To be a Dem, you have to be a hypocrite & a liar
- Thread starter Hoffman_rg
- Start date
Truer words have never been posted!
"Ukraine you might want to look into that... or you don't get the money"
When you dont leave off the last part of what he meant the you really do get a full picture of how both Biden and Trump are morally and legally disqualified from being president. Because they did the same exact thing it would be roaring hypocrisy to excuse one and deride the other.
Excellent point sir!
When you dont leave off the last part of what he meant the you really do get a full picture of how both Biden and Trump are morally and legally disqualified from being president. Because they did the same exact thing it would be roaring hypocrisy to excuse one and deride the other.
Excellent point sir!
Read the transcript! That is not what he’s said, that is what the proven liar Schiff said even though he was not there to hear the actual conversation. That’s how you dems work,hearsay and assumptions based on your belief that your way is pure and 100% correct. TRUMP has done nothing that even approaches an impeachable offense. I guess to a dem if you are not bowing to a globalist system or dictator you are acting in a treasonous manner. Trump is merely making America great again, by putting America and its CITIZENS first. What a novel concept, eh?
There is a comprehensive treaty agreement that allows cooperation between both the United States and Ukraine in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. It appears President Trump was following the law to the letter when it comes to unearthing the long-standing corruption that has swirled in Ukraine and allegedly involves powerful Democrats like corrupt Joe Biden and others. But u are half right. Biden would be impeached and removed the minute he became president.
So now you're relying on what you believe Trump meant? Amazing, when all you have to do is read the transcript instead of attempting to read his mind.
This is an anti-Semitic phrase, it's white nationalist language for "Jews run the banks". Please refrain from using it directed towards me.
You are nuts. The definition of globalism is the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis. Nothing to do with anti-semitism.
Oh for gosh sakes. Jews do run a lot of banks. Delicatessens, too. I like both. Are you sure you're not Stephanyrein?
Directed toward Stephenrein: Globalist, globalist, globalist.
That’s not what “Globalist” means nor infers. It must imply “An expert in making s#1t up” though because that’s what you just did.
And the anti semites are dems, as proven by the spomesmorons of your party, aka bathhouse barry, bernie, the squad.....pretty much any commie who has been on camera. And white nationalism implies a white guy who prefers independent nations over global government by a group of elites.
You are the poster child for the left. I guarantee that you are agnostic or atheist, white male, under 40. You certainly have never succeeded at business, not in an entrepreneurial sense, and silk screen tshirts don't count. You probably aren't even aware of the many obama scandals, because you are too uncomfortable with unpleasant facts.
You may be ethnically Jewish, based on your twisted definition of globalist. However, you are not observant of the Jewish faith, except perhaps in a ceremonial sense.
You don't like guns, and believe in evolution.
You probably have immaculate hair and nails, and could not pick out an oil filter wrence in a police lineup. You cringe if someone says Indian or black instead of Native American or African American, and you refledively assume they are a bigot. You believe Christopher Columbus was an opportunitist, the founding fathers were self serving whip crackers, and slavery was the sole cause of the civil war. You believe socialists are good and conservatives are nazis, you like soccer, believe in man made climate change and think California is well governed.
I counted 20 "points" you made about me. You were 6/20 correct. 30%, great job.
Under 40, white male, ethnically Jewish, not observant of Jewish faith, immaculate hair and nails (I think those count for two). How’d I do?
If he had included annoying, obnoxious, arrogant, socialist, and gadfly, he would have been 11/25, at least.
hey mr science, I didn't see you commenting on the article about the new worry of your hero's and the coming ice age. Also, what about the big find that apes started standing upright wayyyyyyyyy earlier than they originally thought. Those are your relatives!!!! MIne were created and stood upright that same day. LOL your education has made you dumber than a box of rocks.
Why thank you. I am batting .300 on a wild ass guess, while totally uninformed of the underlying facts. Meanwhile, you are batting about .010 on a fact-based debate with respect to which all related facts are at your fingertips. I'm going to the all-star game, and you are getting sent down to the:
Last edited:
Sorry for your butt hurt feeling you globalist pig! Actually I’m not sorry your such a snowflake. Deal with it mommas boy.
Last edited:
You pretty much nailed that snowflake.
I'm a Nationalist so, ftw. next.
There no such quid pro quo tied to Trump’s request, liar. But you know that already.
Add the Media to the list as well......
What's funny is this character he made up looks nothing like me. But go ahead and bash me in effigy all you want.
You got the first 4, but I don't really have immaculate hair. I would call immaculate hair more like this guy
But my hair is more like this guy. It's ok just not metro/immaculate
If you want to know, the other two are soccer (playing not so much watching), and climate change. Although the more disastrous effects are further down the road.
Yes, you are filled with hate. I do not hate you, I pity you like a mangy dog, or a soulless liberal.
