DOJ Requests Protective Order After Trump Threat Online

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump tried and failed to go around the legitimate decision of the voters.

He now will go to federal custody.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Just reply to what you want because it is indeed getting way to long.

I think trying to go around to will of the voters and try to get the vice-president to stop or at least delay the certification is serious. This was the stated goal, and by itself is impeachable. Again, the whole point of Democracy is that the people choose the president. You would have absolutely no problem recognizing that if Biden would claim in 2024 without providing evidence that the election was stolen and therefor Harris would have the right to unilaterally decide to invalidate the votes.

That is not "shotgun justice" simply... justice.

Yes, it was dormant, as in not active. You also skipped a few things in your link.

Around that time, Burisma’s founder, a former government official named Mykola Zlochevsky, was under investigation for alleged money laundering by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office.
One of the reasons Britain was pissed at Shokin was this.

Reforming Ukraine After the Revolutions

Two muckraking journalists had contempt for Ukraine’s corrupt political system. So they became politicians.

www.newyorker.com

But when parliament lifted the immunity of Serhiy Klyuyev, a lawmaker and former close associate of Yanukovych who was charged with corruption, the General Prosecutor’s office stalled on issuing an arrest warrant, giving Klyuyev time to slip out of the country. Shokin also hindered the investigation of two men known as the “diamond prosecutors,” high-ranking state prosecutors who were arrested on suspicion of corruption; raids on their homes turned up a Kalashnikov, four hundred thousand dollars, and sixty-five diamonds. Even more discouraging, not a single person suspected of killing protesters on Maidan was brought to trial.
also from your link.

Bloomberg quotes Ukraine’s current top prosecutor as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father.

Who says? Just because only one instance is widely reported that doesn't mean it was the only instance.

NO HE DID NOT, the proper channels for approving loans to friendly countries are whatever means the administration chooses to communicate its desires.
In the case of Trump though this isn't the case. He was, according to you, trying to combat corruption by a US citizen in Ukraine by getting that country to start a criminal investigation into a US citizen. This requires the showing of due process if you want to US courts the honor an extradition. In this case you have a direct request from a US president to another Head of State. Coordinated exclusively through someone who has NO government function. Bypassing all legal process. There is not a judge in the US who would honor such a request and it's likely that making it would have led to criminal or professional charges to at least Guiliani.

Let's apply Occam's razor.

You believe that a CEO of a company hired the son of the US vice-president and convinced him to get a prosecutor fired, who had stopped investigating that CEO. This son then convinced his dad to risk a huge scandal in order to help this CEO. This father then convinced the President of the United States to risk a huge scandal in order to help the CEO in Ukraine. The President of the United States then convinced the EU and some of the most important NGOs in the world to concoct a justification. for this ask. EU hails sacking of Ukraineâs prosecutor Viktor Shokin

I believe Shokin was corrupt. Was holding up investigations and was fired because people both in Ukraine and international law enforcement had a problem with that.



Proof in a legal sense is simply what someone brings forward to support what is claimed. This to establish the legal requirement for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean you have to prove something to a point that any claim no matter how incredulous has to be accepted. I brought up the gangster and the store, but it works in any case where criminal intent plays a role.

Again, lets employ Occam's razor.

You believe Trump didn't specifically wanted Ukraine to investigate the son of his main political rival but was rather simply Trying to get Ukraine to investigate corruption. This despite that he fired the ambassedor to Ukraine for that purpose, this despite the fact that the DOJ didn't have probable cause, this despite the fact that he went through his own personal lawyer to do so. This despite that the way this investigation started would defeat any attempt to extradite if a crime would have been established. This despite the fact that the ONLY concerns of corruption that Trump mentioned was Hunter Biden and Crowdstrike an American Company that helped the DNC.

I believe he tried to blackmail Zelinski for his own personal political gain.
.

https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/Roske-Affidavit.pdf

Page 2 point 7

Yes page 2 point 7

Link please

I blame him for lying about the election until the point that these people felt that attacking the Capitol was reasonable.

Link please

I'm saying that if you hold that rally and if you use that rethoric you carry the moral responsibility.

I'm suggesting that if people's morals cause them to plot to stay in power by trying to circumvent the choice of the voters they should be punished. Just like I want people punished who commit sexual assault and just like I want people to be punished if they steal and hide classified documents. It's weird that you don't.

You would vote for someone who both a judge and a jury said committed sexual assault? Who is accused of 78 felony counts?

Because at least he's not a Democrat? I personally think that's insane.



He did. He told the lie that caused it, and he asked them to come.

