• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 2501 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Remember when I said that the rich benefit from the tax code. Here is another good example. But I guess the bad news is that Wayne can't take the full mortgage interest deduction. Pour one out for the poor rich kid...

The Rybovich superyacht marina lies on the West Palm Beach, Florida, waterfront, a short drive north from Mar-a-Lago. Superyachts, floating mansions that can stretch more than 300 feet and cost over $100 million, are serviced at the marina, and their owners enjoy Rybovich’s luxury resort amenities.
Rybovich owner Wayne Huizenga Jr., son of the Waste Management and Blockbuster video billionaire Wayne Huizenga Sr., has long planned to build luxury apartment towers on the site, part of a development dubbed Marina Village. Those planned towers, and the superyacht marina itself, are now in an area designated as an opportunity zone under President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax code overhaul, qualifying them for a tax break program that is supposed to help the poor.
The state of Florida, based on an analysis of unemployment and poverty rates, had not originally intended to pick the census tract containing the superyacht marina for the program. But those plans changed in response to Huizenga’s lobbying, according to documents from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity obtained by ProPublica.
https://www.propublica.org/article/superyacht-marina-west-palm-beach-opportunity-zone-trump-tax-break-to-help-the-poor-went-to-a-rich-gop-donor
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
Both Democratic and Republican Presidents have used their fame to make money, point taken. The problem with Trump is that:

a) unlike every other President since Nixon (and nominee since Ford and Carter), he won't reveal his tax returns, so there is no transparency on just how (and by how much) he might have benefited; this is despite numerous promises that the would do so, all of which were of course lies, with BS excuses like he was being audited (Nixon was being audited when he released his returns)
b) Trump owns properties that other world leaders want to stay in, which is a direct violation of the emoluments clause;
c) his daughter not only had her own businesses before Trump became President, but started new ones that very definitely made use of Trump's Presidency. Though I'm critical of ex-Presidents (and Secs. of State) making money off speeches and books after they have served, that isn't in the same league as starting or continuing business interests while the President is actually in office. Writing a book or giving a speech after leaving office is selling information; profiting off businesses while in office is selling access or taking advantage of free publicity. Yes, Hunter Biden took advantage of his position, and I regard that as shameful, but he didn't formulate a business plan, like Ivanka, that was basically designed to take full advantage of connections. Also, unlike Kushner, Biden wasn't in a position where his ignorance and total lack of qualifications for the position could actually hurt American interests.
You aren't entitled to see his taxes. It's up to him. If the IRS is good with them then you should be too.

Nonsense. There has been a disassociation from his Companies. It's really not much different than any other law maker who may have conflicts with their business or investment portfolio. However, I think you might push this as the next line of impeachment inquiry when the current one fails.

If what Ivanka is doing is illegal then it should be pursued.

I don't think there is any way you currently know the depth of Hunter Biden's involvement in Burisma beyond what is already in the public domain. I will make a prediction: we will soon know much more about his ties to Ukraine as well as China and Romania.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
What difference would it make if the hotels/golf courses etc, were in a blind trust?

Hunter Biden is an unqualified son of a career politician, conveniently having business arrangements with foreign companies with ties to foreign governments. The Trump family has been in business since before Trump was born.
I think those losing their minds over the emoluments clause would prefer to see Trump kids in tents on the streets only after their father donated his business's to the State.

There was a recent meeting in DC attempting to resurrect the idea of DC becoming the 51st State. The lines drawn for State borders were drawn with oddly in order to include the Trump hotel in the State land versus Federal land. Tax revenue to the fledgling DC State idea is more important than political purity. Laughable.

Thomas Massie

@RepThomasMassie


.
@EleanorNorton
knows quality when she see it! She wants to create a new state and leave only a little bit behind. But she wants @realDonaldTrump’s Hotel on her side of the map!
 
LOL indeed. I honestly don't know what is funnier. That Ghost thinks Soros is involved in this, or that Ghost and Steve King traffic in the same parts of the internet.

View: https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1195024097685725184
The Internet is stupid most of the time. This is like anything else, another example of how the internet can peddle wrong and misleading info.

