ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , impeachment , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 7th November 2019, 06:16 PM   #81
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,422
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
So if the allegations are serious enough they should be kicked out?

How about if the accusation is that he took kickbacks from a foreign Government when in business 10 years previously, but the accusers all have something to gain politically from his removal?
Let me backtrack a bit as I wasn't precise enough.

"Allegations" alone are not enough. There has to be pretty damning proof. For example, six credible witnesses have testified under oath to Trump's quid pro quo phone call and several witnesses who have refused to testify. We also have the memo/transcript which corroborates it. If we had that kind of evidence for a serious crime committed 10 years ago, then my answer is yes.

Who in Congress doesn't have something to gain from almost anything the president does or doesn't do? On both sides of the aisle.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 06:37 PM   #82
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Let me backtrack a bit as I wasn't precise enough.

"Allegations" alone are not enough. There has to be pretty damning proof. For example, six credible witnesses have testified under oath to Trump's quid pro quo phone call and several witnesses who have refused to testify. We also have the memo/transcript which corroborates it. If we had that kind of evidence for a serious crime committed 10 years ago, then my answer is yes.

Who in Congress doesn't have something to gain from almost anything the president does or doesn't do? On both sides of the aisle.
And we have text messages back and forth from the players involved. It's a joke of enormous absurdity to suggest there isn't damning proof.

I can't say enough that Trump is abusing the power of his office and is wantonly ignoring the oath he took to uphold, preserve protect and defend the US Constitution. Congress has a Constitutional duty to provide oversight of the Executive's administration of our government. While I think it's wrong for Trump not to provide his taxes in response to a subpoena it is arguable that falls under that Congress's Constitutional responsibilities. But the Ukraine scandal is not that. This is the administration of US foreign policy. There is NO EXCUSE for any and every member of our government not to be ready and eager to answer any and all questions that Congress may have about that administration. And absolutely no reason to ignore their subpoenas.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 06:55 PM   #83
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,422
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
And we have text messages back and forth from the players involved. It's a joke of enormous absurdity to suggest there isn't damning proof.

I can't say enough that Trump is abusing the power of his office and is wantonly ignoring the oath he took to uphold, preserve protect and defend the US Constitution. Congress has a Constitutional duty to provide oversight of the Executive's administration of our government. While I think it's wrong for Trump not to provide his taxes in response to a subpoena it is arguable that falls under that Congress's Constitutional responsibilities. But the Ukraine scandal is not that. This is the administration of US foreign policy. There is NO EXCUSE for any and every member of our government not to be ready and eager to answer any and all questions that Congress may have about that administration. And absolutely no reason to ignore their subpoenas.
This is clear evidence that the GOP, and especially the GOP Senate and Mitch McConnell, are putting party/Trump loyalty over the good of the country.

They'd be screaming "IMPEACH!" if a Dem president had done exactly what Trump has done. For them to claim there was no quid pro quo or, even if there was, it is not an impeachable offense is hypocrisy to a disgusting degree. They should be ashamed of themselves. And it says much that they aren't. But when you give your loyalty to a POS like Trump, you have to set aside any integrity you may have ever had.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2019, 08:49 PM   #84
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,263
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Do you believe that President Trump committed a high crime?
First off, here is what I mean by a high crime:

Originally Posted by Cass R. Sunstein
At the time, that phrase had a well-understood meaning. It wasn’t meant as a dodge or a punt. It had a history in England, in the colonies and in the young United States, where it extended beyond crimes to official corruption and serious misuses of power. It was tighter and more specific than “maladministration.” At the same time, it would reach “great and dangerous offenses,” understood as egregious abuses of presidential authority, whether they were a violation of the criminal law.
With that in mind, of course, yes.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 02:44 AM   #85
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,911
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Let me backtrack a bit as I wasn't precise enough.

"Allegations" alone are not enough. There has to be pretty damning proof. For example, six credible witnesses have testified under oath to Trump's quid pro quo phone call and several witnesses who have refused to testify. We also have the memo/transcript which corroborates it. If we had that kind of evidence for a serious crime committed 10 years ago, then my answer is yes.

