McCarthy Orders Impeachment Inquiry

[Rebound]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Who cares? He's already toast with the voting public.

Bye Bye Joe.

Fighting Joe Biden kicked Trump’s ass once and he’ll do it again. Unless Trump is in prison. Then, he’ll kick somebody else’s ass.  
 

You know why? It’s cause your side has nothing to offer but conspiracy theories and culture war.  You don’t have solutions only attacks. You can’t handle facts (as you say, “Who cares?”)

[Nationalist]

46 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Fighting Joe Biden kicked Trump’s ass once and he’ll do it again. Unless Trump is in prison. Then, he’ll kick somebody else’s ass.  
 

You know why? It’s cause your side has nothing to offer but conspiracy theories and culture war.  You don’t have solutions only attacks. You can’t handle facts (as you say, “Who cares?”)

Yes and I'd advise you to hold that thought tightly.

In the meantime...Hunter's been indicted, Joe's under an impeachment investigation and 61% of the voting public now think Joe's a crook.

Good luck. See ya at the finish line.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Helped how? Joe was skeptical from the start: "I hope you know what you're doing," Joe told his son.

 

Many ways.  And there are many ways he COULD help.

So the public has the impression that joe's a corrupt crook. And probably rightly so,

Quote

So STOP LYING about it. Duh

Only a leftie liberal twit would call a simple truth  a lie  

And you're so upset you're drooling again   ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

[CdnFox]

17 hours ago, Hodad said:

"Literally," anyone with the internet can see that you are lying. The summary of findings and her deposition are publicly available. 

Clinton wasn't charged because everyone in government was using unclassified email servers for government business. Including the Trump clan that made such a disingenuous fuss about Hillary. 

Sorry but that's not true.

And the entire fbi team expected her to be charged and believe she should be charged.... till a call came in after clinton ran across the tarmac to have a chat with the justice "about their grandkids".  The team lead even fought against not charging her till basically told to shut up.

She was guilty,  The argument that the crime needs  mens rea is laughable.  And even if that's the case - charge her and let a judge sort it out,  But - that didn't happen,

And if she's guilty of the other crimes that she appears to be guilty of then that's the least of her crimes.

Now - you can say that we can't say she was guilty without a trial. But then you have to say that about trump as well - and you don't

So - it's pretty clear you're the kind of person who sticks their head in the sand and only hears what they want

[Rebound]

29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes and I'd advise you to hold that thought tightly.

In the meantime...Hunter's been indicted, Joe's under an impeachment investigation and 61% of the voting public now think Joe's a crook.

Good luck. See ya at the finish line.

Isn’t that hilarious? Hunter’s been indicted for breaking a law that you guys want to abolish. 

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Isn’t that hilarious? Hunter’s been indicted for breaking a law that you guys want to abolish. 

The Republicans want to abolish a law that says a coke addict can lie on his ownership application and own a gun?

I doubt that very much...

[robosmith]

House GOP Weaponizes Impeachment

 

Quote

 

The start of an inquiry also reflects how quickly impeachment has been downgraded from an ultra-rare proceeding to a political weapon in Congress: House Republicans have yet to turn up a smoking gun that would substantiate high crimes and misdemeanors or link the president to money Hunter Biden received in Ukraine and China. The GOP argues that the inquiry will give the panels more opportunity to dig deeper into the matter.

Some Democrats reacted by rubbing their hands at the prospect of McCarthy forcing his swing-seat incumbents into a vulnerable position if Republicans overplay their hand. But this is nonetheless a major move against Biden that could make him more vulnerable politically and put Hunter’s struggles front and center.

It’s a tale as old as time, or at least January 2023, all in all: The hard right prevails, McCarthy goes back on his word to hold on to power, moderates roll over, and the whole thing is likely headed nowhere in the Senate. 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by robosmith

[robosmith]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry but that's not true.

And the entire fbi team expected her to be charged and believe she should be charged.... till a call came in after clinton ran across the tarmac to have a chat with the justice "about their grandkids".  The team lead even fought against not charging her till basically told to shut up.

She was guilty,  The argument that the crime needs  mens rea is laughable.  And even if that's the case - charge her and let a judge sort it out,  But - that didn't happen,

And if she's guilty of the other crimes that she appears to be guilty of then that's the least of her crimes.

Now - you can say that we can't say she was guilty without a trial. But then you have to say that about trump as well - and you don't

So - it's pretty clear you're the kind of person who sticks their head in the sand and only hears what they want

What's clear is you don't know what happened. AG Lynch RECUSED herself from the decision wrt Hillary because of the incident you described and authorized FBI DIRECTOR Comey to make the decision.

Comey DETAILED WHY Hillary wasn't charged and NO ONE, esp NOT YOU, has the authority to overrule his decision.

The BEST you might do is prove Comey wrong by CITING ANYONE who was indicted for inadvertently mis-storing UNMARKED classified documents SENT TO THEM by EMAIL.