The whistle blowers real identity is out there already. I'm not interested in seeing any pictures of the person but some people are.
It is a shame that they do not get to testify. Watching schiff change his mind on hearing from him was funny. This congressman can't help but tell lies. He fits into congress with no problems. Liars and thieves.
Why does the left and the media get all excited about trying to hide the identity of this person? It has the appearance of collusion and back room dealings.
 
Steve King deleted the tweet. For those that missed it, he showed the same 4 pics as Ghost, indicating that Alex Soros was the whistleblower. That would've been quite the trick as he has never worked in govt. I didn't recognize him by the pictures, so that was part of what made it funny to me. Trump Jr has already outed the whistleblower on twitter, so I don't think it is much of a secret. But in a world of comet ping pong shooters, it is probably better to be safe than sorry and not publicize it more than necessary. Creating an environment where whistleblowers are outed and attacked even when following the law is bad for govt accountability. (Yes, Democrats have not always been consistent in this regard when the shoe was on the other foot.)
 
More seems necessary. And Trump uses the phrase "do me a favor" like you might say "Look" or "you know" or "Big League."

But you twist whatever you like however you wish. You are reaching well further than most. But since you brought up "Treason" .. where does Coup d'Etat rate on your treasonmeter?

Treason
Elements Of The Offense

Three key elements are necessary for an offense to constitute treason: an obligation of allegiance to the legal order, and intent and action to violate that obligation. Treason is a breach of allegiance and of the faithful support a citizen owes to the sovereignty within which he lives. A citizen of the United States who is subject to the law of a foreign state may owe allegiance to that state at the same time he owes fealty to the United States. But this dual nationality does not relieve him of obligation to refrain from volunteering aid or comfort to the foreign nation if it is at war with the United States. Although the matter has not been presented to a court in this country, an individual present here and enjoying the nation's protection owes it his obedience while he is resident, and thus may be guilty of treason if he commits what would be the offense when done by a citizen.

Wrongful intent. Wrongful intent is a necessary element of the crime of treason, varying in character according to which of the two forms of the offense is in issue. To be guilty of levying war against the United States, the individual must intend to use organized force to overthrow the government. Under older, broad doctrines of treason in English law, intent by group force to prevent or overcome enforcement of a particular statute or other lawful order or to obtain any particular group benefit contrary to law was treason. A similar tendency was shown in two early American instances involving violent group resistance: the first, to a federal excise on whiskey (the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794), and the second, to a property excise (Fries's Rebellion of 1799); in both, federal courts found treason. However, the later interpretation is that no intent short of intent to overthrow the government suffices to constitute the offense. After the Homestead Riot of 1892 several labor leaders were indicted for levying war against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But the indictments were later quietly dropped, and use of the treason charge met with prompt and unanimous criticism from conservative jurists. Violent group actions short of challenge to the existence of the government are now treated as riot or unlawful assembly.
Adhering to an enemy requires intent to render the enemy tangible support ("aid and comfort"). Long-established doctrine has defined enemies as only those against whom a legally declared state of war exists. However, in the twentieth century the reality of such undeclared shooting hostilities as the Korean War raises questions about the older limitation. That the accused may have acted with mixed purposes, such as to make money by selling goods to the enemy, does not rebut existence of the requisite intent for treason, if one of his purposes was in fact to render performance useful to the enemy. In many crimes the law holds an individual responsible as intending the foreseeable consequences of his conduct, even though he pleads that he did not mean to bring about the particular outcome for which he is charged. In treason cases, however, the prosecution must prove that the accused had a specific intent to levy war or aid enemies. This requirement does not necessitate proof by explicit statement or direct admission of guilty purpose; the prosecution may prove the guilty intent by strong inference from the context of the accused's behavior.
Overt act. The commission of some overt act to effect a treasonable purpose is a distinct element of the crime that the government must prove in addition to proving wrongful intent. The most striking, restrictive feature of the Constitution's definition of treason was the omission of any analogue of that branch of old English law that punished one who would "compass or imagine the death of our lord the King" (Treason Act, 1351, 25 Edw. 3, stat. 5, c. 2 (England)). The Crown had used this charge to suppress not only action likely to lead to the king's death, but also the mere speaking or writing of views critical of exercise of royal authority. Pursuing that line, the government obtained convictions of individuals because the "natural" consequences of their speaking or writing might endanger the state.
The calculated omission of this feature in the definition of the crime emphasized the need to show specific intent to prove treason as defined in the United States. Moreover, the omission underlines the need to prove substantial action by the accused. The function of the overt act element, said the Supreme Court in Cramer, is to ensure "that mere mental attitudes or expressions should not be treason"; the prosecution must show that the accused moved from the realm of thought, plan, or opinions into the world of action. However, the Supreme Court's treatment of the act element has clouded this requirement. In Cramer the Court seemed to say that the act must itself be evidence of the treasonable intent, a position apparently contrary to the general insistence that the intent and act elements are distinct. In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), the Court clarified the matter somewhat: behavior proved by the required testimony of two witnesses need not indicate wrongful intent. But where the charge was aiding the enemy, if the proven overt act can be demonstrated to have given aid to the enemy only when appraised in light of evidence of other conduct of the accused, then that other conduct—as well as the particular overt act—must be proved by two witnesses. On the other hand, to prove the offense, it is not necessary to show that the accused succeeded in delivering aid to the enemy; it is enough that he took overt action to attempt delivery. More than mere planning must be shown. To establish treason by levying war, the government must prove an armed assembly; conspiracy alone does not prove the crime.
I didn't elaborate enough and kudos for your advanced cut/paste. Note to you: this is not the Constitution or any of the amendments....it's a law journal.

