Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President? Yes, I did, because he is on tape admitting to a quid pro quo, threatening to withhold tax payer funds in exchange for him firing the lead prosecutor looking into the Burisma Holdings case, of which his son was directly involved. I look forward to your semantic gymnastics. Do you think Hillary is a criminal? |
|
|
|
When you are proven wrong, you just claim you didn't say that. Even when there's an actual record of you saying it. You just claim you didn't say that and insult anyone who says otherwise. Are you actually convincing yourself that you didn't say it? I said what I said, not what you want to interpret my words to mean. I don't give a fuck how convinced you are or how many of your buddies you call to stand around in a circle to jerk off your confirmation bias. Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President? |
|
|
|
Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you?
I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country. The people that admire his disregard for the truth Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you?
I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country. The people that admire his disregard for the truth.
I think you're on to something here. Its like the truth just doesn't even matter anymore. All that matters is pwning the libs. Just because you imagine real hard and get your buddies to jerk you off doesn't make me wrong or untruthful. People question me all the time and I don't attack them. I only attack disingenuous people like you and your pals who are more interested in creating a "gotcha" moment rather than debating the premise. If you don't want to have a legitimate debate then don't cry when I also play by your rules. When you are proven wrong, you just claim you didn't say that. Even when there's an actual record of you saying it. You just claim you didn't say that and insult anyone who says otherwise. Are you actually convincing yourself that you didn't say it? |
|
|
|
No. You literally didn't. You are wrong. Here are some cliffs to refresh your memory. I said this: If you're going to use that logic then all income that Eric or Don Jr. get paid, and any money the company their running gets paid is all being paid directly to Donald Trump. And that would be illegal.
Then you responded with this: Sure, totally the same thing. All you have to do is ignore conflict of interest And then I asked this (with Turkey and Saudi examples): Do you think this qualifies as a conflict of interest?
and then you responded with this: You still aren't telling me what Trump supposedly gave to Saudi Arabia in exchange.
And then I asked you a bunch more time directly if you thought there was a conflict of interest or not and you've just deflected. Yes, I literally did answer you. You selectively editing my quotes and leaving out my actual reply doesn't change that. You don't get to dictate the format of my reply goat fucker. I am not repeating myself in exactly the form you demand so you can jerk yourself off. I already answered you. Do I have to break out the NO U! meme again? You aren't talking about Trump directly, you are talking about his sons. Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now. If there was ANYTHING substantial dems would have been all over it like a 2 bit whore by now. The combination of the pattern of Joe Biden's direct involvement in favorable policy towards foreign entities combined with funneling large amounts of money to his immediate family is clearly illicit. There is no equivalence here no matter how desperate you are to manufacture it with more accusations of NO U!!!1 Interesting related article: https://straightlinelogic.com/2019/10/16/make-the-truth-irrelevant-by-robert-gore/Does Trump inspire you to never concede even a single point in a discussion, without any consideration for the truth, and attack anyone that questions you? I think that's going to be a serious issue long term for the country. The people that admire his disregard for the truth. |
|
|
|
I insisted the subpoenas were based upon criminal proceedings. After you two dildors were so insistent on it not ever being a criminal proceeding I did some more research, and lo and behold your argument was totally wrong. I don't need to change my position for your argument to be wrong, you just have to be wrong. Also note the area in red clearly describing a criminal trial process.
A subpoena does not have to be for a criminal proceeding for it to be valid.
The corruption in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA are VERY well documented. The Strzok/Page "insurance" texts, Comey's criminal FISA warrant, giving Hillary a pass on releasing classified information, the meeting on the tarmac, there are tons of examples of their corruption, and complicity in coverups of corruption as well as bias against Trump. Don't even bother trying to defend the CIA.
Funny you have been watching over 3 years of fruitless investigation into Trump and anyone he has ever met, but you don't ever apply that standard of "coincidence" there now do you?