But you CANNOT because Comey was right when he said NO ONE has been charged with that crime.

We know you believe you know US law better than the FBI Director, BUT YOU DO NOT.

[robosmith]

11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The Republicans want to abolish a law that says a coke addict can lie on his ownership application and own a gun?

I doubt that very much...

I wonder who brought this case: Bet it was NOT a Democrat. LMAO

Drug user cannot be barred from owning guns, US court rules

Quote

Aug 9 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that a decades-old law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from owning firearms was unconstitutional as applied to the case of a marijuana user, the latest fallout from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

House GOP Weaponizes Impeachment

 

Yeah - the democrats REALLY lowered the bar with trump.  It was discussed at the time - their casual use of impeachment would lead to a lot more impeachments

Once again a case of Democrats reaping what they sow  

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

The Republicans want to abolish a law that says a coke addict can lie on his ownership application and own a gun?

I doubt that very much...

Of course! The GOP is against gun registration. 

[Rebound]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - the democrats REALLY lowered the bar with trump.  It was discussed at the time - their casual use of impeachment would lead to a lot more impeachments

Once again a case of Democrats reaping what they sow  

I’m sorry, if telling blatant lies and inviting a massive crowd to Washington and inciting them to violently riot to force Congress to overturn the results of a Presidential election is NOT impeachable, what is? 
 

Seems way more impeachable than getting head in the Oval Office.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

What's clear is you .....

You're foaming at the mouth again.

Sorry - i had it right. Recusing herself doesn't mean squat after the fact.

Comey's reasoning has been shot down by countless legal people.  And nobody else in the FBI agreed with him.

And all agree that a) there were markings on some of the classified docs and b) she should have been aware that tonnes of the others were classified.

If donald trump had erased the classified markings from the folders he took and used that as an excuse, there is no way you would accept that  

Sorry kiddo - you struck out again.  Please don't have a freak out.

[robosmith]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - the democrats REALLY lowered the bar with trump.  It was discussed at the time - their casual use of impeachment would lead to a lot more impeachments

Once again a case of Democrats reaping what they sow  

Repubs can't even cite a law which was violated. Both Trump's impeachments were for clear legal violations. Duh

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I’m sorry, if telling blatant lies and inviting a massive crowd to Washington and inciting them to violently riot to force Congress to overturn the results of a Presidential election is NOT impeachable, what is? 
 

 

Sorry but trump was impeached long before that.  Again - the dems broke all the rules, and are now mad that the very things they weaponized are being turned against them.

 

oh - forgot to answer your question. The answer is "Something he did while president, not something the dems want to try to make a public specticle of but know that there's no way a court would buy it".

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by CdnFox

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You're foaming at the mouth again.

You're LYING AGAIN.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry - i had it right. Recusing herself doesn't mean squat after the fact.

Again you display your IGNORANCE of US LAW.

Why would she RECUSE BEFORE an act that was an APPEARNCE of a CONFLICT? LMAO

Recusal came BEFORE THE CHARGING DECISION made by Comey. Duh

You're not making ANY SENSE.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Comey's reasoning has been shot down by countless legal people.  And nobody else in the FBI agreed with him.

Prove it. Not that it matters. You can't cite ANY example which proves Comey's stated reason false. LMAO

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And all agree that a) there were markings on some of the classified docs and b) she should have been aware that tonnes of the others were classified.

"Should have been aware" is NOT a legal standard. Duh

The ONLY marking was 'C' for confidential that was EXPIRED.

Confidential schedules are ROUTINELY EXPIRED AFTER they are executed.

Again, you're completely IGNORANT of classification practices.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If donald trump had erased the classified markings from the folders he took and used that as an excuse, there is no way you would accept that 

Emails received by Hillary were NOT MODIFIED. Copies were sent to, and sent from State.gov servers which proved that.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry kiddo - you struck out again.  Please don't have a freak out.

Please do have a freak out over YOUR IGNORANCE.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

I wonder who brought this case: Bet it was NOT a Democrat. LMAO

Drug user cannot be barred from owning guns, US court rules

 

A pot user. Subtle diff. Do you see it? Or does it need to be put in your pipe and smoke it...

[Nationalist]

35 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Of course! The GOP is against gun registration. 

I'm not even sure if that's true or not. Meh...you go look it up.

I'll go for an after work beer.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You're LYING AGAIN.

Again you display your IGNORANCE of US LAW.

Why would she RECUSE BEFORE an act that was an APPEARNCE of a CONFLICT? LMAO

Recusal came BEFORE THE CHARGING DECISION made by Comey. Duh

You're not making ANY SENSE.

Prove it. Not that it matters. You can't cite ANY example which proves Comey's stated reason false. LMAO

"Should have been aware" is NOT a legal standard. Duh

The ONLY marking was 'C' for confidential that was EXPIRED.