Who in Congress doesn't have something to gain from almost anything the president does or doesn't do? On both sides of the aisle.
This shows up the issue with a hypothetical as I'd note that if there was such damming proof of a crime, then the odds are that it wouldn't have been able to have remained hidden for 10 years, especially though a Presidential campaign. As such the odds are that any allegations are not going to have damming evidence, but would be a mix of "he says/she says", rumours and poorly supported claims.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 8th November 2019 at 02:45 AM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 05:50 AM   #86
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Again you are misunderstanding what is being said, wither because you aren't really listening, or because you are deliberately twisting what is said.
I'll go with option B.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 07:18 AM   #87
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,470
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
All voters are asked to render a verdict about a President before he can become one. The idea that there is an as-of-yet untainted jury Pool when it comes to a POTUS is laughable.
Probably true. But that said, two short weeks ago I met a couple who had not so much as heard any impeachment talk.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:07 AM   #88
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 375
He did nothing wrong.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:10 AM   #89
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,911
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
He did nothing wrong.
Do you believe that it is acceptable to use the levers of Government solicit the help of a foreign Government to investigate a political opponent for dirt to use against them in an upcoming election?

ETA: In fact let's go even simpler. Do you believe that it is acceptable for a President to use his office and the State Department to solicit a personal gain over the National interest?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 8th November 2019 at 08:13 AM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 10:59 AM   #90
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Do you believe that it is acceptable to use the levers of Government solicit the help of a foreign Government to investigate a political opponent for dirt to use against them in an upcoming election?

ETA: In fact let's go even simpler. Do you believe that it is acceptable for a President to use his office and the State Department to solicit a personal gain over the National interest?
Every other one has done the same thing so your attempt at a point is moot.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 11:41 AM   #91
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,105
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
He did nothing wrong.
Good. Then you'd have no problem with a Democratic president doing the same?

Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Every other one has done the same thing so your attempt at a point is moot.
People doing a thing is not evidence that that thing is acceptable.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 11:54 AM   #92
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,100
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Every other one has done the same thing so your attempt at a point is moot.
Just answer the question. If you feel you are so emotionally invested in a corrupt president that you cannot bare to state what you know to be true, then I encourage you to pick a better candidate in the future.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 02:28 PM   #93
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,911
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Every other one has done the same thing so your attempt at a point is moot.
1st, please answer the question. Is it acceptable or not?

2nd, please provide evidence that all over presidents, heck just the previous 5 will do, have used their office and State department for personal gain.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 06:56 PM   #94
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,099
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
He did nothing wrong.
And it takes a lot of effort to mess up nothing so hideously.
Must be all the practice he got doing everything else wrong.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 07:14 PM   #95
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Every other one has done the same thing so your attempt at a point is moot.
No THEY ******* HAVEN'T!

Saying something doesn't make it true.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 07:25 PM   #96
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,422
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This shows up the issue with a hypothetical as I'd note that if there was such damming proof of a crime, then the odds are that it wouldn't have been able to have remained hidden for 10 years, especially though a Presidential campaign. As such the odds are that any allegations are not going to have damming evidence, but would be a mix of "he says/she says", rumours and poorly supported claims.
Not necessarily. New witnesses, newly discovered evidence, new scientific breakthroughs, etc come up quite frequently. It's how cold cases are often solved.

Quote:
Police arrest suspect in decades-old cold case murder of 10-year-old girl after obtaining DNA sample
Quote:
10 Year-Old Cold Case Solved Involving Then 13 Year-Old Suspect

The 10-year-old case had gone cold until prosecutors reopened it last year and found Bumpass’ fingerprints matched those taken from duct tape at the scene.
Quote:
Cold case: DNA from an old razor helped police solve 41-year-old rape and murder cold case

A yellow sock helped lead to an arrest in a murder that went unsolved for nearly three decades, Pennsylvania authorities announced Tuesday.

The sock wouldn't become a "key piece of evidence" until the case was reopened in 2015 for an "extensive joint reexamination." Investigators relied on new technologies due to a lack of DNA evidence.
Quote:
Though DNA evidence gets all the glamor in TV crime shows, it is new eyewitnesses who more often help solve cold cases, a study finds.

National Geographic reports that research published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences indicates that a big chunk of cold cases were cracked when new witnesses stepped forward.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 07:29 PM   #97
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
He did nothing wrong.
Wow! Here is proof of just how Trump supporters will dismiss anything and everything Trump does.

Personally I think withholding military aid to get a foreign country to smear a political opponent so POTUS can win a Presidential election is a clear abuse of Presidential power.

I think it is wrong to obstruct justice by instructing all employees to ignore and refuse subpoenas as an abuse of power and a violation of the oath of office.

