Can Somebody Please Answer This Question?

[Rigby5]

Btw, still waiting on this answer as I don't think that it's been given yet.

I basically like Obama.
He inherited a bad economy and had to borrow to stimulate.
But he had promised to be anti war, and he lied about that.

 

[Rigby5]

Infrastructure is a sold investment in our future

In theory yes, but no one since Eisenhower has ever done more than waste money on pet projects to enrich campaign donors.

 

[hadit]

What other president are we supposed to compare Joe to?

trump was the president before Joe.

It's like when you say, "it's colder today than it was yesterday."

It's not a comparison. Can't Quid Pro stand on his own merits? Quite frankly, if the best defense you have is, "he's not somebody else", you don't have much.

 

[Rigby5]

If we really wanted a viable infrastructure, we would build nuclear plants that produce hydrogen gas.
When you burn hydrogen, all you emit is water.
Hydrogen tanks have to be pressurized, but Iceland showed it is practical, and much lighter and cheaper than huge batteries that need rare earth elements.

 

[forkup]

Wrong.
There is civil slander where you just harmed a peron's reputation.
But lying in order to cause impeachment is a criminal slander.
It is an attempt to illegal remove someone from their official office.

The first impeachment was over collusion with Russia, which is NOT illegal in any way.
The only way it could have been illegal is if Russia had contributed to the campaign with something of monetary value that was not declared.
That never happened.
And in fact, the FBI determined Russia did not influence the election at all, in any way.

You have to be an idiot.
When the president of the US ask for something, that IS the DOJ requesting it.
The president is the head of the DOJ.
And if you already had a complaint, you could not need an investigation.
An investigation is in order to determine IF anything illegal occurred.
And obviously Hunter Biden getting paid millions to do nothing, and Joe Biden demanding the chief Ukrainian prosecutor be fired, IS EXTREMELY suspicious.
Anyone not investigating should themselves be investigated.

As or extradition, that would be AFTER the investigation, if the investigation found probable cause.
The State Department of DOJ can NOT conduct an investigation in the Ukraine.
Only the Ukrainian government can.
That is obvious, simple, and anyone should immediately see that.

I can not fix stupid nor dishonest. I suggest getting a law degree, before you start nonsense about probable cause.

Probable cause is what you need to start an investigation. None of what you claimed constitutes it. An investigation starts at the DOJ. Hence you had Barr denying the DOJ was involved after Trump name dropped him. Then there is a specific procedure layed out in actual treaties as to how the US acquires help from foreign governments. None of wich was followed.

I'll tell you what. Find me one example besides this of the US government asking a foreign government to investigate one of its own citizens without there being a preceding investigation from the DOJ. Just one and I will delete my account here immediately.

 

[j-mac]

Oh brother...

Yeah, you guys were accepting of Obama... practically rolled out the red carpet! Hell, one of Obama's supreme court nominees didn't even get a hearing. And I'm sure it'll be a repeat performance if the GOP takes the Senate under Biden and he has to nominate a replacement. So you really don't know jack shit sonny boy. The only one who sabotaged your blob was your blob himself.

Yeah ok…it’s just not rational, or objective what you’re posting now…I can almost read the clinched lips, and seething hatred in your posts here…

Calm down, and come on back when you’re willing to look at things more sanely.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah ok…it’s just not rational, or objective what you’re posting now…I can almost read the clinched lips, and seething hatred in your posts here…

Calm down, and come on back when you’re willing to look at things more sanely.

Translation: I described the unprecedented treatment of President Obama 100% accurately and you have zero retort.

Call me when you can deal with reality such as 306>232.

 

[j-mac]

Translation: I described the unprecedented treatment of President Obama 100% accurately and you have zero retort.

Call me when you can deal with reality such as 306>232.

Lol…calm down missy. Obama was never treated like Trump was.

 

[candycorn]

Lol…calm down missy. Obama was never treated like Trump was.