My reference to potential treason was the use of Mr. Guilliani. Trump's capacity as the Prez allows him to act on agreed policy. If he had acted; the funds for Ukraine would have been release much earlier as approved by Congress.
That his administration withheld without notice to Congress is a problem.
That he used his personal attorney to create some other government action renders him a private citizen. He crossed a line that has serious implications and diminishes his executive privilege imo. Guilliani may be the one that is implicated in treason as the actual actor.

Steven Sondland is in the hot seat and will begin singing a more complete tune so much of this may sort itself out. He's probably wondering why he gave $1mil to T-rump inauguration party to be in the position he's in. He'll be added to the group of people taking the fall:
Sondland,
Mulvaney
Rick Perry
others....
 
To those still yukking it up over the evolution of charges as witness deliver more information; extortion and bribery are not that far apart. Tomato, potato.
Chris quoted it well:

  • Communication;
  • Threatening accusation of any crime or offense or any injury to the person or property or mother, father, husband, wife, or child of another,
  • With intent to extort money or pecuniary advantage as to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing an act against his/her will.
It is to be noted that a threat is not considered to be necessary for the commission of extortion in common law. However, in many jurisdictions, the crime of extortion has been expanded to include the obtaining of money, property, or anything of value by any person, by means of a threat.
 
Reactions: gobuck
I didn't elaborate enough and kudos for your advanced cut/paste. Note to you: this is not the Constitution or any of the amendments....it's a law journal.

My reference to potential treason was the use of Mr. Guilliani. Trump's capacity as the Prez allows him to act on agreed policy. If he had acted; the funds for Ukraine would have been release much earlier as approved by Congress.
That his administration withheld without notice to Congress is a problem.
That he used his personal attorney to create some other government action renders him a private citizen. He crossed a line that has serious implications and diminishes his executive privilege imo. Guilliani may be the one that is implicated in treason as the actual actor.

Steven Sondland is in the hot seat and will begin singing a more complete tune so much of this may sort itself out. He's probably wondering why he gave $1mil to T-rump inauguration party to be in the position he's in. He'll be added to the group of people taking the fall:
Sondland,
Mulvaney
Rick Perry
others....
You brought this up before but its like you have no grasp on your own US history. Try looking up Harry Hopkins and the power he wielded for the president.

"He was a firm supporter of China, which received Lend-Lease aid for its military and air force. Hopkins wielded more diplomatic power than the entire State Department. Hopkins helped identify and sponsor numerous potential leaders, including Dwight D. Eisenhower.[17] He continued to live in the White House and saw the President more often than any other advisor."