You're using a bunch of twisted facts, lies and debunked conspiracy theories to conclude that Trump should trust Ukraines investigator more than the entire US intelligence community, all run by people he hand picked. Comey didn't give Hillary a pass. The FBI doesn't prosecute people, the DOJ does. He just didn't recommend prosecution and said he didn't think any prosecutor would be able to get a conviction - Obviously Sessions and Barr agreed. Otherwise she would have been indicted like Trump promised. Same goes for anyone else Trump has been calling a criminal for years on twitter. Where are the indictments? Why isn't anyone in jail or being punished? Oh wait, I almost forgot, Trumps Campaign Manager, Personal Lawyer are both in prison now. His Sec of Defense #1 is a convicted felon waiting to be sentenced, so is his deputy campaign manager. And his current personal lawyer is under federal investigation. This isn't because of the Democrats or Comey or the FBI. It's because Trump hires people that are willing to commit crimes for him. TLDR; Trump hand picked the head of FBI, CIA, DOJ and all the rest. He's been president for almost 3 years. Why aren't any criminal Democrats being indicted - but members of his cabinet and campaign are? |
|
|
|
...
Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor. I mean, wtf?
Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally. The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail.
Anyone, Trump included who suggested/requested that Ukraine evaluate the Biden crime family's activities in Ukraine was doing UKRAINE a favor. Were they also helping themselves? Sure they were; that's how humans roll, and it's certainly not limited to politicians. This is a minor kerfuffle between two quasi-American crime families (Trumps and Bidens) who are in a bit of a turf war. If Ukraine get's an opportunity to limit the damage they are doing in their nation, that's great. If the American peeps get a peek the nature of the crimes that these families are involved in, that's also great. With me at least. Am I making sense?
Your apologetics for the Biden clan make perfect sense. More importantly they are amusing to watch. Are you calling it the Biden crime family because he's a democrat? You realize 2 of his 3 kids and their mom are dead right? He's been a Senator/VP since 1973, is there any actual evidence of him committing a crime? |
|
|
|
Because they had a debate with 12 candidates? The whole system is trash. Politicians should try to 'defeat' the other politicians with better policies, plans, etc. They should show why they are actually better for the country not stupid shitty 10-year old personal attacks. Hey, Trump is an idiot so vote for us, but what are we actually going to do when we get the power? Ehh, we will see.
I hear this a lot and sometimes I feel the same way. But when you look at where we are and how fast we got here it's really quite impressive, and the system is really the main reason. I feel like constant fighting among political parties is a far better alternative than just letting one side do whatever they want. Right now things are pretty crazy, but I really think a lot of it is because technology is evolving much faster than politics, I think we'll figure it out eventually though. |
|
|
|
It's entirely possible to arrange a large series of payments, have it understood what will be given in return, and have nothing written down or explicitly capable of being found such as would constitute "proof."
Some types of crime are notoriously hard to convict on, due to these difficulties in establishing proof to a standard of a court of law. Bunko, and many con man schemes, for example.
As I said, 'Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof."'
So all you have is a theory that has no information at all that can lend credence to it. Gotcha. What's "interesting" about me talking about proof? You've just thrown out some wild theory with absolutely nothing to indicate it might have some validity never mind "proof". Even conspiracy "nuts" make an effort to cobble together "proof". What's interesting about you talking about proof is that ignores the time honored smell test, and this smells. It's not a question of whether Biden did something criminal when his son just happened to get millions for nothing, in exchange for which he gave favored treatment to someone, but how it makes him look to the voters. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/biden-in-decline.phpI mean, the logic is fine I guess. But the fact that you seem to think Trump doesn't smell but Biden does makes me think you're literally just interested in Democrats losing and Republicans winning regardless of ethics. |
|
|
|
Wow, you just got proven wrong and then you called the person who proved you wrong "Captain Obvious." The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding. Wrong. An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. You were wrong, now admit it. Hey look at this tidbit I found in The Constitution of the United States of America. "An Indictable Crime The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms. There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that " the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed. Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature."https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.htmlYou are wrong. Are you going to admit it Nutilduhh? Hi Techole: You are looking at one of several interpretations of the constitution. The main reason why an impeachment cannot be a criminal proceeding is because it is being determined by the house of representatives and not a judge, or as pointed out in your quotations, a jury. According to this particular interpretation, an impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense; that does not necessarily imply that it is a criminal offense. Later, your article entertains a completely opposite interpretation: The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses. Here's a recent article by the WSJ to help you understand why you are wrong, because obviously you don't understand why yet: What’s the difference between impeachment and a criminal trial?
The impeachment process provides a way to remove an officeholder through a majority vote in the House of Representatives followed by a trial in the Senate. Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict to remove an officeholder. Because impeachment is handled by Congress, it is more of a political process than a legal proceeding.
A criminal trial, by contrast, is held in local, state or federal court to determine whether an individual violated criminal law. Defendants in criminal trials must be granted due process of law, access to an attorney, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to a trial by jury, according to the Constitution.
A conviction in a criminal trial can deprive someone of their freedom—or even their life in a capital case. The only possible punishment resulting from conviction in an impeachment trial is removal from office. That's funny he's back to insisting an impeachment is a criminal proceeding after insisting he never said impeachment was a criminal proceeding. Even though did say that, multiple times. Here's another good one from Constitution: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. |
|
|
|
|
That's annoying. Obviously you should get something. Not even a thank you is basically a middle finger.
I always assumed these bug bounty sites were given some sort of retainer or billed the actual site with the bug for any bounties they paid.
This makes me think maybe they just charge a flat rate or something for their 'service', maybe package it with a security audit.
If a bug bounty site has a financial incentive to not pay out bounties, like in the example above, they're actually doing a disservice to the sites being tested, the sites users, and the bug reporters. That's fucked up.
|
|
|
|
Looks like they're just going to keep whatever is left in accounts next week. Seems like it would be easy to miss in their thread. Hi all, We regret to inform you that our website will be shutting down from October 24, 2019. After that date, your Vegas Casino player account will no longer be accessible. Furthermore, no games will be available to play on Vegas Casino as of October 16. You can withdraw any outstanding real money balance in your player account until the final shut-down of the site on October 24.We would like to thank you for playing with us. Vegas Casino could not have been as successful as it was without your loyalty. You can e-mail us at cs@vegascasino.io with additional questions you might have. To our many users across the globe who have played with Vegas Casino, we thank you for your support. Best regards, Evita |
|
|
|
Completely disagree. I have consistently placed bets on Pinnacle and other popular betting sites and always found more value through Pinnacle.
You are either one of the most brilliant sharps in the world or you are seeing value where there isn't any. In my experience, sports betting is far better when compared to gambling in games like dice etc since your research and knowledge actually help. It is possible to profit regularly through sports betting and I have seen many people do it.
There are many ways to accomplish this op. My favorite way is arbitrage betting and accumulator betting. These are risky methods, but I have had a lot of success with these methods. I usually bet on moneyline and handicap bets using these methods.
You aren't the most brilliant sharp in the world. |
|
|
|
I am talking about Trump.
Does he have any conflict of interest with Turkey.
The obvious answer is yes. I think that's why you refuse to give a direct answer. It's like you've been programmed to never criticize your dear leader. Since we are speaking for each other now... I really enjoy fucking goats. I gave you a direct answer. I am not your puppet, I don't dance to your demands to a response in the exact format you want. No. You literally didn't. You are wrong. Here are some cliffs to refresh your memory. I said this: If you're going to use that logic then all income that Eric or Don Jr. get paid, and any money the company their running gets paid is all being paid directly to Donald Trump. And that would be illegal.
Then you responded with this: Sure, totally the same thing. All you have to do is ignore conflict of interest And then I asked this (with Turkey and Saudi examples): Do you think this qualifies as a conflict of interest?
and then you responded with this: You still aren't telling me what Trump supposedly gave to Saudi Arabia in exchange.
And then I asked you a bunch more time directly if you thought there was a conflict of interest or not and you've just deflected. |
|
|
|
The thing is, when you're the president you have the FBI, CIA, and DOJ all at your disposal. They are all fully capable of investigating Bidens and his sons behavior as VP, even if it involved another country - and if they found anything it could actually be used to prosecute Bide. He also could have gone through the Department of State. Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor. I mean, wtf? Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally. The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail. Am I making sense? Here's an idea: How about if the political parties put forward candidates who are not criminals? Someone should try that someday.