I think taking money from foreign governments and lobbyists as a clear violation of the Emoluments clause in the United States Constitution. A document that Trump swore to uphold.

But hey, since Trump calls it "the phoney" Emoluments Clause, violating it isn't wrong is it Rocky?
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 07:51 PM   #98
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,985
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
He did nothing wrong.
You are factually incorrect. Trump did do something wrong. He solicited a service from Ukraine to help him in an election. You just don't care that Trump did something wrong. I have provided the relevant statute for your education.

Quote:
(a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 07:53 PM   #99
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,985
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Every other one has done the same thing so your attempt at a point is moot.
Which other presidents solicited favors from other countries to help them win an election? Please be specific. Trump did it in 2016 from the Russians (please don't say he didn't, you would be factually incorrect there as well). He did it over this past summer with Ukraine. Which other presidents have done the same thing?
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 07:54 PM   #100
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,422
I'm sure a lot of Jim Jones' followers believed he didn't do anything wrong when he laced the Kool Aid with cyanide and told them to give it to their children to drink.

The ability of people to deceive themselves is incredible. Mostly because they're none too bright.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 08:31 PM   #101
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,911
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'm sure a lot of Jim Jones' followers believed he didn't do anything wrong when he laced the Kool Aid with cyanide and told them to give it to their children to drink.

The ability of people to deceive themselves is incredible. Mostly because they're none too bright.
Not at all true...
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2019, 10:53 PM   #102
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,081
It's is telling that Trump Supporters hold him to the standards of the worst behavior they imagine politicians are engaging in.
__________________
Now listen, I could just have you revoked.
K-i-l-l-e-d, revoked.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 12:54 AM   #103
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,422
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Intelligent people can fall for sophisticated, well planned scams. The none too bright fall for the "Nigerian prince inheritance" scam. Believing Trump has done nothing wrong (vs just knee jerk defense) in the face of all the evidence is just stupid.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 08:27 AM   #104
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 23,290
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Which other presidents solicited favors from other countries to help them win an election? Please be specific. Trump did it in 2016 from the Russians (please don't say he didn't, you would be factually incorrect there as well). He did it over this past summer with Ukraine. Which other presidents have done the same thing?
Obviously Barrack HUSSEIN Obama solicited help from Dijon, France, to add flavor to his burger! So there.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 08:32 AM   #105
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Obviously Barrack HUSSEIN Obama solicited help from Dijon, France, to add flavor to his burger! So there.
"I would like you to do us a flavor though..."
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 11:06 AM   #106
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
He did nothing wrong.
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Wow! Here is proof of just how Trump supporters will dismiss anything and everything Trump does.

Personally I think withholding military aid to get a foreign country to smear a political opponent so POTUS can win a Presidential election is a clear abuse of Presidential power.

I think it is wrong to obstruct justice by instructing all employees to ignore and refuse subpoenas as an abuse of power and a violation of the oath of office.

I think taking money from foreign governments and lobbyists as a clear violation of the Emoluments clause in the United States Constitution. A document that Trump swore to uphold.

But hey, since Trump calls it "the phoney" Emoluments Clause, violating it isn't wrong is it Rocky?
You know it's funny. Actually not so funny. Rocky's position is shared by 65 percent of people who identify as Republicans. What this clearly demonstrates is hypocrisy and/or willful cognitive dysfunction on a major scale. I mean seriously, how is this position justified considering what we know?

Yet Trump keeps repeating nonsense which leads to all the right wing talking heads spouting nonsense leads to the GOP unquestioning masses insisting that this is all just a partisan attack with no merit.

They put a flag in the ground and say nonsensical disinformation is fact. It's moral for the Republican President to seek and take bribes. It's alright that he wantonly obstructs justice. As long as Trump gives us tax cuts, guns and gives us judges that will uphold racism, sexism, homophobia and make America a Christian country again he's the bomb.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 01:38 PM   #107
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 882
So, how many people here were on board with the left for the whole 2.5 years of the Russia Hoax? How many just knew he was guilty? Well, indictments are on their way for Russia Hoax participants, not for Trump. Y'all do know we have a treaty with Ukraine to cooperate on legal matters of corruption, right?

"what is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause but what they say about their opponents."