Correct. He was treated much worse by the GOP Senate. Can you imagine the Senate simply not doing its job because we had a black President? Nobody else could until Obama got elected. Then suddenly his nominations didn't even get a hearing much less a vote.

 

[j-mac]

Correct. He was treated much worse by the GOP Senate. Can you imagine the Senate simply not doing its job because we had a black President? Nobody else could until Obama got elected. Then suddenly his nominations didn't even get a hearing much less a vote.

Oh, I suppose Trump had no opposition right? You’re nuts.

 

[candycorn]

Oh, I suppose Trump had no opposition right? You’re nuts.

Wow...you mean a president had opposition? That never happens.

Oh wait...every President in the history of the nation had opposition. Washington had a freaking rebellion...as did Lincoln!

But no President had a Senate that simply refused to consider a nominee for over a year.

 

[j-mac]

Wow...you mean a president had opposition? That never happens.

Oh wait...every President in the history of the nation had opposition. Washington had a freaking rebellion...as did Lincoln!

But no President had a Senate that simply refused to consider a nominee for over a year.

And thank God Garland didn’t end up as a justice, after seeing what an absolute partisan hack he is.

 

[candycorn]

And thank God Garland didn’t end up as a justice, after seeing what an absolute partisan hack he is.

Its pointless to try to explain the difference to you in someone getting a hearing and vote and not getting a hearing and a vote... We have a process in this nation; the President nominates someone, and the Senate approves/rejects them. That is how it worked with every other Presidential nominee whose nomination didn't expire with a president's term.

If the Senate didn't want Garland, they could have rejected him. But they didn't do that.. Again...you'd have to be an honest person to admit there is a difference. So clearly you're not qualified to have this discussion.

 

[Rigby5]

I can not fix stupid nor dishonest. I suggest getting a law degree, before you start nonsense about probable cause.

Probable cause is what you need to start an investigation. None of what you claimed constitutes it. An investigation starts at the DOJ. Hence you had Barr denying the DOJ was involved after Trump name dropped him. Then there is a specific procedure layed out in actual treaties as to how the US acquires help from foreign governments. None of wich was followed.

I'll tell you what. Find me one example besides this of the US government asking a foreign government to investigate one of its own citizens without there being a preceding investigation from the DOJ. Just one and I will delete my account here immediately.

Liar.
You most certainly do NOT at all need "probable cause" in order to start an investigation.
Probable cause is what the investigation looks for, in order to obtain a warrant from a judge, for an arrest.
You are supposed to start an investigation for absolutely ANY remote suspicion at all, by anyone.

And NO, investigations do NOT typically start at the DOJ.
Any member of the executive typically can initiate any investigation they want, at any time.
That is their main job.
Most of them turn out to be nothing.
But clearly no investigation requires any sort of official chain of command.
That is so stupid, it is like claiming cops can't issue a parking ticket out it being authorized first by the Department of Traffic.

And NO, there are NO treaties normally as to how governments interact.
That is like claiming there has to be a specific treaty before ships at sea known they are supposed to pass on the right.

As for "Find me one example besides this of the US government asking a foreign government to investigate one of its own citizens without there being a preceding investigation from the DOJ", that is easy. The DEA asks the Mexican government to conduct drug and firearm investigations on suspected US drug sellers all the time, without going through the main DOJ.

 

[forkup]

Liar.
You most certainly do NOT at all need "probable cause" in order to start an investigation.
Probable cause is what the investigation looks for, in order to obtain a warrant from a judge, for an arrest.
You are supposed to start an investigation for absolutely ANY remote suspicion at all, by anyone.

And NO, investigations do NOT typically start at the DOJ.
Any member of the executive typically can initiate any investigation they want, at any time.
That is their main job.
Most of them turn out to be nothing.
But clearly no investigation requires any sort of official chain of command.
That is so stupid, it is like claiming cops can't issue a parking ticket out it being authorized first by the Department of Traffic.

