Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Statute for the Impeachment Articles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    Yes, Biden did give a demand; fire the guy or don't get the aid.....you have 6 hours.

    That is clearly a demand and a quid pro quo.
    You do not follow the conversation and you respond to claims that I did not make. It must be too late in your place. Time for sleep?

    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by pamak View Post
      .

      And no, at the time there was not an ongoing investigation. In the past there was an investigation of Burisma's founder and not of Biden's son.
      Hunter Biden was the head of Burisma's legal team.
      His job was to make legal investigations go away.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by pamak View Post

        Not by what this statute says
        Are you an expert in Ukrainian law?
        His actions fit the definition of extortion.

        Comment


        • #34
          Maybe if you all threaten to hold your breath the Hunter Biden story will get taken seriously.........

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            Your logic is an obvious exhibition of double standards and naivete

            The PUBLICLY EXPRESSED personal belief of the Ukrainian leader when he tries to make sure that the US under Trump continues to support Ukraine is not credible indicator of what the Ukrainian leader really thinks. I have news for you. Politicians lie and Zelinsky has many reasons to lie in order to avoid a confrontation with Trump.

            On the other hand, the sworn testimonies of career diplomats who reveal that Ukrainian officials were feeling pressure from Guiliani to make public statements about their investigations in exchange of getting aid or in exchange of arranging a meeting with Trump is a much more appropriate indicator. Apparently, , you are not that willing to keep yourself informed about this case. You sound like someone who wants to use ignorance or some vague knowledge of the relevant facts in order to defend the indefensible.

            Meanwhile, while you ridicule common sense when you seem ready to accept as the most important point the public statement of an Ukrainian leader who had just seen Trump blocking military aid while s country is occupied by Russians , you ignore the public stance of multiple organizations regarding the need of removing the Ukrainian prosecutor during Biden's time.

            Pathetic...and you are right that I do not care about your opinion but I do care to expose its rotten foundation to those who may think that you make sense.


            Sigh.
            As I expected.
            “Politicians lie”, but the people you want to believe don’t
            You continue to argue your conclusions when I discussed how the law would apply. Since you have no idea what I am talking about, you felt your feelings were relevant. They aren’t.

            You call my analysis “pathetic” but can’t point out where a single thing I said was inaccurate.
            It is hilarious that you say Guiliani’s statements are a ”more appropriate indicator” of trump’s efforts than trump’s statements or of the alleged victim’s statements.

            You ridicule the extent of my knowledge but still can’t point out how I am wrong. Weird, it is almost as if you are making stuff up.
            again.

            I’m sorry, you don’t know what you are talking about or how to discuss the points I’m making.
            I was discussing the law, you are discussing your opinions. Your opinions don’t prove anything i said wrong, except maybe in your own head.
            But thank you for behaving exactly as I predicted.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              And you show your double standards when you try to argue that Biden is suspect of corrupt intend but Trump is not
              I addressed how the law would apply to Biden’s situation.
              Since you don’t understand what I am talking about you don’t even try to refute it.
              You just attack me.
              Other than not addressing anything I said you are doing great.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                No he did not express an obvious demand in the transcript. There, he asked for a "favor", but unfortunately for you the statute includes "seek" together with demand in the list

                (2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive...

                So, I do not even need to argue if that "favor" was a demand or not



                Please don’t try to lecture about how to interpret statutes.
                Asking for a favor is not a violation of the statute. There is more, but you are conveniently ignoring the parts you don’t understand or are contrary to what you want to believe.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  I read the same statute and I am reasonable to realize that there was no "corrupt demand" in Biden's case because he followed a policy of QPQ which was considered the right one by everybody at the time.
                  Nope...you're dead wrong. Biden already has foreign interests that created a conflict of interest when his son went to work for that foreign government, so Biden MUST be charged in order for any action to proceed against others.

                  You cannot apply any statue to Trump that has been ignored in the past by the Democratic party in favor of themselves. First, you get to clean out your own trash; then you can consider doing the same elsewhere.

                  Of course, with most of the Democratic party in prison, there won't be anyone left to pursue this idiocy, but we can replace them easily enough.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                    Sigh.
                    As I expected.
                    Politicians lie”, but the people you want to believe don’t
                    You continue to argue your conclusions when I discussed how the law would apply. Since you have no idea what I am talking about, you felt your feelings were relevant. They aren’t.

                    You call my analysis “pathetic” but can’t point out where a single thing I said was inaccurate.
                    It is hilarious that you say Guiliani’s statements are a ”more appropriate indicator” of trump’s efforts than trump’s statements or of the alleged victim’s statements.

                    You ridicule the extent of my knowledge but still can’t point out how I am wrong. Weird, it is almost as if you are making stuff up.
                    again.

                    I’m sorry, you don’t know what you are talking about or how to discuss the points I’m making.
                    I was discussing the law, you are discussing your opinions. Your opinions don’t prove anything i said wrong, except maybe in your own head.
                    But thank you for behaving exactly as I predicted.
                    Do not telll me how law applies from internet. Try to convince me instead by making intelligent arguments. Yes, politicians lie and witnesses also lie and people use common sense and intelligence to see where there is possible a crime and where there is not. You fail miserably in critical thinking

                    The idea that the public statement of the Ukrainian leader at that time and under those circumstances is in your opinion more important that what every other people says is just moronic for the reasons I already explained and which you have not even tried to confront. And no the pubic statement and your OPINION ABOUT ITS SIGNIFICANCE which I marked in red is not part of the law.


                    Here is you in your "professional wisdom"!

                    The personal belief of the Ukrainian is more important than anyone else. Including us.


                    This judgement is not part of the law. It is part of the mentality of blind partisanship and diminishing intellectual ability to actually apply the law in a reasonable manner.
                    Last edited by pamak; 07 Nov 19, 12:06.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Freebird View Post
                      Hunter Biden was the head of Burisma's legal team.
                      His job was to make legal investigations go away.
                      No, he was a member of the legal team. There are even statements specifically about it clarifying that he was not hired as a lawyer.
                      He was member of the board of directors

                      And there was NO ongoing investigation under the Ukrainian prosecutor at the time.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post

                        Do not telll me how law applies from internet. Try to convince me instead by making intelligence arguments. Yes, politicians lie and witnesses also lie and people use common sense and intelligence to see where there is possible a crime and where there is not.

                        The idea that the public statement of the Ukrainian leader at that time and under those circumstances is in your opinion more important that what every other people says is just moronic for the reasons I already explained and which you have not even tried to confront. And no the pubic statement and your OPINION ABOUT ITS SIGNIFICANCE which I marked in red is not part of the law.


                        Here is you in your "professional wisdom"!

                        The personal belief of the Ukrainian is more important than anyone else. Including us.


                        This judgement is not part of the law. It is part of the mentality of blind partisanship and diminishing intellectual ability to actually apply the law in a reasonable manner.
                        I have no desire to try and convince you of anything.
                        You aren't interested in any point of view that conflicts with your prejudices. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, but you don't get it because you don't understand the law, but are certain you are qualified to lecture about it. You don't address my points or the law, you try to attack me. Usually a dead give away that you have nothing.

                        If I am not permitted to tell you how the law works, why in god's name should anyone listen to you?

                        If you had the slightest grasp of what I was talking about, you would understand my point, but you don't so you attack me instead.
                        I will put it another way.

                        A man is accused of rape and there are even witnesses that provide evidence that support that accusation.
                        The only problem is that the alleged victim says she wasn't raped .
                        That is the problem I identified and you've convinced yourself is me being partisan.

                        If you still don't understand I could draw some pictures for you.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                          I have no desire to try and convince you of anything.
                          You aren't interested in any point of view that conflicts with your prejudices. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, but you don't get it because you don't understand the law, but are certain you are qualified to lecture about it. You don't address my points or the law, you try to attack me. Usually a dead give away that you have nothing.

                          If I am not permitted to tell you how the law works, why in god's name should anyone listen to you?

                          If you had the slightest grasp of what I was talking about, you would understand my point, but you don't so you attack me instead.
                          I will put it another way.

                          A man is accused of rape and there are even witnesses that provide evidence that support that accusation.
                          The only problem is that the alleged victim says she wasn't raped .
                          That is the problem I identified and you've convinced yourself is me being partisan.

                          If you still don't understand I could draw some pictures for you.
                          You are not permitted to try to sell me your supposedly legal expertise about how the law applies when you make comments which make zero sense. Internet claims of expertise without the appropriate back-up means nothing to me

                          Again: the fact that you do not understand the difference between your personal judgment call when you say things like "The personal belief of the Ukrainian is more important than anyone else" and what the law says is indicative of your real lack of expertise in anything related to law.

                          And if you want to give me examples related to sexual crimes, you need to find something that resembles the situation , such as the condition of having the suspect controlling the financial revenues of the victim. And as it is very well known, in such cases pimps often threaten bully and blackmail their women who do not dare to say anything bad about the illegal activities of their "protectors." So, no the silence of such victims is not the most important thing in investigating pimps' crimes.

                          I know you can draw a picture. I do not doubt that you may be even good at it. Just do not try to play the lawyer with me.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            You are not permitted to try to sell me your supposedly legal expertise about how the law applies when you make comments which make zero sense. Internet claims of expertise without the appropriate back-up means nothing to me

                            Again: the fact that you do not understand the difference between your personal judgment call the you say things like "The personal belief of the Ukrainian is more important than anyone else" and what the law says is indicative of your real lack of expertise in anything related to law.

                            And if you want to give me examples related to sexual crimes, you need to find something that resembles the situation , such as the condition of having the suspect controlling the financial revenues of the victim. And as it is very well known, in such cases pimps often threaten bully and blackmail their women who do not dare to say anything bad about their "protectors."


                            Despite not understanding how the law works, I guess you've run rings around me.
                            Except for the part about the law and how the facts work with the law.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                              Despite not understanding how the law works, I guess you've run rings around me.
                              Except for the part about the law and how the facts work with the law.
                              As long as you are incapable of separating your personal opinions about which statements are more important from the legal facts and what the law says I can certainly run rings around you and expose to the audience your legal ineptitude.
                              But feel free to counter my points by emoticons.
                              As I said, I do not care about your opinion but I do care to expose its rotten logic to the public.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                                As long as you are incapable of separating your personal opinions about which statements are more important from the legal facts and what the law says I can certainly run rings around you and expose to the audience your legal ineptitude.
                                But feel free to counter my points by emoticons.
                                As I said, I do not care about your opinion but I do care to expose its rotten logic to the public.
                                sadly you don't understand what I'm talking about.
                                I've expressed no political or personal opinions about the outcome.
                                I have explained how the law works and how to apply it to the situation at issue.
                                You didn't comment on either. Likely because you don't understand.
                                Your only problem is my point that if the alleged victim doesn't support the charge, there is a problem in prosecution for that charge.
                                You will note that trump and politics have nothing to do with that statement.

                                But I know when I've been bested by superior legal analysis.
                                Oh wait, you didn't do any of that. never mind.
                                I will let you bask in the glory of your prejudices and inabilty to comprehend what I was talking about and let you remain certain you've crushed me.
                                ta-ta


                                By the way, you did exactly as I predicted didn't you.
                                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X