"In mid-1943, Hopkins faced a barrage of criticism from Republicans and the press that he had abused his position for personal profit. One congressman asserted that British media tycoon Lord Beaverbrook had given Hopkins' wife Louise $500,000 worth of emeralds, which Louise denied. Newspapers ran stories detailing sumptuous dinners that Hopkins attended while making public calls for sacrifice. Hopkins briefly considered suing the Chicago Tribune for libel after a story that compared him to Grigory Rasputin, the famous courtier of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, but was dissuaded by FDR."

Shoe was on the other foot back then. Seems the republicans did not like it but that made no difference.
 
To those still yukking it up over the evolution of charges as witness deliver more information; extortion and bribery are not that far apart. Tomato, potato.
Chris quoted it well:

  • Communication;
  • Threatening accusation of any crime or offense or any injury to the person or property or mother, father, husband, wife, or child of another,
  • With intent to extort money or pecuniary advantage as to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing an act against his/her will.
It is to be noted that a threat is not considered to be necessary for the commission of extortion in common law. However, in many jurisdictions, the crime of extortion has been expanded to include the obtaining of money, property, or anything of value by any person, by means of a threat.
You holding out hope with your derangement syndrome that the Senate is going to give you what you want.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
The Internet is stupid most of the time. This is like anything else, another example of how the internet can peddle wrong and misleading info.

The whistle blowers real identity is out there already. I'm not interested in seeing any pictures of the person but some people are.
It is a shame that they do not get to testify. Watching schiff change his mind on hearing from him was funny. This congressman can't help but tell lies. He fits into congress with no problems. Liars and thieves.
Why does the left and the media get all excited about trying to hide the identity of this person? It has the appearance of collusion and back room dealings.
Because if he testifies he will either perjure himself or implicate Schiff.

At this point I think McConnell has indicated there will be a Senate trial. If there is it will not be run like the Kangaroo Court in the House. Don't be surprised to see Schiff called as a fact witness.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
I didn't elaborate enough and kudos for your advanced cut/paste. Note to you: this is not the Constitution or any of the amendments....it's a law journal.

My reference to potential treason was the use of Mr. Guilliani.
Trump's capacity as the Prez allows him to act on agreed policy. If he had acted; the funds for Ukraine would have been release much earlier as approved by Congress.
That his administration withheld without notice to Congress is a problem.
That he used his personal attorney to create some other government action renders him a private citizen. He crossed a line that has serious implications and diminishes his executive privilege imo. Guilliani may be the one that is implicated in treason as the actual actor.

Steven Sondland is in the hot seat and will begin singing a more complete tune so much of this may sort itself out. He's probably wondering why he gave $1mil to T-rump inauguration party to be in the position he's in. He'll be added to the group of people taking the fall:
Sondland,
Mulvaney
Rick Perry

others....
Understood. There are critical elements of Treason just as there are with Extortion and Bribery. Without those elements those terms being discussed is just C02 emitting.

With respect to Guilliani, an article from 1960 speaking of Special Envoy's, their need and the President's powers under Article II:

AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all. He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion. Some have been exceedingly formal; others completely informal. Many agents have borne commissions like those of Government officers, ensuring them diplomatic rights, dignities and immunities.
Because of these circumstances many have mistakenly considered themselves officers. Others have had mere letters of introduction and have enjoyed no diplomatic privileges. Some have gone with no written credentials whatsoever, their errand described only verbally. Their functions have varied in importance from the trivial to the vital.

Their missions may be secret, no one whatever being informed of them. They may be open and accompanied by a blare of publicity. Neither their private character nor public attention affects the position of the representative. The President may meet their expenses and pay them such sums as he regards as reasonable. In this matter there is no check upon him except the availability of funds which has never proved an insoluble problem. In short, he is as nearly completely untrammelled as in any phase of his executive authority.


The article was written in 1960 and every President in our lifetimes has used them. With some - Barrack Obama - making extensive use of them.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1960-01-01/special-envoy


Again, you may want to look again at Article II: he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. HR 4278 (Ukraine Support Act) Passed overwhelmingly in the House, 399-19. Schiff even voted for it. Of six activities described by the Bill this was Number One:

In General.—The President is authorized and encouraged to provide assistance to support democracy and civil society, including community-based and faith-based organizations, in Ukraine by undertaking the activities described in subsection (b).