Hitler wasn't at the Wannsee conference. He's still the main person responsible for the Holocaust. Not saying Trump is Hitler, but I am saying that being the one that invents the ideology makes you responsible for what it causes.

Reports that no matter how non-sensical and how many times debunked you still assert to be valid.

He was proactive. His action was saying" serves you right" (paraphrasing here). I like these euphemisms you're using (badly).

That's kind of par for the course right? Trump is doing something non-sensical and something that's already proven to have the potential of turning violent. But "I don't know why he's doing it, so I won't give a moral judgement".

"He's either criminal or delusional. But I'll vote for him over any Democrat."

I agree that going around the will of the voters is wrong. If he is found guilty of trying to go around the election, so be it. I’m talking about the riot at the capitol. People are trying to talk about his intent. As of yet, there’s no proof that he intended for all that to happen. We do know he called for peace, and yeah, he should have been quicker on the response, which I call him out for that, but to say he is responsible for the riot because of his words, im not sold on that. Many politicians use similar rhetoric.

By the way, do you support the national popular vote compact?

It is shotgun justice any time you try to punish someone without doing due diligence. Like I said, you can’t use what you know now to justify an impeachment then. The dems had little to go on other than he tried to get new slates of electors. Again I ask, do you support the national popular vote compact?

They completed an impeachment with no investigation, and only 2 hours of debate. That’s shotgun justice.

Who says? Just because only one instance is widely reported that doesn't mean it was the only instance.

you have a point, I’ll give you that, but, still there are too many things surrounding this case that leads one to believe that there is no good going on in relation to all of this. First among my questions is, why would a Ukrainian gas company seek the services of hunter to be on their board? Apparently burisma thought they were getting something for his services, and that is access to Biden. Why is my question. Also, it’s suspicious because Ukraine is apparently has a lot of corruption, so don’t you think it’s suspicious that they would put the son of an American vice president in their board?

NO HE DID NOT, the proper channels for approving loans to friendly countries are whatever means the administration chooses to communicate its desires.
In the case of Trump though this isn't the case. He was, according to you, trying to combat corruption by a US citizen in Ukraine by getting that country to start a criminal investigation into a US citizen. This requires the showing of due process if you want to US courts the honor an extradition. In this case you have a direct request from a US president to another Head of State. Coordinated exclusively through someone who has NO government function. Bypassing all legal process. There is not a judge in the US who would honor such a request and it's likely that making it would have led to criminal or professional charges to at least Guiliani.

What due process is required? We’re not talking about a prosecution, it was just a request to have Zelenskyy look in to potential wrongdoing by a U.S. citizen in another country. The US isn’t going to conduct that investigation, it has to be done by the country where the alleged wrongdoing took place.

I wasn’t aware that a u.s. citizen was afforded due process rights for just an investigation. I thought due process rights applied to a trial…

Strange though, isn’t it? How you are quite interested in the due process rights of Biden, but not of trump being impeached with no investigation. Yeah yeah, it’s not a criminal trial. I’m just pointing out that you don’t care that trump didn’t get the benefit of an investigation before they impeached him and tried to remove him. Where was his due process rights?

It doesn't mean you have to prove something to a point that any claim no matter how incredulous has to be accepted.

It means that there can be no other explanation from the evidence presented.

In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial.

beyond a reasonable doubt

www.law.cornell.edu

Ok, let’s apply Occam’s razor. Hunter Biden mysteriously get placed on the board of a gas company in Ukraine, a country known to have corruption in the government, Biden then shows up on tv and says “well son of a bitch, he got fired”, then we learned shokin was investigating the company that hunter had been put on the board of. No explanation as to why they wanted hunter, can only assume it was for access to Biden. Now we find out that they had a low opinion of hunter. “My dog is smarter than him”.

Then they admit they wanted hunter there for certain “protections”, and ended up having to pay 5 million to bother hunter and joe.

If hunter being on the board of burisma is on the up and up, why all of the hoopla?

URL unfurl="true"]https://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/sites/mdd/files/Roske-Affidavit.pdf[/URL]
Page 2 point 7

Yes page 2 point 7

I’m not debating he was upset about the leak of the roe decision (which is odd that they never found the leaker, is it? They didn’t want to find the leaker). I’m saying, how do you know that schumers rhetoric wasn’t the thing that sent him over the edge and caused him to attempt to get to kavanaugh?

Makes about as much sense as trump telling people to peacefully protest, and then blaming him when they get out of hand (which there are rumors that those people were agitated by the police and fbi in the crowd).

I'm suggesting that if people's morals cause them to plot to stay in power by trying to circumvent the choice of the voters they should be punished. Just like I want people punished who commit sexual assault and just like I want people to be punished if they steal and hide classified documents. It's weird that you don't.