And NO, there are NO treaties normally as to how governments interact.
That is like claiming there has to be a specific treaty before ships at sea known they are supposed to pass on the right.

As for "Find me one example besides this of the US government asking a foreign government to investigate one of its own citizens without there being a preceding investigation from the DOJ", that is easy. The DEA asks the Mexican government to conduct drug and firearm investigations on suspected US drug sellers all the time, without going through the main DOJ.

probable cause

www.law.cornell.edu

Liar.
You most certainly do NOT at all need "probable cause" in order to start an investigation.
Probable cause is what the investigation looks for, in order to obtain a warrant from a judge, for an arrest.
You are supposed to start an investigation for absolutely ANY remote suspicion at all, by anyone.

And NO, investigations do NOT typically start at the DOJ.
Any member of the executive typically can initiate any investigation they want, at any time.
That is their main job.
Most of them turn out to be nothing.
But clearly no investigation requires any sort of official chain of command.
That is so stupid, it is like claiming cops can't issue a parking ticket out it being authorized first by the Department of Traffic.

And NO, there are NO treaties normally as to how governments interact.
That is like claiming there has to be a specific treaty before ships at sea known they are supposed to pass on the right.

As for "Find me one example besides this of the US government asking a foreign government to investigate one of its own citizens without there being a preceding investigation from the DOJ", that is easy. The DEA asks the Mexican government to conduct drug and firearm investigations on suspected US drug sellers all the time, without going through the main DOJ.

conduct drug and firearm investigations on suspected US drug sellers all the time

In other words, they are ALREADY under investigation. And the DOJ falls under the freaking DOJ. It's like saying the DOJ isn't involved because the AG didn't personally lead the investigation.

As for all the other BS you've been spouting. Any presumptive crime and I use this term incredibly lightly. Would not fall under any statute in the US since it would have been committed in Ukraine. And no being on the board of a foreign company doesn't constitute receiving kickbacks. So in your scenario, and again using that term loosely it would be Ukraine trying to establish any wrongdoing and asking the US for help.

Information for U.S. Citizens Arrested in Ukraine.

Ukraine and the United States do not have an extradition treaty. Foreigners who commit serious crimes in Ukraine are, as a rule, tried and sentenced in Ukraine.

However, both countries are signatories to the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.

So far I've ran with the ridiculous idea that the president of the United States personally got involved in trying to get ONE specific US citizen investigated and no one else. Out of a concern of corruption in Ukraine and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that doing so would be damaging to his main political rival. But I'm kind of getting sick of pretending you're making a good-faith argument.

Parnas releases full video of dinner where Trump ordered Yovanovitch's ouster The guy Trump here is talking to take out the US ambassador is now someone convicted of campaign finance violation, in other words, corruption. Doesn't seem to bother him.

What did ex-Trump aide Paul Manafort really do in Ukraine?

Trump's former campaign chief worked for an anti-NATO party and a politician who fled the country amid charges of corruption and collusion with Russia.

www.nbcnews.com

Paul Manafort, who was Trump's campaign chief from May to August 2016, spent nearly a decade as a consultant to Ukraine's Party of Regions and its standardbearer, Viktor Yanukovych.

Also convicted by a jury of his peers and Trump pardoned him.

Are you claiming that Trump gives a flying fuck about corruption in Ukraine?

 

[Rigby5]

probable cause

www.law.cornell.edu

In other words, they are ALREADY under investigation. And the DOJ falls under the freaking DOJ. It's like saying the DOJ isn't involved because the AG didn't personally lead the investigation.

As for all the other BS you've been spouting. Any presumptive crime and I use this term incredibly lightly. Would not fall under any statute in the US since it would have been committed in Ukraine. And no being on the board of a foreign company doesn't constitute receiving kickbacks. So in your scenario, and again using that term loosely it would be Ukraine trying to establish any wrongdoing and asking the US for help.

Information for U.S. Citizens Arrested in Ukraine.