(b) Activities Described.—The activities described in this subsection are—

(1) improving democratic governance, transparency, accountability, rule of law, and anti-corruption efforts;


POTUS has in fact the obligation of stewardship with taxpayer dollars and the obligation to follow both the letter and the spirit of current legislation with respect to Ukraine aid. If this or any other POTUS has reason to believe tax dollars sent to Ukraine will further the corruption there he has the ability to ask Congress to rescind the funds (hold 45 days). Zelensky had just been elected in late April. He is a brand new entity and it is not out of bounds to get some assurances from him with respect of HR4278.

Guilliani will have had to commit treason. I don't see it. Maybe you know something about his role that I don't know.

I do not believe any of those people will take a fall for anything. I will not be surprised if the House ultimately decides not to vote on impeachment at all. I believe Schiff is compromised and I also believe the Senate will subpoena everybody involved and I don't think Pelosi can afford to have Schiff be cross examined under oath.
 
Understood. There are critical elements of Treason just as there are with Extortion and Bribery. Without those elements those terms being discussed is just C02 emitting.

With respect to Guilliani, an article from 1960 speaking of Special Envoy's, their need and the President's powers under Article II:

AMONG all the instruments available to the President in his conduct of foreign relations, none is more flexible than the use of personal representatives. He is free to employ officials of the government or private citizens. He may give them such rank and title as seem appropriate to the tasks; these designations may be ambassador, commissioner, agent, delegate; or he may assign no title at all. He may send his agents to any place on earth that he thinks desirable and give them instructions either by word of mouth, or in writing, or through the Department of State, or in any other manner that seems to him fitted to the occasion. Some have been exceedingly formal; others completely informal. Many agents have borne commissions like those of Government officers, ensuring them diplomatic rights, dignities and immunities.
Because of these circumstances many have mistakenly considered themselves officers. Others have had mere letters of introduction and have enjoyed no diplomatic privileges. Some have gone with no written credentials whatsoever, their errand described only verbally. Their functions have varied in importance from the trivial to the vital.

Their missions may be secret, no one whatever being informed of them. They may be open and accompanied by a blare of publicity. Neither their private character nor public attention affects the position of the representative. The President may meet their expenses and pay them such sums as he regards as reasonable. In this matter there is no check upon him except the availability of funds which has never proved an insoluble problem. In short, he is as nearly completely untrammelled as in any phase of his executive authority.


The article was written in 1960 and every President in our lifetimes has used them. With some - Barrack Obama - making extensive use of them.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1960-01-01/special-envoy


Again, you may want to look again at Article II: he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. HR 4278 (Ukraine Support Act) Passed overwhelmingly in the House, 399-19. Schiff even voted for it. Of six activities described by the Bill this was Number One:

In General.—The President is authorized and encouraged to provide assistance to support democracy and civil society, including community-based and faith-based organizations, in Ukraine by undertaking the activities described in subsection (b).

(b) Activities Described.—The activities described in this subsection are—

(1) improving democratic governance, transparency, accountability, rule of law, and anti-corruption efforts;


POTUS has in fact the obligation of stewardship with taxpayer dollars and the obligation to follow both the letter and the spirit of current legislation with respect to Ukraine aid. If this or any other POTUS has reason to believe tax dollars sent to Ukraine will further the corruption there he has the ability to ask Congress to rescind the funds (hold 45 days). Zelensky had just been elected in late April. He is a brand new entity and it is not out of bounds to get some assurances from him with respect of HR4278.

Guilliani will have had to commit treason. I don't see it. Maybe you know something about his role that I don't know.

I do not believe any of those people will take a fall for anything. I will not be surprised if the House ultimately decides not to vote on impeachment at all. I believe Schiff is compromised and I also believe the Senate will subpoena everybody involved and I don't think Pelosi can afford to have Schiff be cross examined under oath.
The distinction in the example is an envoy that is acknowledged as a representative of the State, as well as the President whether the public knows that or not. The example NNit mentioned was a Secretary of Commerce. All of the relevant executive branch would be aware of it and, to whatever extent they're involved in policy they would be vetted by appropriate levels of security.