-- RFK

Last edited by BrooklynBaby; 9th November 2019 at 01:42 PM.
BrooklynBaby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 03:23 PM   #108
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,911
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
So, how many people here were on board with the left for the whole 2.5 years of the Russia Hoax?
You mean the "hoax" that Russia interfered in the 2016 Election? The "hoax" that at least four Government reports, including one from the Republican lead Senate Intelligence Committee all said actually happened? You mean the "hoax" that the Muller report showed did actually happen with multiple contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russians, including that Manafort was sending Republican Polling Data to Russia, but which Mueller also determined didn't rise to the level of Criminal Conspiracy mostly because he thought the Trump Campaign was too dumb to know what they were doing? You're meaning that "hoax"?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 03:38 PM   #109
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You mean the "hoax" that Russia interfered in the 2016 Election? The "hoax" that at least four Government reports, including one from the Republican lead Senate Intelligence Committee all said actually happened? You mean the "hoax" that the Muller report showed did actually happen with multiple contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russians, including that Manafort was sending Republican Polling Data to Russia, but which Mueller also determined didn't rise to the level of Criminal Conspiracy mostly because he thought the Trump Campaign was too dumb to know what they were doing? You're meaning that "hoax"?
It's really absurd that Brooklyn can with a straight face suggest that Russia investigation was a hoax. What has become increasingly clear is Trump is a puppet of Putin and Russia. Trump has his nose so far up Putin's ass he can taste what Putin had for breakfast. Trump and his minions have systematically been working on behalf of Russia.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 04:09 PM   #110
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,911
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
Y'all do know we have a treaty with Ukraine to cooperate on legal matters of corruption, right?
You are aware that...

a] Such matters are sorted out between Justice Departments, not back channels via the President's personal Lawyer? Right?

b] That witnesses have stated that the only corruption that Trump cared about was the supposed Biden and Clinton links.

c] An anti-corruption Ambassador was illegally removed because she wouldn't play ball with the conspiracy theories being pushed by Rudy and his cohorts, three of who are now awaiting trial because of their actions in that removal.

d] The the entire Biden corruption claim is a Conspiracy Theory without any evidence other than stuff which is easily shown to be fabricated?

e] That the main character in the who thing, Viktor Shokin, was so bad at being a Prosecutor that he tanked a case in the UK against Burisma's founder by telling the Judge that Burisma and its founder were never under corruption investigation in Ukraine.

f] You know, the same investigation that started in 2012, two years prior to Hunter's employment on the Board, and three years before Shokin himself took over as Prosecutor. The investigation he was supposed to being prosecuting but instead allowed to languish untouched for years, to the point that everyone wanted him gone and the Obama Administration was about to open their own investigation into Burisma because he wasn't doing his job.

g) That the whole Shokin claiming that he was doing his job, counter to all documentary and contemporary reported evidence otherwise, was done in a affidavit in the support of Dmytro Firtash, a guy that Russia made rich, who is a known associate of Russian organized crime, who funneled Russian money to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine and whom since 2014 has been fighting an extradition order to the US over charges of over $18.5 million in bribes.

h] That is Trump isn't directly involved in the mess himself, he has certainly surrounded himself with a bunch of people, from Manafort to Giuliani, who have gotten themselves mixed up in provable Ukrainian corruption with pro-Russian Oligarchs and a ton of Russian money being used in bribery and corruption schemes. But hey, just the best people right?

So yeah, you want to talk Ukraine corruption? Try getting out of your Trump bubble and have a look at the real world and what is actually going on and who is really involved. You are getting your information 3nd hand filtered through Trump and Giuliani, but in reality it's coming via a bunch of corrupt pro-Russian slimeballs who were trying to sell out Ukraine to Putin and are now lying and creating Conspiracy Theories in order to save their butts from going to Jail. You really think that they are good sources?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 04:12 PM   #111
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
c] An anti-corruption Ambassador was illegally removed because she wouldn't play ball with the conspiracy theories being pushed by Rudy and his cohorts, three of who are now awaiting trial because of their actions in that removal.
What makes you think that she was illegally removed? Unethically, sure, but I wonder what law you think was broken?

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't know what you mean.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 04:16 PM   #112
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,911
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
What makes you think that she was illegally removed? Unethically, sure, but I wonder what law you think was broken?

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't know what you mean.
She was removed because of the lobbying of these two clowns, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who are now very likely going to Jail because of it.

To be clear, I'm not meaning that Trump acted illegally, but rather that the lobbying that lead to her removal was illegal.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 9th November 2019 at 04:18 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 05:42 PM   #113
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
So, how many people here were on board with the left for the whole 2.5 years of the Russia Hoax?
The "Russia Hoax" is a hoax.