Ukraine and the United States do not have an extradition treaty. Foreigners who commit serious crimes in Ukraine are, as a rule, tried and sentenced in Ukraine.

However, both countries are signatories to the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.

So far I've ran with the ridiculous idea that the president of the United States personally got involved in trying to get ONE specific US citizen investigated and no one else. Out of a concern of corruption in Ukraine and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that doing so would be damaging to his main political rival. But I'm kind of getting sick of pretending you're making a good-faith argument.

Parnas releases full video of dinner where Trump ordered Yovanovitch's ouster The guy Trump here is talking to take out the US ambassador is now someone convicted of campaign finance violation, in other words, corruption. Doesn't seem to bother him.

What did ex-Trump aide Paul Manafort really do in Ukraine?

Trump's former campaign chief worked for an anti-NATO party and a politician who fled the country amid charges of corruption and collusion with Russia.

www.nbcnews.com

Paul Manafort, who was Trump's campaign chief from May to August 2016, spent nearly a decade as a consultant to Ukraine's Party of Regions and its standardbearer, Viktor Yanukovych.

Also convicted by a jury of his peers and Trump pardoned him.

Are you claiming that Trump gives a flying fuck about corruption in Ukraine?

That is an insanely stupid lie.

For example, Brionna Taylor was NOT under any investigation.
She had never done anything illegal, nor was suspected of doing anything illegal.
But they still conducted a no-knock-warrant raid on her house because she used to have a boy friend who later was arrested for drugs.
You do NOT need proof of guilt before an investigation.
You use the investigation in order to ensure there really is a crime or not.
And you only need proof if the investigation shows the crime is real and you want to arrest and prosecute.

And if Hunter is accepting kickbacks on US aid, the crime would NOT be by a Ukrainian in the Ukraine, but by both Bidens IN the US.
So no extradition treaty even remotely relevant.
You can negotiate extradition in case by case basis, and do NOT need a treaty.
Nor do you need an extradition treaty to arrest either of the Bidens, since they are in the US.

As for Yovanovitch, it is clear she was totally corrupt.
The Ukraine is about the single most corrupt country on the planet.
The stole billions worth of gas and oil from Russia since 1991.
Here is only ONE of the cases the world court rules against the Ukraine for outright theft.
{...
On 8 June 2010, a Stockholm court of arbitration ruled Naftohaz of Ukraine must return 12.1 billion cubic metres (430 billion cubic feet) of gas to RosUkrEnergo, a Swiss-based company in which Gazprom controls a 50% stake. Russia accused Ukrainian side of diverting gas from pipelines passing through Ukraine in 2009.[11][12] Several high-ranking Ukrainian officials stated the return "would not be quick".[13]
...}

Russia–Ukraine gas disputes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyone trying to defend, arm, or otherwise helping a criminal like the Ukraine, has to on the take.

 

[j-mac]

Its pointless to try to explain the difference to you in someone getting a hearing and vote and not getting a hearing and a vote... We have a process in this nation; the President nominates someone, and the Senate approves/rejects them. That is how it worked with every other Presidential nominee whose nomination didn't expire with a president's term.

If the Senate didn't want Garland, they could have rejected him. But they didn't do that.. Again...you'd have to be an honest person to admit there is a difference. So clearly you're not qualified to have this discussion.

Did they do something outside the rules in the Senate? No. So all you have are sour grapes....

 

[candycorn]

Did they do something outside the rules in the Senate? No. So all you have are sour grapes....

They have rules in the Senate?

 

[j-mac]

They have rules in the Senate?

 

[Rigby5]

Did they do something outside the rules in the Senate? No. So all you have are sour grapes....

Yes, the Senate violated implied rules, by deliberately leaving the vacant post open.
They are not supposed to do that, and it harms the entire nation.
The rules can not possibly cover every single trick someone might think up, so it always has to come down to an interpretation of intent and rights.
Which the Senate clearly violated.