Confidential schedules are ROUTINELY EXPIRED AFTER they are executed.

Again, you're completely IGNORANT of classification practices.

Emails received by Hillary were NOT MODIFIED. Copies were sent to, and sent from State.gov servers which proved that.

Please do have a freak out over YOUR IGNORANCE.

Rant rant rant - 

The emails had markings on them. And there's no way to tell if they were modified before sending.  Seeing as many of them were sent by her or her assitant to herself there's no way to know.

ANd recusing yourself AFTER you've told your staff to kill the prosecution and then phoned Comey doesn't help

And Comey admits he was for charging her till he got a call

 

So basically all you've done is lie and throw out your USELESS opinion.

She broke the law and should have been charged. Then a judge could evaluate the data.  The fbi wanted her charged. BUT - clinton had a chat with the justice and suddenly the FBI is getting calls...  and no charges with a completely bullshit excuse.

Sorry kiddo - you can lie, you can spin, you can freak out and stomp your feet - but the truth is still the truth.  Hillary was worse than trump.

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

A pot user. Subtle diff. Do you see it? Or does it need to be put in your pipe and smoke it...

Very subtle difference: One is a Class A narcotic under Federal law, and the other is a Class A narcotic under Federal law.  

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Rant rant rant - 

The emails had markings on them. And there's no way to tell if they were modified before sending.  Seeing as many of them were sent by her or her assitant to herself there's no way to know.

Bullshit. Why would she send classified emails to HERSELF? 

Those emails were cc: to State.gov (if they didn't come from State.gov) as REQUIRED BY LAW.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

ANd recusing yourself AFTER you've told your staff to kill the prosecution and then phoned Comey doesn't help

YOU have NO EVIDENCE that's what happened. Pure SPECULATION on your part.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And Comey admits he was for charging her till he got a call

Bull shit.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So basically all you've done is lie and throw out your USELESS opinion.

Your USELESS opinion is all you EVER HAVE like ^this.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

She broke the law and should have been charged.

"No one was every charged for what Hillary did." - Comey

And YOU STILL have not cited ANYTHING which disproves that. LMAO

Because YOU CANNOT. Too IGNORANT.

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

Then a judge could evaluate the data.  The fbi wanted her charged. BUT - clinton had a chat with the justice and suddenly the FBI is getting calls...  and no charges with a completely bullshit excuse.

Yes, she answered ALL THEIR QUESTIONS to their satisfaction, and convinced them of her lack of INTENT. Duh

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry kiddo - you can lie, you can spin, you can freak out and stomp your feet - but the truth is still the truth.  Hillary was worse than trump.

Sorry, but YOU'RE just PROVING your IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE, AGAIN. ?

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Bullshit. Why would she send classified emails to HERSELF? 

Those emails were cc: to State.gov (if they didn't come from State.gov) as REQUIRED BY LAW.

YOU have NO EVIDENCE that's what happened. Pure SPECULATION on your part.

Bull shit.

Your USELESS opinion is all you EVER HAVE like ^this.

"No one was every charged for what Hillary did." - Comey

And YOU STILL have not cited ANYTHING which disproves that. LMAO

Because YOU CANNOT. Too IGNORANT.

Yes, she answered ALL THEIR QUESTIONS to their satisfaction, and convinced them of her lack of INTENT. Duh

Sorry, but YOU'RE just PROVING your IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE, AGAIN. ?

It's sad to watch  you melt down like that.  All the facts have been provided to you many times.

But you simply aren't bright enough to understand

Your 'opinions' don't matter.  The facts matter.  And  the facts say i'm right and you're wrong.

Hillary did commit serious crimes, she should have been charged, she wasn't because of political interference even though the FBI thought she should be.

Simple as that.  Hillary was worse than trump.

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, Rebound said:

Very subtle difference: One is a Class A narcotic under Federal law, and the other is a Class A narcotic under Federal law.  

41 states allow medical use of pot. Of those, 23 have it decriminalized or completely legal.

Cocaine is allowed for medical use but decriminalized in only 1 state.

If you think they are comparable, go stand on a street corner in Florida and start snorting. Let me know how that turns out.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

41 states allow medical use of pot. Of those, 23 have it decriminalized or completely legal.

Cocaine is allowed for medical use but decriminalized in only 1 state.

If you think they are comparable, go stand on a street corner in Florida and start snorting. Let me know how that turns out.

And how does that matter? This is Federal law. 
 

And how does this gun charge have anything to do with any reason for impeaching the President?

Edited September 15, 2023 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

And how does that matter? This is Federal law. 
 

And how does this gun charge have anything to do with any reason for impeaching the President?

It matters because pot is being legalized all over the USA.

LOL...you still don't get it. I could care less if Joe is impeached. I want to see his last surviving son in jail and his political career destroyed.