Pam Bondi, damming or nothing to see here?

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts ,

Posts

Total: 22
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
could this force the dems to back off?


HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Well I'm obviously not going to watch a 30 minute video for this. But I honestly do not see how Joe Biden matters. If you murder a guy, it doesn't matter what the victim of the murder did. He could be a terrible criminal but you are still a murderer and would be arrested.

Trump committed crimes and abused the power of his office. Whether or not Biden is corrupt is kind of beside the point. Trump was impeached for his crimes and abuses, not Joe's. Whether or not Joe is guilty of stuff too doesn't matter for the purposes of his impeachment. If they want to go after joe after they are done impeaching Trump, I would be fine with that. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @HistoryBuff
basically she laid out the reasons as to why they would need to be called as witnesses and justification for Trump's request.  I'm not a lawyer but I found it pretty strong.

Keep in mind I was really liking the idea of a president Pence. 
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,079
4
6
10
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
10
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
I’ve seen a lot of people saying they would want president Pence. What do you think he would do differently?
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @bmdrocks21
he won't cause unnecessary controversy imo, don't get me wrong Trump has done some good things but the unneeded crap has really cast a dark shadow over all of the accomplishments.  If he'd of kept that stuff to a minimum 2020 would be cake, now I'm not so sure.  But still better than hillary.

this whole impeachment thing is a farce in that all presidents have done, do things that benefit them, it's impossible to do otherwise.

What confuses me is they must have known the bidens would be dragged into it, I see no support for bernie by them and not all that much for pocahontas.

this is a really dangerous game they have started and I don't see a way this won't blow up in their faces.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Well i didn't watch it. But I can't imagine any theoretical reasoning. "Joe might be corrupt so I committed some crimes" isn't a strong defense. Or any defense at all for that matter. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Greyparrot @HistoryBuff
you may want to watch it then, there appears to be a lot of information that wasn't revealed, selectively, and if true I can see why they wouldn't want the public to know it.
if what she says is true then I think there is an argument to validate asking for an investigation into the energy company etc, which would then negate any sort of "crime" they are trying to dream up with regards to that one issue.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,592
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Why are we discussing crime when describing the 2020 impeachment?

False equivalency.

Besides, history is written by the coastal elites, so the left can do whatever the fuck they want and abuse power and still be on the right side of history.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,079
4
6
10
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
10
--> @Greyparrot
the left can do whatever the fuck they want and abuse power and still be on the right side of history.
Buh buh buh but.... muh Andrew Jackson
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
you may want to watch it then, there appears to be a lot of information that wasn't revealed, selectively, and if true I can see why they wouldn't want the public to know it.
How would it be relevant? Even if Biden were the worst criminal in american history, that doesn't in any way excuse trump committing crimes and abusing his office. 


if what she says is true then I think there is an argument to validate asking for an investigation into the energy company etc, which would then negate any sort of "crime" they are trying to dream up with regards to that one issue.
If they want to investigate, they can go for it. It would in no way invalidate trump's impeachment though. It's like the difference between "I think my neighbor stole my snow blower so I will break into his garage to check" and "I think my neighbor stole my snow blower so i will call the cops". 

Trump abused the power of his office and committed crimes. Whether or not Biden is guilty of something is a completely different discussion. 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Why are we discussing crime when describing the 2020 impeachment?

False equivalency.
how so?

Besides, history is written by the coastal elites, so the left can do whatever the fuck they want and abuse power and still be on the right side of history.
The "coastal elites" as you call them are not the left. They are the center right. As you can see right now, when an actual left candidate shows up, those coastal elites attack to protect their financial interests. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @HistoryBuff
you are missing the point I'm trying to explain,  if what she says is true, then it would be justified for him to ask for an investigation, therefore not an impeachable offense, which it's not even if what she said isn't correct, but just playing devil's advocate.
it also has a strong potential to drag them in to testify and or be further investigated.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 969
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Disclaimer; I did not watch the video

However was there a reason she gave that justifies going through a back-channel rather than official channel, and why that justifies extorting a foreign nation?

I can understand wishing to investigate the Bidens if you think they've done wrong. I just can't understand why you'd do it in such a corrupt manner and leave yourself to liability like this

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
you are missing the point I'm trying to explain,  if what she says is true, then it would be justified for him to ask for an investigation, therefore not an impeachable offense
No one has ever argued that the president can't ask for an investigation. He certainly can. What he can't do is send his personal attorney to dig up dirt on his political rivals and strong arm foreign governments into helping. If trump had asked congress or the FBI to investigate, this wouldn't be a scandal and he wouldn't have gotten impeached. But what he did was an abuse of office. 

it also has a strong potential to drag them in to testify and or be further investigated.
I have no issue with that. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @dustryder
I'm not sure the issue was that he asked for an investigation but rather the investigation involved the Bidens.
was there a reason she gave that justifies going through a back-channel rather than official channel
that I don't know, I don't know the process for doing that, nor do I know if he couldn't actually ask for it, but again even lifelong democrats are defending him on this issue.  Dershowitz (sp) I believe, if he's willing to defend Trump that says a lot to me because I believe he'd have plenty of reasons to not defend this issue.  I believe he's not defending Trump as much as the constitution and this whole process.

HistoryBuff answered it in part after my post,
No one has ever argued that the president can't ask for an investigation. He certainly can.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @HistoryBuff
What he can't do is send his personal attorney to dig up dirt on his political rivals and strong arm foreign governments into helping.
afaik there is no mention in the articles about his personal attorney but rather the phone call
again his defense has debunked anything that could be considered "strong arm' tactics.  The video shows all those who testified, even the ambassador etc and they all admit the Ukraine didn't know about the aid, everything is just their opinion and assumptions.  Like I said I don't like how Trump says stuff and has done stuff but this isn't what they are claiming it is.
Think about it though and ask from any U.S. president is a pretty big deal and he knew that, but doesn't make it a crime.

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
that I don't know, I don't know the process for doing that, nor do I know if he couldn't actually ask for it, but again even lifelong democrats are defending him on this issue. 
A president can ask members of the US government to investigate. the FBI or congress for example. He cannot send his own political bagman to a foreign country to dig up dirt on a political rival and use his office to extort the government of that country into co-operating. 

If trump had asked for an investigation, everything would have been fine. He didn't ask for an investigation. He ordered her personal lawyer (who hired criminals) to go and dig up dirt on a political rival. He then used the power of his office to extort a foreign government to help. 

He then engaged in a cover after the fact, during which he likely committed some crimes. 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
again his defense has debunked anything that could be considered "strong arm' tactics. 
He withheld aid hours after a call with them. That's extortion. 

The video shows all those who testified, even the ambassador etc and they all admit the Ukraine didn't know about the aid, everything is just their opinion and assumptions.
The trump administration blocked most people from testifying. So saying the very few people who defied orders to testify can't confirm something is in no way evidence it didn't happen. 

Think about it though and ask from any U.S. president is a pretty big deal and he knew that, but doesn't make it a crime.
It was blatant abuse of office. The cover up was criminal though. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @HistoryBuff
He withheld aid hours after a call with them. That's extortion.
lol not if they didn't know it, you can't extort someone without them knowing you are doing in this manner, the "witnesses" for the Democrats have admitted on video the Ukranians didn't know it was being delayed.
So saying the very few people who defied orders to testify can't confirm something is in no way evidence it didn't happen. 
irrelevant, innocent until proven guilty.
It was blatant abuse of office. The cover up was criminal though. 
I don't believe those were the charges they brought, in fact they dropped a few of them they started out with.


HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
lol not if they didn't know it, you can't extort someone without them knowing you are doing in this manner, the "witnesses" for the Democrats have admitted on video the Ukranians didn't know it was being delayed.
The people involved in the extortion have refused to testify. So saying they didn't know is ridiculous because the people who would actually know the answer to that question have actively refused to answer it under oath. 

irrelevant, innocent until proven guilty.
He isn't being accused of a crime at present, so that statement is irrelevant. 

I don't believe those were the charges they brought, in fact they dropped a few of them they started out with.
true. He has committed WAY more impeachable acts than just what they brought. They should have brought alot more. I mean his emoluments clause violations alone should have gotten him impeached. 

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @HistoryBuff
The people involved in the extortion have refused to testify. So saying they didn't know is ridiculous because the people who would actually know the answer to that question have actively refused to answer it under oath.
If I tell you I'm planning on extorting someone, but that someone never knows about it, does it even matter?  It's the whole tree falling in the woods thing.
Have you ever told someone you were going to do something and then didn't?
Was there extortion?  Nope just rumors that it might have happened, but didn't.
He isn't being accused of a crime at present, so that statement is irrelevant. 
they aren't confirming a crime, so what exactly are they confirming, just their assumptions, sure they used different words but they are just opinions and assumptions.
He has committed WAY more impeachable acts than just what they brought.
riiightt and they didn't bring them because they were just being nice?  LOL

again no one ever batted an eye when Biden threaten to hold billion dollars if they didn't fire an attorney, yet you want Trump to go through the FBI to ask another country to do their own investigation into something.  somehow that's not extortion?



HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Was there extortion?  Nope just rumors that it might have happened, but didn't.
you keep repeating this over and over as if you have some information that supports this. But we both know you don't. You have a bunch of liars willing to repeat this ad nausium on cable TV, but when asked to testify under oath fight against it tooth and nail. If they really were innocent, they would have testified. 

they aren't confirming a crime, so what exactly are they confirming, just their assumptions, sure they used different words but they are just opinions and assumptions.
trump has committed lots of crimes. He doesn't even try to hide many of them. But the cover up of the Ukraine scandal was illegal. 

riiightt and they didn't bring them because they were just being nice?  LOL
no, because people on the right don't care that Trump is incredibly corrupt. It doesn't matter to you that he has been enriching himself from the presidency and selling out US policy. As long as he is "owning the libs" you will keep supporting him no matter what he does and how many crimes he commits. 

again no one ever batted an eye when Biden threaten to hold billion dollars if they didn't fire an attorney, yet you want Trump to go through the FBI to ask another country to do their own investigation into something.  somehow that's not extortion?
1) It wasn't Biden's idea to that. He was just the one that went and carried it out.
2) neither Biden, nor the people who made the decision to do that had anything to gain from it personally

You are comparing extortion for personal gain to fairly regular diplomacy.