The point is, if you come here talking smack, you need to come with *(FACTS)* and be able to back them up with more facts, like we have all done in our opposition to your non factual debate.
You also need to be able to take the heat if you come here talking smack.
The message above is a sliver of a life lesson as well.
So I went though your comment history to get a list of all those facts you posted and liked.
I posted a picture down below let me know if you see it.
Are you stalking me you silly snowflake? I don’t play that game. I’m a red blooded heterosexual man. I guess I should be flattered, but I’m not.
Well I was reading the comments you directed at me. I don't know why that's on your mind just by me reading what you wrote to me.
Regardless, you there was nothing there but insults and baseless accusations designed to hide a lack of understanding. Can you show me some facts you posted?
I have already posted many facts, but you can’t spot a fact if it hit you in the face. You should expect insults when you come in with an attitude of arrogance and ignore the facts we all presented in our debate with you. The transcript clearly proved Trump did not bribe the Ukrainian government, but what are facts good for when you are trying to overthrow an elected official that is saving his nation from the leftist? You should just quit while you are way behind, because there is no digging your way out of the hole you got yourself in.
You must be Adam Schiff, because what you wrote was never said anywhere. You like Schiff are just pathetic liars and individuals.
My God you truly are a pathetic little weasel. LOL, I've only read about people like you
Why did you lie about what Trump said?
Impeachment is neither a criminal trial nor a legal process, so the president does not have the constitutional right to confront his accuser.
NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
As a constitutional lawyer, Rand Paul makes a good medical doctor.
I used to have occasion to say that in the Patriot Act debates, when the senator was wowing us with his Fourth Amendment theories. With impeachment upon us, he’s now onto the Sixth Amendment — specifically, the confrontation clause. It guarantees the right of cross-examination: In all criminal trials, the accused must be given the right to confront the accusers. Senator Paul has deduced that this must mean that the identity of the so-called whistleblower has to be revealed, lest President Trump be denied his constitutional rights.
Sigh.
Mind you, Senator Paul has been making this argument while he himself shrinks from outing the man at issue — whom we are reliably told is a 33-year-old CIA official, formerly tasked to the White House National Security Council as a Ukraine expert. There is but a small circle of people who fit that description, so Paul, like many in Washington, has known the name, to near certainty, for some time.
The senator makes the fair point that there is no legal barrier to the media’s naming the man. We can be confident that if a Democratic president had been accused of impeachable offenses, that would already have happened weeks ago (and, indeed, some right-leaning media sites have published the name).
Paul conveniently omits, though, that, as a senator, he has speech or debate-clause immunity. Even if there were legal confidentiality concerns here (there aren’t — I’ll get to that), he could broadcast the name without any liability. Naturally, he wants someone else to take the heat while he carps from the well-appointed cheap seats.
The inanity of the legal disputes surrounding the so-called whistleblower does not begin with Paul. It begins with misunderstandings about the concept of whistleblower itself.
As I’ve previously explained, the man in question may be a “whistleblower” in some common-usage sense of the word. Yet, he is not a whistleblower in the statutory sense. That’s the only sense that matters because the relevant statute is what triggers whistleblower protections. Under that statute, protected status is given to an official who reports on intelligence activities within the jurisdiction of the director of national intelligence. The statute does not apply to the president’s conducting of foreign policy, including his communications with foreign heads of state.
In this instance, the inspector general of the intelligence community (IGIC) chose to handle the man’s complaint as if it raised an intelligence-related “urgent concern,” as defined by the statute. The IGIC thus treated the man as if he had protected status. That was an error. The acting director of national intelligence correctly found that the complaint did not meet the statutory criteria, and he, therefore, declined to pass it along to Congress (as the statute mandates for complaints that do meet the criteria). But as he is new and understandably did not want to be perceived as throwing the IGIC under the proverbial bus, the acting DNI publicly conformed to the fiction that the man has protected status under the law. He does not.
As if that were not enough confusion, we next come to the brouhaha over anonymity. Contrary to what has become received wisdom (Democratic talking points peddled to the media tend to achieve that status), the law does not guarantee anonymity even to a statutorily qualified whistleblower. Instead, it calls for only the ICIG to keep the identity confidential. Even that, though, is an overstatement. The law says that even the ICIG may disclose the person’s identity if the IGIC (a) believes doing so is unavoidable under the circumstances, or (b) makes disclosure to the Justice Department in anticipation of a prosecution.
To be fair to Senator Paul, just-mentioned point (b) shows he was in the right ballpark, although way off the mark. If there is a prosecution in court, the Justice Department has various disclosure obligations that take precedence over a witness’s interest in remaining anonymous. Whistleblowers who are essential witnesses in criminal prosecutions do not get to remain anonymous. Paul’s problem, as we’ll see, is that impeachment is not a prosecution in court.
The law imposes this highly qualified confidentiality requirement only on the ICIG. It does not bind other government officials, much less members of Congress, the media, and the public. The point of the law is to shield whistleblowers from reprisals (being fired, demoted, denied promotion, transferred to Anchorage, etc.), not from public identification.
The posturing on this point has been patently political. If we were dealing with actual classified information that could compromise a significant national-security program, the media would breathlessly reveal it and lecture us about the public’s “right to know” newsworthy information. And when the whistleblower complaint first emerged, it was impeachment impresario Adam Schiff himself who insisted that the whistleblower had to be brought forward to testify. Natch, he did a 180 when it was revealed that the so-called whistleblower had huddled with Schiff’s staff before filing the complaint with the IGIC. (The point of the statute is to create an intra-agency review of complaints before Congress is notified.)
Of course, it has since come out that — I’ll be darned! — the “whistleblower” has ties to prominent Democratic Trump detractors. So now, the same Democrats who previously saw the man as a potential star witness have decided that his usefulness has run its course. Now that he is a potential liability, it suddenly has become unpatriotic to utter his name.
Meanwhile, Republican Trump defenders first took the position that the “whistleblower” was irrelevant because all his material revelations are hearsay. Since we have a transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call, and witnesses with first-hand knowledge about other pertinent events have testified, they reasoned that he was an unnecessary witness. But, as night follows day, once it became clear that Democrats want to hide him away, the GOP decided that the Republic’s survival hinges on his being exposed and interrogated.
Hence, Senator Paul’s Sixth Amendment meanderings.
The confrontation clause protects only the accused at a criminal trial. The point is that before one’s liberty is taken away, one must have the opportunity to question one’s accusers. Impeachment, however, is not even a legal proceeding, much less a criminal trial. It is a political proceeding. No one’s liberty is at stake; it is strictly about whether an official should be stripped of political authority — in the president’s case, of the executive power.
Moreover, because the Constitution wholly vests the process of impeachment in the House, and the conduct of impeachment trials in the Senate, those chambers have plenary authority over the respective proceedings. No court has the power to tell the House or Senate what quantum of due process must be afforded to an official in an impeachment case. No one can make Congress apply the Sixth Amendment.
Finally, even when the Sixth Amendment does apply (at a criminal trial), the confrontation it guarantees is the ability to cross-examine the witnesses the prosecution calls to establish its case. It does not extend to other people (e.g., tipsters, others who’ve provided hearsay information to investigators). It is very common in the investigative stage for police to receive damning information about a suspect from second- and third-hand sources. That information is investigated, which is how the police and prosecutors locate the first-hand witnesses who are called at the eventual trial. There is no right to confront witnesses the prosecutor does not call, even if they have provided accusatory information.
The president is not without arguments for why the so-called whistleblower’s identity should be disclosed, and why this person should be called to testify. I’ll address them in a separate column. But for present purposes: The so-called whistleblower is not a statutory whistleblower, and his anonymity is not protected by law; but the Sixth Amendment has nothing to do with impeachment, and it does not advance a claim that the “whistleblower” should be outed and questioned.
Something to Consider
NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
As a constitutional lawyer, Rand Paul makes a good medical doctor.
I used to have occasion to say that in the Patriot Act debates, when the senator was wowing us with his Fourth Amendment theories. With impeachment upon us, he’s now onto the Sixth Amendment — specifically, the confrontation clause. It guarantees the right of cross-examination: In all criminal trials, the accused must be given the right to confront the accusers. Senator Paul has deduced that this must mean that the identity of the so-called whistleblower has to be revealed, lest President Trump be denied his constitutional rights.
Sigh.
Mind you, Senator Paul has been making this argument while he himself shrinks from outing the man at issue — whom we are reliably told is a 33-year-old CIA official, formerly tasked to the White House National Security Council as a Ukraine expert. There is but a small circle of people who fit that description, so Paul, like many in Washington, has known the name, to near certainty, for some time.
The senator makes the fair point that there is no legal barrier to the media’s naming the man. We can be confident that if a Democratic president had been accused of impeachable offenses, that would already have happened weeks ago (and, indeed, some right-leaning media sites have published the name).
Paul conveniently omits, though, that, as a senator, he has speech or debate-clause immunity. Even if there were legal confidentiality concerns here (there aren’t — I’ll get to that), he could broadcast the name without any liability. Naturally, he wants someone else to take the heat while he carps from the well-appointed cheap seats.
The inanity of the legal disputes surrounding the so-called whistleblower does not begin with Paul. It begins with misunderstandings about the concept of whistleblower itself.
As I’ve previously explained, the man in question may be a “whistleblower” in some common-usage sense of the word. Yet, he is not a whistleblower in the statutory sense. That’s the only sense that matters because the relevant statute is what triggers whistleblower protections. Under that statute, protected status is given to an official who reports on intelligence activities within the jurisdiction of the director of national intelligence. The statute does not apply to the president’s conducting of foreign policy, including his communications with foreign heads of state.
In this instance, the inspector general of the intelligence community (IGIC) chose to handle the man’s complaint as if it raised an intelligence-related “urgent concern,” as defined by the statute. The IGIC thus treated the man as if he had protected status. That was an error. The acting director of national intelligence correctly found that the complaint did not meet the statutory criteria, and he, therefore, declined to pass it along to Congress (as the statute mandates for complaints that do meet the criteria). But as he is new and understandably did not want to be perceived as throwing the IGIC under the proverbial bus, the acting DNI publicly conformed to the fiction that the man has protected status under the law. He does not.
As if that were not enough confusion, we next come to the brouhaha over anonymity. Contrary to what has become received wisdom (Democratic talking points peddled to the media tend to achieve that status), the law does not guarantee anonymity even to a statutorily qualified whistleblower. Instead, it calls for only the ICIG to keep the identity confidential. Even that, though, is an overstatement. The law says that even the ICIG may disclose the person’s identity if the IGIC (a) believes doing so is unavoidable under the circumstances, or (b) makes disclosure to the Justice Department in anticipation of a prosecution.
To be fair to Senator Paul, just-mentioned point (b) shows he was in the right ballpark, although way off the mark. If there is a prosecution in court, the Justice Department has various disclosure obligations that take precedence over a witness’s interest in remaining anonymous. Whistleblowers who are essential witnesses in criminal prosecutions do not get to remain anonymous. Paul’s problem, as we’ll see, is that impeachment is not a prosecution in court.
The law imposes this highly qualified confidentiality requirement only on the ICIG. It does not bind other government officials, much less members of Congress, the media, and the public. The point of the law is to shield whistleblowers from reprisals (being fired, demoted, denied promotion, transferred to Anchorage, etc.), not from public identification.
The posturing on this point has been patently political. If we were dealing with actual classified information that could compromise a significant national-security program, the media would breathlessly reveal it and lecture us about the public’s “right to know” newsworthy information. And when the whistleblower complaint first emerged, it was impeachment impresario Adam Schiff himself who insisted that the whistleblower had to be brought forward to testify. Natch, he did a 180 when it was revealed that the so-called whistleblower had huddled with Schiff’s staff before filing the complaint with the IGIC. (The point of the statute is to create an intra-agency review of complaints before Congress is notified.)
Of course, it has since come out that — I’ll be darned! — the “whistleblower” has ties to prominent Democratic Trump detractors. So now, the same Democrats who previously saw the man as a potential star witness have decided that his usefulness has run its course. Now that he is a potential liability, it suddenly has become unpatriotic to utter his name.
Meanwhile, Republican Trump defenders first took the position that the “whistleblower” was irrelevant because all his material revelations are hearsay. Since we have a transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call, and witnesses with first-hand knowledge about other pertinent events have testified, they reasoned that he was an unnecessary witness. But, as night follows day, once it became clear that Democrats want to hide him away, the GOP decided that the Republic’s survival hinges on his being exposed and interrogated.
Hence, Senator Paul’s Sixth Amendment meanderings.
The confrontation clause protects only the accused at a criminal trial. The point is that before one’s liberty is taken away, one must have the opportunity to question one’s accusers. Impeachment, however, is not even a legal proceeding, much less a criminal trial. It is a political proceeding. No one’s liberty is at stake; it is strictly about whether an official should be stripped of political authority — in the president’s case, of the executive power.
Moreover, because the Constitution wholly vests the process of impeachment in the House, and the conduct of impeachment trials in the Senate, those chambers have plenary authority over the respective proceedings. No court has the power to tell the House or Senate what quantum of due process must be afforded to an official in an impeachment case. No one can make Congress apply the Sixth Amendment.
Finally, even when the Sixth Amendment does apply (at a criminal trial), the confrontation it guarantees is the ability to cross-examine the witnesses the prosecution calls to establish its case. It does not extend to other people (e.g., tipsters, others who’ve provided hearsay information to investigators). It is very common in the investigative stage for police to receive damning information about a suspect from second- and third-hand sources. That information is investigated, which is how the police and prosecutors locate the first-hand witnesses who are called at the eventual trial. There is no right to confront witnesses the prosecutor does not call, even if they have provided accusatory information.
The president is not without arguments for why the so-called whistleblower’s identity should be disclosed, and why this person should be called to testify. I’ll address them in a separate column. But for present purposes: The so-called whistleblower is not a statutory whistleblower, and his anonymity is not protected by law; but the Sixth Amendment has nothing to do with impeachment, and it does not advance a claim that the “whistleblower” should be outed and questioned.
Something to Consider
You asked in another thread where you had trolled or lied. Well, see above
Its usually futile to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance - Thomas Sowell
Similar threads