Quote:
"what is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause but what they say about their opponents."
Strange how someone can quote such an insightful observation without realizing that it describes their own behavior.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 03:27 AM   #114
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,081
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
What makes you think that she was illegally removed? Unethically, sure, but I wonder what law you think was broken?

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't know what you mean.
Corruptly removed.
Which makes it illegal.
__________________
Now listen, I could just have you revoked.
K-i-l-l-e-d, revoked.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 05:42 AM   #115
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Corruptly removed.
Which makes it illegal.
The firing of Comey was arguably (and plausibly to me) obstruction of justice and therefore a violation of a law.

The removal of the ambassador doesn't violate any law that I know of. It's not enough to say it was a corrupt act unless you there is a law that applies. Bribery isn't illegal just because it's called corrupt. It's illegal because there are laws making it so.

Again, I'm not saying that no law applies, just that I don't know what law would apply. It was an abuse of power, but that's a matter for impeachment. I don't see any law that specifically applies to make it illegal in the usual sense.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 06:06 AM   #116
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,081
Like the FBI director, Ambassadors are Senate-confirmed. ´
Firing one requires more reason than just "the Prez wants to".
__________________
Now listen, I could just have you revoked.
K-i-l-l-e-d, revoked.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 07:02 AM   #117
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Like the FBI director, Ambassadors are Senate-confirmed. ´
Firing one requires more reason than just "the Prez wants to".
First, that the position is confirmed doesn't preclude at will firing. Comey's firing was legal if it had been for any reason that didn't obstruct justice or violated any other law. The same with recalling an ambassador.

Again, please tell me what law requires more reason than "I no longer want this person in this position." I don't know of any.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 09:03 AM   #118
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
First, that the position is confirmed doesn't preclude at will firing. Comey's firing was legal if it had been for any reason that didn't obstruct justice or violated any other law. The same with recalling an ambassador.

Again, please tell me what law requires more reason than "I no longer want this person in this position." I don't know of any.
The problem is somewhat like when you fire someone without cause and the employment contract says the employer can fire without cause. This would be fine that is until you state a cause. Trump could legally fire both the ambassador and/or Comey. Except in both cases Trump stated reasons that were illegal or false. That changes the scenario entirely.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 09:42 AM   #119
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,237
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The problem is somewhat like when you fire someone without cause and the employment contract says the employer can fire without cause. This would be fine that is until you state a cause. Trump could legally fire both the ambassador and/or Comey. Except in both cases Trump stated reasons that were illegal or false. That changes the scenario entirely.
In Comey's case, there's a clear argument that the firing was intended to obstruct justice. That's what makes it arguably illegal, not the fact that he lied about it. It's not illegal for presidents to lie in general nor, far as I know, about the reason they fired someone.

If he lied about the reason for removing the ambassador (which I'll take for granted -- seems that way to me), that doesn't by itself make the removal illegal.

Once again, if it was an illegal act, then what law was broken?

It should be clear that I'm not defending the actions of the president. I just don't see that this particular action is illegal. I am perfectly willing to be educated, but no one has cited any law or any generally accepted class of crimes (bribery, arson, whatever) that this falls under. I couldn't cite the law that's relevant for Comey's case, but I can tell you what the relevant charge would be. It would be obstruction of justice. What crime was committed in removing the ambassador?

Is "lying about the reason for termination" a crime?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 09:55 AM   #120
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,847
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
In Comey's case, there's a clear argument that the firing was intended to obstruct justice. That's what makes it arguably illegal, not the fact that he lied about it. It's not illegal for presidents to lie in general nor, far as I know, about the reason they fired someone.

If he lied about the reason for removing the ambassador (which I'll take for granted -- seems that way to me), that doesn't by itself make the removal illegal.

Once again, if it was an illegal act, then what law was broken?

It should be clear that I'm not defending the actions of the president. I just don't see that this particular action is illegal. I am perfectly willing to be educated, but no one has cited any law or any generally accepted class of crimes (bribery, arson, whatever) that this falls under. I couldn't cite the law that's relevant for Comey's case, but I can tell you what the relevant charge would be. It would be obstruction of justice. What crime was committed in removing the ambassador?

Is "lying about the reason for termination" a crime?
There is a difference between illegal and criminal. Obviously, Trump lying in itself is not illegal. But his "reasons" is pure defamation which IS ILLEGAL.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.