? I'll give you 3 guesses.
I know that the DOJ is under the executive branch of govt. I am referring to the executive power of the President. As in, Trump being the leader of the executive branch, does he have authority over the DOJ to influence investigations?
That is the authoritarian way of viewing the President's power. The other end of the spectrum is that the President should exert no influence at all over the DOJ.
This post was edited on 9/26/19 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 9/26/19 at 6:16 pm to GRTiger
quote:
GRTiger
It's pretty obvious that Trump loyalists are authoritarians at heart. I get it. A lot of Democrats are that way too. But make no mistake, most of you are happy when the President scrapes every last ounce of authority out of his position. At long as it's the guy you elected.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 6:51 pm to cahoots
You attacked my use of the "executive branch" many dumb posts ago because you didn't know that. I'm glad you looked it up and I can teach you something.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 6:57 pm to GRTiger
quote:
You attacked my use of the "executive branch" many dumb posts ago because you didn't know that. I'm glad you looked it up and I can teach you something.
I was attacking the idea that you think it’s okay for the president to go rogue and act towards assisting the DOJ in an investigation. Sorry but you can’t run away from the authoritarian label now. That’s what you are. Just own it.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 7:02 pm to cahoots
I doubt it, but even if that's what you meant, that simply proves you lack the ability to read words and understand them. That's on you. You're trying to claw your way out of either not knowing something or not understanding something. It certainly wasn't the first time in this thread.
You would also be an easy mark for getting put in the corner regarding your understanding of and beliefs about the relationship between the DOJ and POTUS if I cared to beat up a dead man.
You would also be an easy mark for getting put in the corner regarding your understanding of and beliefs about the relationship between the DOJ and POTUS if I cared to beat up a dead man.
Posted on 9/26/19 at 7:04 pm to cahoots
Going rogue! Does a treaty come into play or is that just rogue?
Posted on 9/26/19 at 7:09 pm to GRTiger
quote:
You would also be an easy mark for getting put in the corner regarding your understanding of and beliefs about the relationship between the DOJ and POTUS if I cared to beat up a dead man.
Rightttttt
Posted on 9/28/19 at 2:41 pm to cahoots
Listen very carefully; the Trump family has an unblemished record of conducting themselves and their business dealings lawfully. The chances Trump would have done anything illegal in talks with the president of Ukraine are very unlikely.
Posted on 11/3/19 at 2:14 am to cahoots
quote:
So what good does a Ukrainian investigation do if he already broke US law?
The only thing I can tell anyone is that US presidents have a whole lot of authority to say and do things lawfully which others would be indicted and convicted for. The phone call controversy has the element of Trump acting on the counter intelligence investigation Robert Mueller FBI State Department carried out. Why don't Democrats want USA digging around Ukraine involvement in election interference/corruption?
So what good does a Ukrainian investigation do if he already broke US law?
The only thing I can tell anyone is that US presidents have a whole lot of authority to say and do things lawfully which others would be indicted and convicted for. The phone call controversy has the element of Trump acting on the counter intelligence investigation Robert Mueller FBI State Department carried out. Why don't Democrats want USA digging around Ukraine involvement in election interference/corruption?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News