For his actions regarding trying to alter the election, if the evidence proves that trump indeed broke legal statutes, then he should be held accountable. I’m speaking to the riot specifically.

Also, Biden hid classified documents…sure, when shit hit the fan, he strangely “found classified documents”…that’s very convenient. The fact that he held them for decades (how does a senator get classified documents out of the scif?) and only turns them over when people are starting to look at trump does not equal “willingly turning them over”. Sounds like he had no intention of turning them in until trump got in trouble for it, then they said “well we had better get our stuff in order before we get caught too”.

Link please

These two happened in the wake of the Floyd riots.

Admittedly the one about pelosi was not in relation to Floyd, but she is calling for uprisings in relation to the immigration issue…she’s calling for uprisings…which means what? Is she calling for protests or riots? “Uprisings” means revolt or rebellion. More “rhetoric”?

Nancy Pelosi wonders why there ‘aren’t uprisings’ across nation: ‘Maybe there will be’

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that she is confused why Americans aren’t “uprising” against the Trump administration over conditions on the border with Mexico.

www.washingtontimes.com

And then Maxine waters calling for physical violence against members of trumps cabinet members:



And what happened? They did just that. They found where some of trumps cabinet member were and they went in and harassed them, and forced them to leave, some had to leave by the back door.

You would vote for someone who both a judge and a jury said committed sexual assault? Who is accused of 78 felony counts?

i don’t condone any sexual abuse, but from a political standpoint, yes, I’d vote for trump over Biden.

Remember, Biden has also been accused of sexual wrongs, the left just swept them under the rug.

He did. He told the lie that caused it, and he asked them to come.

Hitler wasn't at the Wannsee conference. He's still the main person responsible for the Holocaust. Not saying Trump is Hitler, but I am saying that being the one that invents the ideology makes you responsible for what it causes.

You have to prove that trump intended to cause them to riot. As I’ve said before, rhetoric is used by all politicians, but you don’t care when a democrat does it. Still, you keep glossing over the fact that the only call to action trump made was to peacefully protest, with their voices.

If people in the crowd take his words and assign their own meaning to them, or worse yet, if provocateurs in the crowd egg them on, how do you associate that guilt to trump? Once again, one could just as easily associate any of the hateful rhetoric that the left has used over the last few years and associate it with all of the riots and uprising we’ve had, but you don’t do that do you? All of that is just pure coincidence.

He was proactive. His action was saying" serves you right" (paraphrasing here). I like these euphemisms you're using (badly)

Even when I agree with you on something, you still find a way to criticize it?

That's kind of par for the course right? Trump is doing something non-sensical and something that's already proven to have the potential of turning violent. But "I don't know why he's doing it, so I won't give a moral judgement".

"He's either criminal or delusional. But I'll vote for him over any Democrat."

You can try to assign whatever horrendous title you want to me. Maybe he really does believe the election was stolen and doesn’t believe the people who told him it wasn’t. For every one that said it wasn’t, you’ll find one that says it was.

The truth is, if/when Biden is ever found guilty of crimes, tens of millions would still vote for him over trump any day of the week, so your assertion that I’m somehow a bad person because I would vote for trumps politics over bidens is kind of hypocritical.

 

[forkup]

I agree that going around the will of the voters is wrong. If he is found guilty of trying to go around the election, so be it. I’m talking about the riot at the capitol. People are trying to talk about his intent. As of yet, there’s no proof that he intended for all that to happen. We do know he called for peace, and yeah, he should have been quicker on the response, which I call him out for that, but to say he is responsible for the riot because of his words, im not sold on that. Many politicians use similar rhetoric.

By the way, do you support the national popular vote compact?

It is shotgun justice any time you try to punish someone without doing due diligence. Like I said, you can’t use what you know now to justify an impeachment then. The dems had little to go on other than he tried to get new slates of electors. Again I ask, do you support the national popular vote compact?

They completed an impeachment with no investigation, and only 2 hours of debate. That’s shotgun justice.



you have a point, I’ll give you that, but, still there are too many things surrounding this case that leads one to believe that there is no good going on in relation to all of this. First among my questions is, why would a Ukrainian gas company seek the services of hunter to be on their board? Apparently burisma thought they were getting something for his services, and that is access to Biden. Why is my question. Also, it’s suspicious because Ukraine is apparently has a lot of corruption, so don’t you think it’s suspicious that they would put the son of an American vice president in their board?



What due process is required? We’re not talking about a prosecution, it was just a request to have Zelenskyy look in to potential wrongdoing by a U.S. citizen in another country. The US isn’t going to conduct that investigation, it has to be done by the country where the alleged wrongdoing took place.

