Insurrection and running for office
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
"
Game? Did it occur to you that it is not a game - and that they are trying to hold him accountable for his criminal actions through due process of law, just like they do every other person who breaks the law? When did doing this become a "game" involving "framing"? 90+ felony charges so far. . .
Exactly what "rules" are being ignored? (and are you conflating rules with laws?)
Your comment sounds like the Low IQ conspiracy babble that has disturbingly become the norm for far too many since 2016. Surely I'm mistaken here and reading your comment out of context?
Game? Did it occur to you that it is not a game - and that they are trying to hold him accountable for his criminal actions through due process of law, just like they do every other person who breaks the law? When did doing this become a "game" involving "framing"? 90+ felony charges so far. . .
Exactly what "rules" are being ignored? (and are you conflating rules with laws?)
Your comment sounds like the Low IQ conspiracy babble that has disturbingly become the norm for far too many since 2016. Surely I'm mistaken here and reading your comment out of context?
I can feel my IQ dropping during exchanges like this.
There are rules of order routinely being ignored, like refusing to answer a subpoena for a private congressional hearing but instead crashing a public hearing with a documentary camera rolling to capture some chaotic sound bites.
This very much, looks, walks and quacks like political gamesmanship that only caught one party by surprise. The democrats had their talking points pre-printed up on poster boards.
At least you didn't call me a "cult member" yet, that appears to be the new pejorative verbiage to describe us ("low IQ"?) deplorables.
Of course opinions vary. This is shaping up to be a "historic" election.
JR
I recall a number of GOP lawmakers ignored their subpoenas, but based on the second part it sounds like you're actually trying to change the topic to Hunter Biden for some reason...
In fact, I believe some of them are the ones attacking Hunter Biden.
But hey, if they weren't hypocrites, would they really be Republicans?
The thing that really galls these people is that Hunter Biden refuses to be a willing participant in a political attack on his own father. Of course, the same people who weep about the supposed "political" attacks on Trump in various and sundry courts--you know, those cases that actually have evidence and stuff?--are the first to tell us how serious and important these( largely evidence-free) Hunter Biden hearings are.
But hey, if they weren't hypocrites, would they really be Republicans?
That is public record, as well as how many people were, and were not, prosecuted by the DOJ for contempt of congress. Justice does not seem as blind as advertised.
Perhaps because I just watched the political circus event play out during a televised hearing. A day later Hunter was much better behaved at his court hearing in CA over tax evasion charges. He pled not guilty despite earlier accepting a plea deal for those same charges that fell apart after the judge questioned it's terms.
Meanwhile Trump is being prosecuted in NYC over typical business loans that were fully paid back. There are still unanswered questions about the Biden family business and why it needed to use a couple tens of shell companies. What exactly is/was that family business selling? Ex-president Trump's family businesses are pretty well understood.
In the congressional hallway outside that hearing room, Hunter admitted to putting his father on speaker phone during meetings with Hunter's business associates. That suggests more than familial touching base about the weather. The innocent explanation is that he was selling the Biden brand, but again what does that include?
I dislike politics but I dislike even more being played for a sucker. The current strategy is to paint ex-president Trump as the less attractive option of two candidates, both with high negatives. The left has unintentionally managed to make Trump look like a sympathetic victim of "lawfare". I would much rather two completely different candidates preferably a generation younger or more.
I am not a fan of conspiracy theories but there seems to be lots of activity occurring behind the curtains.
In modern political discourse there is often "projection" occurring. Projection is the process of attributing one's own feelings or traits to others. Politicians will often give us hints about what they are planning or thinking about doing, by what they accuse others of doing.
Both sides are routinely hypocritical, that is the nature of political mud slinging and whataboutism.
JR
And yet you support Trump, a man who has made a career out of playing people for suckers--remember Trump Steaks and Trump University?
Which is actually not hard at all, considering he is. Besides the snatch-grabbing and sucker-cheating, there's all those legal thingies going on. Trump is obviously guilty in the Florida case--if one bothers to believe the actual evidence, which I suspect most Trump supporters do not--and absolutely guilty in the NY fraud case, unless of course you choose to ignore actual evidence and call it a "witch hunt."
All those beloved Republican inquiries--from Benghazi through Hillary's emails through John Durham & Bill Barr and the current batch--have netted exactly nothing. When will it start to dawn on the true believers that maybe, just maybe, they're being played?
I figure those were aimed at guys like you... The only Trump merch I bought recently was a coffee cup with his mug shot... There was something poetic about a "mug shot mug".
I am not supporting Trump (yet) but compared to the democrats it is not a hard decision. It is still a little early to worry about that yet, there's some 10 months before the vote. Neither party is locked in. Polls are not votes.
And what exactly was the "fraud" in that NY case? Real estate valuations to secure loans are subjective. The only truly objective real estate valuation is when a property sale closes and money exchanges hands. The banks that exPresident Trump borrowed money from did not lose a cent, and even testified on his behalf in NYC.