Rudy is a private citizen, working for a private citizen. The US gov-mint doesn't have him as an employee nor would and levels of security or protection granted to him as an ambassador, etc. That a foreign government would grant access or diplomatic contact on the encouragement of the president would/should come as some sort of additional vetting and disclosure.
He's not a representative of the US government. He is a privateer working at Trump's direction and, if he commits crimes in that relationship; he may implicate his client.
 
What Death rate are you speaking about? You got any numbers on this? Unclear.

Tradition with respect to taxes is not a rule or a requirement.
I posted some data upthread. More than 12 million deaths globally have linked to air pollution, alone. In the U.S.:

Air pollution kills. In the United States, 1 of every 25 deaths occurs prematurely because of exposure to outdoor air pollution.

It kills more Americans than all transportation accidents and gun shootings combined. More than diabetes or than breast cancer plus prostate cancer. More than Parkinson’s disease plus leukemia plus HIV/AIDS. And unlike diabetes or Parkinson’s, deaths from air pollution are entirely preventable.

Again, this is just air pollution. Trump has also slashed regulations that protect Americans in many other ways. There is no question that hundreds of thousands of deaths have resulted or will result, if you include people who die years sooner than when they would otherwise be expected to.

Ancient societies used to sacrifice people to the gods, on the belief that the latter would bless the society and make it prosper. Most of us today regard this as nonsense, but Republicans have a modern version of this, which is actually supported by scientific evidence: weaken environmental regulations and the economy will add more jobs, at the expense of thousands of deaths.

Of course, Republicans would never admit this, because if they did, they would lose a lot of votes. They would have to admit that they care more about getting wealthier than anyone actually needs to have a decent life than all the dead bodies that have to be crawled over to attain this. You also have to understand science and statistics to get the full picture, and obviously Trump and many of his supporters have no understanding of this at all. Instead, they pretend that regulations are wasteful, that they serve no purpose but to give bureaucrats jobs. In fact, most if not all regulations are supported by scientific evidence. There's a reason they were written in the first place--because people suffer poorer health and premature deaths without them. Scientific journals (like Lancet, linked in the above link) are full of such evidence.

So if you want to argue that these deaths are a worthwhile price to pay for more employment, go ahead, but you can't deny the relationship. Weakening regulations has a very real effect on human lives. Imagine if there were transparency about this, if every Republican running on weakening regulations had to acknowledge that many people have to die because of this.

Your claim and Gadsden's about Trump's taxes is just baloney. Yes, revealing them is voluntary, but if he has nothing to hide, why wouldn't he? Because it might hurt his advantages over competitors? I thought everything was in a blind trust, In any case, Republicans sure didn't care about that when they put the heat on Ferraro, who wasn't even a Presidential candidate, never was elected to VP., and the taxes in question weren't even hers, they were her spouse's. Until Trump, every Republican supported transparency on taxes, including the jellyfish in Congress who are scared shitless to oppose Trump on anything.
 
I didn't elaborate enough and kudos for your advanced cut/paste. Note to you: this is not the Constitution or any of the amendments....it's a law journal.

My reference to potential treason was the use of Mr. Guilliani. Trump's capacity as the Prez allows him to act on agreed policy. If he had acted; the funds for Ukraine would have been release much earlier as approved by Congress.
That his administration withheld without notice to Congress is a problem.
That he used his personal attorney to create some other government action renders him a private citizen. He crossed a line that has serious implications and diminishes his executive privilege imo. Guilliani may be the one that is implicated in treason as the actual actor.

Steven Sondland is in the hot seat and will begin singing a more complete tune so much of this may sort itself out. He's probably wondering why he gave $1mil to T-rump inauguration party to be in the position he's in. He'll be added to the group of people taking the fall:
Sondland,
Mulvaney
Rick Perry
others....
U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-ukraine/us-envoy-sondland-did-not-link-biden-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK

Is Snopes gonna debunk this too? :)


Where does this leave you to go now?
 