I wasn’t aware that a u.s. citizen was afforded due process rights for just an investigation. I thought due process rights applied to a trial…

Strange though, isn’t it? How you are quite interested in the due process rights of Biden, but not of trump being impeached with no investigation. Yeah yeah, it’s not a criminal trial. I’m just pointing out that you don’t care that trump didn’t get the benefit of an investigation before they impeached him and tried to remove him. Where was his due process rights?



It means that there can be no other explanation from the evidence presented.

beyond a reasonable doubt

www.law.cornell.edu

Ok, let’s apply Occam’s razor. Hunter Biden mysteriously get placed on the board of a gas company in Ukraine, a country known to have corruption in the government, Biden then shows up on tv and says “well son of a bitch, he got fired”, then we learned shokin was investigating the company that hunter had been put on the board of. No explanation as to why they wanted hunter, can only assume it was for access to Biden. Now we find out that they had a low opinion of hunter. “My dog is smarter than him”.

Then they admit they wanted hunter there for certain “protections”, and ended up having to pay 5 million to bother hunter and joe.

If hunter being on the board of burisma is on the up and up, why all of the hoopla?



I’m not debating he was upset about the leak of the roe decision (which is odd that they never found the leaker, is it? They didn’t want to find the leaker). I’m saying, how do you know that schumers rhetoric wasn’t the thing that sent him over the edge and caused him to attempt to get to kavanaugh?

Makes about as much sense as trump telling people to peacefully protest, and then blaming him when they get out of hand (which there are rumors that those people were agitated by the police and fbi in the crowd).



For his actions regarding trying to alter the election, if the evidence proves that trump indeed broke legal statutes, then he should be held accountable. I’m speaking to the riot specifically.

Also, Biden hid classified documents…sure, when shit hit the fan, he strangely “found classified documents”…that’s very convenient. The fact that he held them for decades (how does a senator get classified documents out of the scif?) and only turns them over when people are starting to look at trump does not equal “willingly turning them over”. Sounds like he had no intention of turning them in until trump got in trouble for it, then they said “well we had better get our stuff in order before we get caught too”.







These two happened in the wake of the Floyd riots.

Admittedly the one about pelosi was not in relation to Floyd, but she is calling for uprisings in relation to the immigration issue…she’s calling for uprisings…which means what? Is she calling for protests or riots? “Uprisings” means revolt or rebellion. More “rhetoric”?

Nancy Pelosi wonders why there ‘aren’t uprisings’ across nation: ‘Maybe there will be’

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that she is confused why Americans aren’t “uprising” against the Trump administration over conditions on the border with Mexico.

www.washingtontimes.com

And then Maxine waters calling for physical violence against members of trumps cabinet members:



And what happened? They did just that. They found where some of trumps cabinet member were and they went in and harassed them, and forced them to leave, some had to leave by the back door.



i don’t condone any sexual abuse, but from a political standpoint, yes, I’d vote for trump over Biden.

Remember, Biden has also been accused of sexual wrongs, the left just swept them under the rug.




You have to prove that trump intended to cause them to riot. As I’ve said before, rhetoric is used by all politicians, but you don’t care when a democrat does it. Still, you keep glossing over the fact that the only call to action trump made was to peacefully protest, with their voices.

If people in the crowd take his words and assign their own meaning to them, or worse yet, if provocateurs in the crowd egg them on, how do you associate that guilt to trump? Once again, one could just as easily associate any of the hateful rhetoric that the left has used over the last few years and associate it with all of the riots and uprising we’ve had, but you don’t do that do you? All of that is just pure coincidence.



Even when I agree with you on something, you still find a way to criticize it?



You can try to assign whatever horrendous title you want to me. Maybe he really does believe the election was stolen and doesn’t believe the people who told him it wasn’t. For every one that said it wasn’t, you’ll find one that says it was.

The truth is, if/when Biden is ever found guilty of crimes, tens of millions would still vote for him over trump any day of the week, so your assertion that I’m somehow a bad person because I would vote for trumps politics over bidens is kind of hypocritical.

I’m talking about the riot at the capitol.

No, you weren't. You were talking about having insufficient information to support an impeachment. I gave you the information that was available at the time simply going by the stated goal of the rally and Trump's actions. In effect the rally although horrendous wasn't Trump's impeachable offense. It was the ploy to do an end-around of the voters. That's Jack Smith's contention. And it was my contention. Way before Smith was even appointed by the way.

The US isn’t going to conduct that investigation, it has to be done by the country where the alleged wrongdoing took place.