Nixon, Carter, Raegan, Bush, Bush, Obama, all the Dem candidates besides Biden and Warren (I'll throw her in so we don't have to debate the pocohantas thing.) I'm not aware of any evidence, or even semi-reasonable accusations that any of these people were criminals when they were running for president. (Exceptions being marijuana use, Bernie getting arrested for protesting and Nixons campaign for second term) Your logic makes zero sense. All of those organizations were infiltrated and openly hostile to the president, the FBI, The DOJ, and ESPECIALLY the CIA. The President is the head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government. This is literally his job. "Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally." Are you sure about that? That sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me. There are a lot of regulations regarding officials and criminal activity, even outside of US jurisdiction. Furthermore, don't the American people deserve to have this information? Funny, that was the argument made about climbing up Trump's ass for over 3 solid years... Fine fine. muh deepstate, I get it. Even though the head of the FBI, CIA and DOJ all serve at the pleasure of the president, we should obviously trust Ukraines investigation results more than ours. And the fact that it's the presidents political adversary is just a coincidence. He really just can't stand any corruption anywhere. |
|
|
|
If honestly haven't seen a direct response from you. Pretty sure I've read all your responses, and I just went back and checked again, but maybe I missed it. Could you just give a yes/no answer?
I'll be more specific to make it simple. Do you think there would be a conflict of interest if Trump was receiving payments directly from his deal with the Trump Tower in Turkey. I am not repeating myself in exactly the form you demand so you can jerk yourself off. I already answered you. Do I have to break out the NO U! meme again? You aren't talking about Trump directly, you are talking about his sons. Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now. If there was ANYTHING substantial dems would have been all over it like a 2 bit whore by now. The combination of the pattern of Joe Biden's direct involvement in favorable policy towards foreign entities combined with funneling large amounts of money to his immediate family is clearly illicit. There is no equivalence here no matter how desperate you are to manufacture it with more accusations of NO U!!!1 I am talking about Trump. Does he have any conflict of interest with Turkey. The obvious answer is yes. I think that's why you refuse to give a direct answer. It's like you've been programmed to never criticize your dear leader. |
|
|
|
Are you saying think it's ok for a president to ask other governments to open investigations on their political rivals to help them get re elected?
Or are you saying you don't think Trump asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden and his son because he thought it would help him get more votes if Biden were nominated. Basically it was just a coincidence that Biden happened to be his most likely General Election opponent.
Or is it something else I'm missing?
I see nothing wrong with asking anyone to open an investigation if there is suspicion of a crime. I'm all about criminals being investigated, and even more importantly...and much more rarely...actually prosecuted. Being a politician should not insulate one from investigation into wrongdoing or give someone a free pass for criminal behavior. That's a big problem that the U.S. and many other countries have and part of the reason why we have such corrupt governments. If politician A asks country B to investigate a non-existent crime against politician B for political reasons then politician A is committing a crime for which he/she can be punished. That's the deterance. If politician B is guilty of a crime then it's doing the world a favor to pound his balls flat. The thing is, when you're the president you have the FBI, CIA, and DOJ all at your disposal. They are all fully capable of investigating Bidens and his sons behavior as VP, even if it involved another country - and if they found anything it could actually be used to prosecute Bide. He also could have gone through the Department of State. Instead he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a favor. I mean, wtf? Even if Ukraine comes back and says "oh yeah, Biden broke our laws, he's guilty!" It literally would mean nothing over here criminally. The only thing it would do was give Trump ammo to attack Biden on the campaign trail. Am I making sense? Here's an idea: How about if the political parties put forward candidates who are not criminals? Someone should try that someday.
Nixon, Carter, Raegan, Bush, Bush, Obama, most of the GOP candidates from 2016 and all the Dem candidates besides Biden, Beto and Warren (I'll throw her in so we don't have to debate the pocohantas thing.) I'm not aware of any evidence, or even semi-reasonable accusations that any of these people were criminals when they were running for president. (Exceptions being marijuana use, Bernie getting arrested for protesting and Nixons campaign for second term) |
|
|
|
Any accusations of conflict of interest against Trump have already been gone over 1000 times by now.]
Are you saying you don't think there's any conflict of interest? I already answered your question, so can the NO U isms. If honestly haven't seen a direct response from you. Pretty sure I've read all your responses, and I just went back and checked again, but maybe I missed it. Could you just give a yes/no answer? I'll be more specific to make it simple. Do you think there would be a conflict of interest if Trump was receiving payments directly from his deal with the Trump Tower in Turkey. |
|
|
|
Got an email that included: You’ve read correctly. Slots is finally here on Stake.com!
Spin your way through Ancient Egypt and chase those Scatters.