Yes congratulations.... The deep state is pretty effective at escaping criminal charges. Just look at Hunter. The DOJ let the statute of limitations run out on his biggest tax fraud years. They would have done it again if the right did not shine some sunlight on what was happening in plain sight.
===
As I have attempted to explain multiple times over the years the opposition party routinely investigates the party in power. This partisan dance shifts back and forth with pendulum swings as majority power changes from election to election. The investigations this time seem meaner and targeted to interfere with the 2024 vote.
The party putting democracy at risk seems to be the democrats. Of course opinions vary... it quacks like projection to accuse Trump of being a threat to democracy.
I feel like I am wasting my time trying to explain this again.
Have a nice weekend and enjoy your political wins however etherial. Making this level of investigation the new normal will come back to bite your side. We have seen this happen before with unintended consequences from senate rules changes and the like.
JR
I admit I find this to be odd complaint, given that the goal of pretty much every political campaign ever has been to paint the opponents as less attractive.
You could maybe excuse that, but lying about quantifiable things like square footage (which Trump did) is not subjective. And believing your property is worth $10 million is one thing, but telling one party it's worth $10 mill & another it's worth 2 doesn't indicate that you believe something different from what others might believe; it instead indicates that you'll value your assets at whatever suits your purposes at any given moment.
I thought I was agreeing with you, but I'm guessing you're not talking about the bogus H. Biden investigation, or the bogus attempts to impeach various cabinet members, are you?
Trump's pretty dang good at it too. Of course, he learned from one of the all-time worst govt. lawyers, so there is that. Of course, you ignore the possibility that all those "Just you wait" investigations were little more than a load of BS, or at best making Mt. Everest out of a speed hump. I can't imagine you've even entertained that notion.
radardoug
Well-known member
Looking at it from a long way overseas, its pretty mindboggling. John, I note you accuse both sides of the house of being liars, my question is why are any of them lying? What happened to parents advice to tell the truth? Why do they need to lie? The old adage is 'follow the money' but could also be 'follow the power'. And this attempt to Frame Pres Biden is just unbeleiveable. Sure, Hunter has done dodgy stuff, but he is finally going to have to pay for some of it. They are going after Joe so he can look as bad as Trump, and Trump lies every day, pretty much every time he opens his mouth.
radardoug
Well-known member
And Hunter has said he will testify in open session, but the Repubs dont want that. What have they got to hide?
And the classic, Repub member saying Hunter has no balls, while MTG shows pictures of his balls. You cant make this stuff up!
And the classic, Repub member saying Hunter has no balls, while MTG shows pictures of his balls. You cant make this stuff up!
I am surely repeating myself but truthful politicians from either side would never get elected. They have to tell the voters what they want to hear.
money and power are intrinsically connected..
There are millions of dollars that flowed his way from China and other foreign nationals... His clan was disciplined about not discussing publicly "the big guy" who gets 10%. It is common practice when China bribes foreign leaders to shower gifts upon the family and relatives. This technique is called "elite capture" and does not leave finger prints on direct monetary gifts to the actual target.The Hunter charges are from years ago and were effectively suppressed when the republicans lacked subpoena power, without holding a majority in the house. As I mentioned prosecutors had already allowed the statute of limitations to expire on some of Hunter's old tax charges.
You don't appear to grasp the game at play. Nobody is denying Hunter a public open session, only that it must follow normal order and be held after a proper closed door questioning session. What does he have to hide?
====
Normal order for congressional investigations are first to hold a closed door session to question the witness(es) privately, at length to discover what can be learned about a given topic. These private questioning sessions can run multiple hours and witnesses get questioned by staff lawyers under oath. The transcripts from these closed door hearings can get published.
The later public sessions are the dog and pony shows where the committee member's only get 5 minutes each to ask questions with lights and cameras running. They base their brief leading questions (hoping to get usable sound bites) based upon what was learned during the private questioning. Holding a public session first without having well researched questions to ask could only be a pointless circus show where nothing new gets revealed. At that attempted ambush (surprise) public hearing the democrats had their talking points pre-printed on poster boards for the TV cameras.
JR
PS: Ex-president Trump's children have spent numerous hours being questioned behind closed doors. I think Hillary set the record with 11 hours being questioned for the Benghazi hearings, she (a lawyer) was pretty slippery to question, famously responding "at this point what difference does it make"? regarding the deaths of our ambassador and his security guards.
radardoug
Well-known member
John, sad to see you falling for the hype. These millions of dollars that Biden got, you have any proof? But Trumps kids got plenty. And Trump himself made money from his businesses while President, against the Emoluments Act.
pucho812
Well-known member
The DOJ argued in the past that President Trump is not violating the
emoluments clause. The DOJ interprets the clause to mean, “profit arising from an office or employ.”
This means receiving monetary compensation as a result of being in office.