Sure. Where the problem lies is in the fact that it was the US that asked for the investigation. Mind you that's if I take your contention serious. For that you do need probable cause. If Ukraine by itself would have started to conduct an investigation it wouldn't have been a problem. In this case though it was the president personally that asked. He can't point to an underlying investigation. He can't point to following a process that is designed to protect a defendant.

How you are quite interested in the due process rights of Biden

I'm always interested in due process. This includes when Trump is under indictment. My point though is simply that by violating Biden's right of due process. Trump made extradition impossible. Defeating the whole point of conducting an actual investigation. Again, going by the premise that you propose.

If hunter being on the board of burisma is on the up and up, why all of the hoopla?

I didn't claim it was or is on the up and up. I have no interest in defending Hunter Biden. I'm saying there's a much easier explanation for Hunter Biden being on this board. An explanation that doesn't require a massive conspiracy spanning multiple NGO's, countries and hundreds of people.

Burisma making the calculation that having Hunter Biden on the board would give them legitimacy in dealing internationally. For Trump on the other hand, you need to disregard all critical faculties.

and ended up having to pay 5 million to bother hunter and joe.

Sure Hunter. Joe there is no evidence of. Not my words but those of Comer.

Biden has also been accused of sexual wrongs, the left just swept them under the rug.

Maybe because the person who did the accusing literally has defected to Russia? And Trump hasn't been merely accused. He has been found to have done it in a court of law.

You have to prove that trump intended to cause them to riot.

No I don't. The only thing I need to prove is that Trump wanted to overturn the election. He did by among other things lying. One of the consequences of those lies was that a bunch of people figured it valid to attack the Capitol making him morally responsible.

Even when I agree with you on something, you still find a way to criticize it?

I criticize the choice of using the term "not being proactive" when describing Trump's actions. He was proactive. He scolded the people who were being attacked as the cause. Not being proactive means you take no action. HE DID.

The truth is, if/when Biden is ever found guilty of crimes, tens of millions would still vote for him over trump

I'm sorry but you are again fighting against some hypothetical leftists. I would not support Biden if a jury of his peers found him guilty of crimes.

I’m somehow a bad person because I would vote for trumps politics over bidens is kind of hypocritical.

It's only hypocritical if you would be talking to someone who claims he would support Biden in similar circumstances. I'm perfectly willing to state I wouldn't. And no, I don't consider you a bad person. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing political beliefs from a person. You can be a perfectly good person and have no morals when it comes to politics.


There are many points of contention in this thread. If you want me to address a particular one that I haven't yet addressed, feel free to point it out and I will do so.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

ThisisMe, the trial will sort out his intent for you.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, you weren't. You were talking about having insufficient information to support an impeachment. I gave you the information that was available at the time simply going by the stated goal of the rally and Trump's actions. In effect the rally although horrendous wasn't Trump's impeachable offense. It was the ploy to do an end-around of the voters. That's Jack Smith's contention. And it was my contention. Way before Smith was even appointed by the way.

Sure. Where the problem lies is in the fact that it was the US that asked for the investigation. Mind you that's if I take your contention serious. For that you do need probable cause. If Ukraine by itself would have started to conduct an investigation it wouldn't have been a problem. In this case though it was the president personally that asked. He can't point to an underlying investigation. He can't point to following a process that is designed to protect a defendant.

I'm always interested in due process. This includes when Trump is under indictment. My point though is simply that by violating Biden's right of due process. Trump made extradition impossible. Defeating the whole point of conducting an actual investigation. Again, going by the premise that you propose.

I didn't claim it was or is on the up and up. I have no interest in defending Hunter Biden. I'm saying there's a much easier explanation for Hunter Biden being on this board. An explanation that doesn't require a massive conspiracy spanning multiple NGO's, countries and hundreds of people.

Burisma making the calculation that having Hunter Biden on the board would give them legitimacy in dealing internationally. For Trump on the other hand, you need to disregard all critical faculties.

Sure Hunter. Joe there is no evidence of. Not my words but those of Comer.

Maybe because the person who did the accusing literally has defected to Russia? And Trump hasn't been merely accused. He has been found to have done it in a court of law.

No I don't. The only thing I need to prove is that Trump wanted to overturn the election. He did by among other things lying. One of the consequences of those lies was that a bunch of people figured it valid to attack the Capitol making him morally responsible.

I criticize the choice of using the term "not being proactive" when describing Trump's actions. He was proactive. He scolded the people who were being attacked as the cause. Not being proactive means you take no action. HE DID.

I'm sorry but you are again fighting against some hypothetical leftists. I would not support Biden if a jury of his peers found him guilty of crimes.