Make your way to the highest multiplier through bonus spins galore. And my first thought was "oh damn. Stake went to the dark side and they are offering a bunch of opaque providers like softswiss and betsoft, or, even worse they have a bunch of hacked slots" I was wrong though. Seems like they developed their own game and it's provably fair. Lots of respect for that. |
|
|
|
It seems what we've actually got now is sort of an acknowledged continual-on-and-off impeachment that's not an impeachment.
Pelosi has stated there would be no vote on impeachment. This leaves the process somewhat ambiguous, and if it were pushed to the limit, she would lose this view before the SC.
That's the sort of thing that could go on almost forever, and get nowhere. The only outcome that's obvious is continual repetitious media coverage of "the impeachment."
The only vote she is required to have is the actual vote to impeach. There is no requirement to vote on whether or not they should vote to impeach. That's not really accurate. It represents one opinion, and as you know, there are other opinions. In a broad sense, nothing could ever get done in parliamentary bodies without guidelines on issues like this. When is the discussion starting? when does it end? Etc. That is why... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClotureI'm not saying there aren't guidelines. There are. Just saying that a vote on whether or not to vote isn't one of them. If the House votes to impeach the president, then the president been impeached and must be tried in the Senate. Nobody has the power to prohibit the House from taking the vote. Nobody has the power to declare the vote invalid since the House has the sole power of impeachment. It doesn't matter whether or not it's for a crime and it doesn't matter if they voted on whether they should vote or not first. There doesn't even need to be any House hearings or investigation. All that matters is that more reps voted yes than no on 1 or more articles of impeachment. And having the Dems trivialized the matter of impeachment, the Senate can DECLINE TO HEAR THE CASE. It'd be priceless to see the spectacle of the Dems breaking / changing their rules, but arguing the Senate should remain with the traditional rules. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-caseYeah, Mitch is definitely capable of doing that. That's basically what he did with Merrick Garland. I doubt he would though, unless he thought Trump could actually be convicted, which is very unlikely. Having the trial and not convicting him seems like the best result for the GOP. At least in the short term politically. I hadn't read about this ruling before: The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. I would think it probably affirms that since the House has "sole power" to "impeach" it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Although with impeachment there is no required proceeding like there is in a Senate trial. They just need to have one vote. So maybe it's not the same. Who knows. Actually I think the Senate should decline to hear the case, if it is frivolous and due process has been flagrantly violated, and if the Dems keep acting like spoiled brats. But that's just me, others may feel differently. Are you saying think it's ok for a president to ask other governments to open investigations on their political rivals to help them get re elected? Or are you saying you don't think Trump asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden and his son because he thought it would help him get more votes if Biden were nominated. Basically it was just a coincidence that Biden happened to be his most likely General Election opponent. Or is it something else I'm missing? |
|
|
|
The evidence is in the op and more in the following posts.
There is no evidence in that post. It's just Biden bragging about threatening to withhold funds as part of the goal to pressure them into doing a better job at dealing with corruption. Where the proof that it was a bribe?..... For the briber to hire a family member of the bribed, and pay him huge amounts of money for nothing, is a time honored method of bribing literally going back centuries ... likely millenia. Rather interesting that you'd evoke the question of "proof." The argument would be a lot more solid if there was no good reason, other than a corrupt one, to make firing Shokin a prerequisite for a $1b+ in loan. That's just not the case though. The whole thing is really about the EU/USA vs Russia. Ukraine was recovering from just ousting an extremely corrupt president who had Putins full support. Russia had just been kicked from the G9 (now G8) for invading Ukraine and annexing crimea. Shokin had a record of being very pro Russia and very corrupt. He blocked the prosecution of a bunch of guys who open fired on a Ukrainian Independence protest. He blocked the prosecution of a bunch other prosecutors who were caught taking bribes. Yet he raided and prosecuted anti Russian groups for anything he could find. Basically, he was an obstacle in Ukraines fight for independence from Russia. The US and the EU considered helping Ukraine maintain their independence a matter of international security. So did the IMF, EBRD and a bunch of other international organizations. All of these countries and organizations also considered Shokin a serious threat to Ukraines future.The Obama administration (not Biden) decided that loaning Ukraine the money while Shokin was still in power would make things worse, not better. Biden went over and convinced them to fire him. Then he bragged about it because he accomplished something that most of the world was hoping would happen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