According to the DOJ, the emoluments clause does not apply to private business transactions. This
means that the president has to act in his official capacity to violate the emoluments clause. For
example, if the president accepts a bribe in exchange for an official act, then that would violate the
emoluments clause.
The DOJ also cites examples of previous presidents who had private business interests while in office.
George Washington was one of the nation’s largest landowners while president and even owned a flour
mill. His nephew ran his businesses during his presidency. Thomas Jefferson himself owned a farm and nail factory, and he exported tobacco to Great Britain during his presidency. The DOJ argues that no one
at the time “raised concerns about whether foreign governments or government-owned corporations”
were “customers” of these businesses of the early presidents.
The DOJ also argues that President Trump is not violating the domestic emoluments clause. That clause
was explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers in 1788. Hamilton wrote that the clause
was meant to ensure that the president could not be persuaded by monetary payments to “renounce or
desert” the independence of his office. In other words, it has nothing to do with private business
transactions. It has only to do with the president receiving payments for doing something as president.
It was later determined, for example, that President Reagan could, after all, receive his California
pension payments because they had nothing to do with his being president.
Matador
Well-known member
I can't myself understand the dissonance between complaints on these very boards about how "blue-state DA's" aren't prosecuting crimes which is directly responsible for "out-of-control" crime rates (again, especially in blue states), contrasting with anger that a Federal DA is prosecuting Trump for his own crimes because those cases are "politically motivated". Either you believe in our system or you don't.
We are also read here about how the "jury of your peers"/evidence-based standards is the foundation of our criminal justice system. So if Trump is found guilty on at least some counts, by a jury of his peers, then how exactly was the prosecution "political"? You would have to argue that yes, he was found guilty in our criminal justice system, and yes, maybe his actions met all of the requirements for his crimes, but even then, those charges should have never been brought because "politics"?
Put another way, maybe all of the "blue state DA's" aren't prosecuting everyone because they fear those cases may be "politically motivated", in which case, the right-leaning people should be very happy, right?
We are also read here about how the "jury of your peers"/evidence-based standards is the foundation of our criminal justice system. So if Trump is found guilty on at least some counts, by a jury of his peers, then how exactly was the prosecution "political"? You would have to argue that yes, he was found guilty in our criminal justice system, and yes, maybe his actions met all of the requirements for his crimes, but even then, those charges should have never been brought because "politics"?
Put another way, maybe all of the "blue state DA's" aren't prosecuting everyone because they fear those cases may be "politically motivated", in which case, the right-leaning people should be very happy, right?
Dude, you need to cite your sources when you copy and paste stuff. Show a little respect for others' intellectual property.
https://www.crf-usa.org/images/pdf/gates/TheEmolumentsClause-t2t.pdf
The root of this discussion lies in the vagaries of the U.S. Constitution and its interpretations. These vagaries have always been played up to "game" the system. We can't really avoid those, but we should work to close loopholes as they become apparent. Over the past 7 years, we have seen an intense effort to game any and every possible loophole to please an aggressive minority movement that many view as anti-democratic (democratic republic to be more correct) and even leaning very much toward autocratic behavior. If the majority of the nation's voters supported this view, one could argue that is the direction of this great experiment. Unfortunately, our elections still rely on the Electoral College, which isn't dependent on the majority of votes. Arguably, the out-of-date Electoral College system should be overhauled.
There has been a magnifying glass held up to the shortcomings, loopholes, and vagaries of the Constitution and, more importantly, the norms of government behavior that are not defined by actual laws, and are therefore open to broad interpretation. An example of this would be if many government jobs were to be defined as "at the pleasure of the president." A president could then gut a federal agency to disable it or install cronies. Imagine then if another pandemic, bank failure, or civil uprising were to occur. The government could be unable to successfully perform its duties or, worse, it could effect a true insurrection or coup. Any way you slice it, the population could suffer.
Regardless of any individual's political bent, everyone should support the ongoing effectiveness of the federal government. A mess has been uncovered and it may take many more (high-functioning) administrations to sort things out.
There has been a magnifying glass held up to the shortcomings, loopholes, and vagaries of the Constitution and, more importantly, the norms of government behavior that are not defined by actual laws, and are therefore open to broad interpretation. An example of this would be if many government jobs were to be defined as "at the pleasure of the president." A president could then gut a federal agency to disable it or install cronies. Imagine then if another pandemic, bank failure, or civil uprising were to occur. The government could be unable to successfully perform its duties or, worse, it could effect a true insurrection or coup. Any way you slice it, the population could suffer.
Regardless of any individual's political bent, everyone should support the ongoing effectiveness of the federal government. A mess has been uncovered and it may take many more (high-functioning) administrations to sort things out.
The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the masses. Our founders already saw the potential distortions caused by dense coastal populations.
The administrative state has pretty much usurped the legislature, and even the administration.
Indeed but historically bureaucracies reflexively become hyper defensive when they feel that they are challenged.
JR