It's only hypocritical if you would be talking to someone who claims he would support Biden in similar circumstances. I'm perfectly willing to state I wouldn't. And no, I don't consider you a bad person. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing political beliefs from a person. You can be a perfectly good person and have no morals when it comes to politics.


There are many points of contention in this thread. If you want me to address a particular one that I haven't yet addressed, feel free to point it out and I will do so.

No, you weren't. You were talking about having insufficient information to support an impeachment. I gave you the information that was available at the time simply going by the stated goal of the rally and Trump's actions. In effect the rally although horrendous wasn't Trump's impeachable offense. It was the ploy to do an end-around of the voters. That's Jack Smith's contention. And it was my contention. Way before Smith was even appointed by the way.

And I’m correct. All you had at the time was the Eastman memo. Again, if they had all the evidence they needed to impeach trump, then why did they conduct a 2 year investigation, followed by another investigation from the doj? I’m sorry, but impeaching someone and then conducting the investigation afterward screams “we didn’t have the evidence at first but we wanted that second impeachment and now we’re going to go back and find out what happened later.” That’s just not how it’s supposed to work.

Sure. Where the problem lies is in the fact that it was the US that asked for the investigation. Mind you that's if I take your contention serious. For that you do need probable cause. If Ukraine by itself would have started to conduct an investigation it wouldn't have been a problem. In this case though it was the president personally that asked. He can't point to an underlying investigation. He can't point to following a process that is designed to protect a defendant.

You keep talking about this as if it were a prosecution. “Due process” isn’t an issue here. That’s for the prosecution stage. And the probable cause was Biden asking Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was looking into the company that employed his son.

I'm always interested in due process. This includes when Trump is under indictment. My point though is simply that by violating Biden's right of due process. Trump made extradition impossible. Defeating the whole point of conducting an actual investigation. Again, going by the premise that you propose.

But you weren’t interested in trumps due process when they impeached him without investigation. Also, what extradition are you talking about? Who are they going to extradite?

I didn't claim it was or is on the up and up. I have no interest in defending Hunter Biden. I'm saying there's a much easier explanation for Hunter Biden being on this board. An explanation that doesn't require a massive conspiracy spanning multiple NGO's, countries and hundreds of people.

For this to happen, joe had to be involved. It would seem unlikely that they would extend a lucrative deal based on his word alone, especially now that we know how they really felt about hunter. There would have had to have been assurances, likely from Biden himself. That makes sense since the millions of dollars they paid out.

Sure Hunter. Joe there is no evidence of. Not my words but those of Comer.

If grassleys fd1023 is legit, then we have the burisma ceo saying himself that he paid both Biden and hunter.

Maybe because the person who did the accusing literally has defected to Russia? And Trump hasn't been merely accused. He has been found to have done it in a court of law.

According to her, it’s because she feared for her safety. Besides, her defecting to Russia doesn’t have any bearing on the legitimacy of her allegations. Was an investigation ever conducted? A serious one?

I thought all women were to be believed?

No I don't. The only thing I need to prove is that Trump wanted to overturn the election. He did by among other things lying. One of the consequences of those lies was that a bunch of people figured it valid to attack the Capitol making him morally responsible.

He may be held liable for trying to overturn the election but, I disagree, you can’t hold someone morally responsible because other people decided to take his words and act on them. That’s why I say you have to prove that he intended for those people to riot.

Also again, do you support the national popular vote compact?

I criticize the choice of using the term "not being proactive" when describing Trump's actions. He was proactive. He scolded the people who were being attacked as the cause. Not being proactive means you take no action. HE DID.

I believe I said he was not proactive in making a statement to help stop the riot. Which is true. You are trying to add to what I’m saying. What I said is true. You’re criticizing me for something I didn’t say or even address.

I'm sorry but you are again fighting against some hypothetical leftists. I would not support Biden if a jury of his peers found him guilty of crimes.

Again, I’m not addressing what YOU would do, I don’t know you. Which is why I said “the left”. Also, it’s more than a hypothetical. As divided as people are and the hate the left has for trump , if the choice they had was a criminally convicted Biden, they would vote for him before letting trump win the White House.

 

[ThisIsMe]

ThisisMe, the trial will sort out his intent for you.

I’m hoping it will

 

[kaz]

Uh huh. Which is an explicit threat of retaliation, dupe.

Yes, because if it's Trump. If it's Democrats, you suddenly grasp figurative. On one hand you are a stupid m'fer. On the other .... oh wait, that's all I had ...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, because if it's Trump. If it's Democrats, you suddenly grasp figurative. On one hand you are a stupid m'fer. On the other .... oh wait, that's all I had ...

Give us an example "If it's Democrate," you dope.

 

[kaz]

Give us an example "If it's Democrate," you dope.

You broke both my rules for asking me to give you a serious response.

1) Make clear you aresn't just going to argue whatever I say
2) No insults

Rule 2 is actually part of rule 1 for people not as completely stupid as you, but for you it is. There we go then

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

kaz, you have already wondered into some closet and shut yourself in an unsustainable space and place.

 

[kaz]

Give us an example "If it's Democrate," you dope.

It's hard posting on message boards when you're a kindergarten teacher, huh?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It's hard posting on message boards when you're a kindergarten teacher, huh?

kaz, you are not making sense, as usual. DOJ needs to put a protective order on Trump. GA may well put a gag order on him.

 

[kaz]

kaz, you are not making sense, as usual. DOJ needs to put a protective order on Trump. GA may well put a gag order on him.

Yes, of course, we need to ensure a Democrat victory like in 2020, fuck democracy, it's just about the free shit being a Democrat.

So where are you going next after you bleed us dry?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, of course, we need to ensure a Democrat victory like in 2020, fuck democracy, it's just about the free shit being a Democrat.

So where are you going next after you bleed us dry?

You continue to stumble. I probably pay five to ten times in federal income tax than you make in a year..

Donald should stop talking because he is his own worst enemy.

The two things he will comment on Monday night should finish him off. He just can't shut up.

 

[kaz]

You continue to stumble. I probably pay five to ten times in federal income tax than you make in a year..

WTF, talk about out of left field. Grow up, money boy. Talk about another pure Democrat post. I'm not having an argument with a moron on the Internet who maks more money. WTF is wrong with you? Pull down the ego a notch

Donald should stop talking because he is his own worst enemy.

The two things he will comment on Monday night should finish him off. He just can't shut up.

Welcome to America! I didn't realize you weren't from here. Yes, that is Trump. You just figured that out?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

WTF, talk about out of left field. Grow up, money boy. Talk about another pure Democrat post. I'm not having an argument with a moron on the Internet who maks more money. WTF is wrong with you? Pull down the ego a notch
Welcome to America! I didn't realize you weren't from here. Yes, that is Trump. You just figured that out?

You talk about free things, get slapped into place, and you just keep getting angrier. You foolish person.

 

[Lakhota]

Even if Trump gets his Georgia case moved to federal court, there will be a federal judge and different jury - but Fani Willis will still be trying the case and Georgia state pardon laws will still apply - meaning Trump could not be pardoned until after serving his full sentence and then waiting five more years on good behavior before requesting a pardon. So, I'm no longer worried about Trump or any of the other 18 getting transferred to federal court.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Even if Trump gets his Georgia case moved to federal court, there will be a federal judge and different jury - but Fani Willis will still be trying the case and Georgia state pardon laws will still apply - meaning Trump could not be pardoned until after serving his full sentence and then waiting five more years on good behavior before requesting a pardon. So, I'm no longer worried about Trump or any of the other 18 getting transferred to federal court.

I’m not sure about that. Can you link to that assertion? If trump has the case moved to federal court it’s because the allegations against him were for things done while he was a federal employee. Therefore, the case would be moved to the federal level, and therefore it becomes a federal crime, and federal pardon rules apply. I mean, how could you try a state case in federal court

Also, a federal court would give him a possibility of a better jury pool and a friendlier federal judge.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, im just saying that I’d like to see where you got that info because I figure if it goes to federal court, the state loses jurisdiction right? Because of the supremacy clause?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It will not be shifted to federal court.

 

[forkup]

And I’m correct. All you had at the time was the Eastman memo. Again, if they had all the evidence they needed to impeach trump, then why did they conduct a 2 year investigation, followed by another investigation from the doj? I’m sorry, but impeaching someone and then conducting the investigation afterward screams “we didn’t have the evidence at first but we wanted that second impeachment and now we’re going to go back and find out what happened later.” That’s just not how it’s supposed to work.



You keep talking about this as if it were a prosecution. “Due process” isn’t an issue here. That’s for the prosecution stage. And the probable cause was Biden asking Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was looking into the company that employed his son.



But you weren’t interested in trumps due process when they impeached him without investigation. Also, what extradition are you talking about? Who are they going to extradite?



For this to happen, joe had to be involved. It would seem unlikely that they would extend a lucrative deal based on his word alone, especially now that we know how they really felt about hunter. There would have had to have been assurances, likely from Biden himself. That makes sense since the millions of dollars they paid out.



If grassleys fd1023 is legit, then we have the burisma ceo saying himself that he paid both Biden and hunter.



According to her, it’s because she feared for her safety. Besides, her defecting to Russia doesn’t have any bearing on the legitimacy of her allegations. Was an investigation ever conducted? A serious one?

I thought all women were to be believed?



He may be held liable for trying to overturn the election but, I disagree, you can’t hold someone morally responsible because other people decided to take his words and act on them. That’s why I say you have to prove that he intended for those people to riot.

Also again, do you support the national popular vote compact?



I believe I said he was not proactive in making a statement to help stop the riot. Which is true. You are trying to add to what I’m saying. What I said is true. You’re criticizing me for something I didn’t say or even address.



Again, I’m not addressing what YOU would do, I don’t know you. Which is why I said “the left”. Also, it’s more than a hypothetical. As divided as people are and the hate the left has for trump , if the choice they had was a criminally convicted Biden, they would vote for him before letting trump win the White House.

All you had at the time was the Eastman memo.

You weren't aware at the time that Trump was asking Pence to stop the certification of the election results after lost all court cases? I was. The fact that you don't think that's impeachable very much is a you problem. Trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power is one of the gravest offences a president can make in my book.

You keep talking about this as if it were a prosecution.

That's the end goal of a legit investigation into corruption is it not? You can't both claim you think it's possible Trump wanted simply to investigate corruption while at the same time trying to somehow claim normal judicial procedure is unnecessary.

But you weren’t interested in trumps due process when they impeached him without investigation.

There is no due process in an impeachment. Impeachment is a political process not a judicial one. The process is basically whatever the legislative branch says it is. Apples and oranges.

Who are they going to extradite?

Hunter Biden. If the whole idea was to investigate corruption as you were claiming.

For this to happen, joe had to be involved.

BS. The name Biden carries value all by itself, granting legitimacy. You should be aware of that since most of the things that have the Trump name on it aren't owned by Trump simply his name.

If grassleys fd1023 is legit

That form is literally a standard form that the FBI uses when they receive a tip. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can make accusations. You on the other hand stated the accusation as fact.

. Besides, her defecting to Russia doesn’t have any bearing on the legitimacy of her allegations.

Oh really? It doesn't? You don't think it relevant that the person accusing Biden is choosing Russia over America?


As for your investigation. Reade: 'I didn't use sexual harassment' in Biden complaint
There are at least 3 different versions of the events. There's the original complaint. Where it's not described as sexual assault. There's the 2019 account where the rubbing of her arm and neck is described as sexual assault. And then there's the 2020 version of events in which Biden pushed her against a wall and penetrated her. This on top of other verifiable lies she's told and her defection to Russia and personal relationship with Butina. I will not guess on what happened since she doesn't seem too able to get her story straight but the best you can say that it's a accusation.

you can’t hold someone morally responsible because other people decided to take his words and act on them.

Sure, you can. I hold Hitler responsible for the Holocaust. He might have called for " a final solution" but he can't use using a euphemism as a get out of jail free card. I can hold a person responsible for yelling fire in a movie theater if the ensuing panic hurts people. I can hold Trump responsible for an insurrection if the reason for that insurrection can be directly traced to him lying about the election and calling his supporters to pressure Mike Pence.

Also again, do you support the national popular vote compact?

I support a constitutional amendment for completely getting rid of the electoral college. Since I find the whole system as unfair. I'd like nothing more than the person winning the most votes in the nation also winning the presidency. This however requires a constitutional amendment.

I believe I said he was not proactive in making a statement to help stop the riot. Which is true.

Sure it is. He instead made a proactive statement pushing the blame for the insurrection on Pence as he was being attacked.

Again, I’m not addressing what YOU would do, I don’t know you. Which is why I said “the left”. Also, it’s more than a hypothetical. As divided as people are and the hate the left has for trump , if the choice they had was a criminally convicted Biden, they would vote for him before letting trump win the White House.

Yet you had no compunction in calling MY ARGUMENT hypocritical.


We've been going back and forth quite a bit and this is my main takeaway. In order to defend your position of preferring Trump over any Democrat. You rely on several fallacious arguments.

The first and main one being the appeal to hypocrisy. Trying to claim that if you establish that Democrats make the same amoral choices your choice becomes moral.

Then of course your next problem is that Trump has made some indefensible and even criminal choices. You get around that by the next fallacy. The false equivalency. You claim that something somehow is sorta, kinda similar, you can claim it's the same. Trump keeps and hides documents. Well, no problem. Joe kept documents so it's alright. Failing to mention that he found them himself and turned them in immediately upon finding them.
Trump was found to have sexually assaulted someone. That's alright there's this person that accused Joe of the same. Trump was corrupt. No problem we have this government form that has an accusation on it.

And finally, the strawman. Trump has done stuff that's indefensible. But some hypothetical lefty will defend Biden in the same way, so you can't be judged for it.