Under gunpoint, hostage declares to the world that he is indeed free to come and go as he pleases. Ghost, no comment about the whistleblower snafu you made?
So we are now wishing to deny market value increases (to Trump only I'm sure)? I wonder how much Obama's personal residences rose in value under his two terms. Unfair benefit?
Feel free to state where I wish this. I was merely making an observation about the man's wealth, updating the net worth figures that were posted up-thread. In Obama's first three years in office, I doubt his residences went up in value. Likely the reverse given the circumstances.
 
Because if he testifies he will either perjure himself or implicate Schiff.

At this point I think McConnell has indicated there will be a Senate trial. If there is it will not be run like the Kangaroo Court in the House. Don't be surprised to see Schiff called as a fact witness.
Time for the tin hats..GOP is conspiracy theory 101...Theory being the operative word. 'Ukraine was helping the Dems!! BS.....Senate trial run by Moscow Mitch..sure, that won't be partisan..

Kangaroo court'..time for a little Civics 101..this is how the constitution works, ya know, that old piece of paper..look again at the part, 'high crimes and misdemeanors, BRIBERY'..

donnie is dumb and corrupt with a whole ton of little GOP lap dogs and hinge necks..along with dum-ass' like Mulvaney, Barr and Pompass-ass Pompeo..
'and that's why the money was withheld'...mulvaney will sing as don the dope throws him under the bus...
 
So we are now wishing to deny market value increases (to Trump only I'm sure)? I wonder how much Obama's personal residences rose in value under his two terms. Unfair benefit?
I guess that noise is the sound of the point whizzing over your head(again)..trump's decisions, while he is pres, benefit him $$..pretty simple actually. Do you like paying him, via your taxes to have him 'vacation'(224 golf outings and counting $110 MILLION $ so far) at his properties? 'Personal resisdences'..

yup, President Obama's 'personal residences'..how many were 'business' owned by President Obama??
 
Reactions: nevele neves
Under gunpoint, hostage declares to the world that he is indeed free to come and go as he pleases. Ghost, no comment about the whistleblower snafu you made?

Feel free to state where I wish this. I was merely making an observation about the man's wealth, updating the net worth figures that were posted up-thread. In Obama's first three years in office, I doubt his residences went up in value. Likely the reverse given the circumstances.
the left cant meme which is why they don't understand memes
 
I guess that noise is the sound of the point whizzing over your head(again)..trump's decisions, while he is pres, benefit him $$..pretty simple actually. Do you like paying him, via your taxes to have him 'vacation'(224 golf outings and counting $110 MILLION $ so far) at his properties? 'Personal resisdences'..

yup, President Obama's 'personal residences'..how many were 'business' owned by President Obama??
How's your impeachment circus going?

Any more fourth hand 'witnesses' who'll testify about something they read in the New York Times?
 
The distinction in the example is an envoy that is acknowledged as a representative of the State, as well as the President whether the public knows that or not. The example NNit mentioned was a Secretary of Commerce. All of the relevant executive branch would be aware of it and, to whatever extent they're involved in policy they would be vetted by appropriate levels of security.

Rudy is a private citizen, working for a private citizen. The US gov-mint doesn't have him as an employee nor would and levels of security or protection granted to him as an ambassador, etc. That a foreign government would grant access or diplomatic contact on the encouragement of the president would/should come as some sort of additional vetting and disclosure.
He's not a representative of the US government. He is a privateer working at Trump's direction and, if he commits crimes in that relationship; he may implicate his client.
News flash he was not the secretary of commerce during that time.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
25
230
I guess that noise is the sound of the point whizzing over your head(again)..trump's decisions, while he is pres, benefit him $$..pretty simple actually. Do you like paying him, via your taxes to have him 'vacation'(224 golf outings and counting $110 MILLION $ so far) at his properties? 'Personal resisdences'..

yup, President Obama's 'personal residences'..how many were 'business' owned by President Obama??
Pretty simple. Net worth plunge. Properties under-performing (See Doral). POTUS lining his pockets (See Trump net worth).


IMPEACH!!! Will this be tied in to emoluments clause violations impeachment round(4) after the Ukraine Show fails?

None. I will vigorously support the idea he would have been a far better President had he even cursory understanding of running a business much less one with global reach.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS