patrick.net

marcus says

Marcus, did you know that if you're sleeping, or you're a bank teller that doesn't speak Bachi, and somebody demands of you when you're sleeping or in a language you don't understand to hand over the money (and the person did not physically threaten you or pull a gun or otherwise do anything but talk in a foreign language), that it's not a robbery?

Here's another example.

"If you don't give me $10,000, I'll tell your wife about your affair."
Blackmail, plain and simple.

BUT

"If you give me information on a potential crime, since I am the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of my country, I'll expedite giving you millions in aid money."
Is not.

BECAUSE

"If you tell me that name of the guy who was blackmailing your company to fire employees a few years ago, I'll expedite that $10,000 my organization promised you"
is also not Blackmail, or any other kind of crime.

Police do the latter hundreds of times a day in this country, it's called paid informants.

If the Sheriff can pay an informer to tell him that Jackboot Joe shook down the block for protection money last year in return for payments, why can't the President of the USA do the same?

And that above cartoon did not age well. Very clear why Schiff guarded the "whistle bloweristle" identity. Not to protect the "whistle blower" from harm, but to hide how the whistle blower was just a long term Dem operative that was likely a coordinated plant.

marcus says

I shouldn't be surprised, considering you support the guy in the first place. One has to totally lack moral compass and common decency to have ever been okay with Trump being POTUS.

Nothing in your post refutes my analogy. It's simply the same moral superiority type grandstanding we'd had from Democrats for decades.

It's not "Illegal" for the President to ask for help from a country where we have a treaty to investigate criminal behavior. It's doubly not illegal if the target doesn't think he's being pressured, because these kinds of crimes require the victim to realize they're being positioned. It's triply not illegal when it's with a foreign leader and involves diplomacy.

We all know what the problem is, nobody expected Trump to release the transcript. The other thing is that they are trying to create a Whistleblower to cover up years of Ciaramella being a Leaker.

Here's basically what Schiff is doing:
Whistleblower: "It sounded to me like Zelensky was being threatened/blackmailed."
Zelensky: "I didn't feel threatened."
Schiff: "Well, because the Whistleblower thought it sounded threatening, I'm demanding an investigation into the threats made against you"
Trump: "Here's a transcript."
Schiff: "But it's not a 110% verbatim transcript, it's just a rough transcript. It doesn't matter what people who were on the call thought, or the subject party being called thought. What Whistleblowers who heard about it second or third or fourth hand think it sounded threatening is what matters."

If the transcript can be dismissed because it's not guaranteed 110% accurate, then why are Whistleblower's hearsay of second/third+ hand summaries of the call not dismissed?

Tell me no President in history has ever called Guatemala or somesuch and said "Until you arrest El Chupacabra's cronies according to the DEA dossier we sent you, we're holding back our scheduled aid payments. Good luck paying your staff and buying your mistress that fur coat you promised her next month."

The argument "Political Rival" is nonsense. Who was going to investigate Quid Pro Joe? President Hillary? Only a naive fool would believe that, the kind who thinks because the WaPo called the event "Dormant" means there is some kind of legal reason it can't be investigated, when it's just a flowery word and a red herring.

Hey, if Trump can't investigate potential criminal activity by a former opposition party official, then I guess the House can't investigate Trump's potential criminality, right?

Question Liberal Authority - they're hypocrites.

marcus says

There is truly nothing Trump could ever do that you would not defend and or rationalize.

You can't say that and not refute any of his points. Laws are pretty black and white. What law did Trump violate? Give us the code and actual language that shows us where he violated law. You can't just keep accusing him and not support what ACTUAL charge could/can be brought against him. If there was, you know he'd be impeached already. This isn't difficult.

Forgot where, but watched a video yesterday. You need to be throwing shade at the Democratic party more than anyone or other organization. You know what happens if the House impeaches and it goes to the Senate, right? Two of the top three Democrats running for nomination are locked up in the Senate for impeachment proceedings 6 days a week probably for a couple months. Good luck campaigning during that. The gas has been poured on the party and they're getting ready to light a match. And deep down you know Biden was fucking around, it would be disingenuous to think otherwise after he openly bragged and admitted it.

The democrats need fresh water on a boat sailing Lake Michigan. Instead of lowering a bucket off the side, they just drill holes in the bottom of the boat to get the water.

marcus says

One has to totally lack moral compass and common decency to have ever been okay with Trump being POTUS.

No.

One had to be against that evil money grubbing witch who was set to start a couple new wars and sell America to the biggest contributor to the Clinton foundation.

Instead of being so against our president you should find someone to be for. Did you really want Hillary as commander in chief?

marcus says

No.
We voted against the most evil self serving candidate ever put forth whose only message was "I'm not him."

marcus says

:

There is truly nothing Trump could ever do that you would not defend and or rationalize.

Congratulations.

What is the most criminal thing You think our president has done?

Not expecting answers from those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

marcus says

The alleged offense is that Trump enlisted the help of another country in his campaign for a second term. There is plenty of evidence for this. Investigators have records of the phone call, Trump’s own admission, and the admission of his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Jesus. Biden isn't running against Trump!!!!!!! For the millionth time! He was looking into potential illegal activity of a then sitting Vice President. This isn't complicated. I've said it before, it's not about the law and you know that too by quoting this drivel, hence why I asked the question the way I did. It's pure partisan BS. You know it and the Democrats know it.

marcus says

Since the American government had voted to give the money to Ukraine,Trump withholding it to solicit information that would benefit himself strengthens the argument of the abuse of power, adding another layer of misconduct.

So if Trump asked Ukraine for information on anyone other than a rival candidate, would it be unlawful?

So what the fuck is a President to do??? Anyone could be considered a political rival. ANYONE! Biden is a normal citizen now. He gets no special protection by his "club" the Democratic party. They can impeach tomorrow and won't. I don't get what is so hard to understand about this. No law was broken, which regardless of the novel above hasn't proven to have happened. If they want to impeach based on "morals" I'll give up my citizenship to what will become a shit hole in short order. That's what you want.

Liberals make fun of themselves daily.

Their stupidity is comical.

Tenpoundbass says

marcus says

Trump is not the Evangelical or Tea Party vote. They are not the majority of fed up people in America. No where close!

The Tea Party was a Koch Brother's stunt. Evangelicals don't have 1/5th the people in their pews they once had. Giving the Evangelical vote weight is like worrying the Whig party is going to steal votes from one of the two parties in the next election.

You can probably convince them to mass suicide in name of virtue, that’s how dumb those people are.

Joefour20 says

Fortwaynemobile says

Liberals make fun of themselves daily.

Their stupidity is comical.

Tenpoundbass says

I wonder how many cans of spray paint 700 gallons is?

Four 32 oz can's per gallon. That's 2800 cans of spray paint.

Can I get unflagged please. Nothing wrong was said. I know my rules.

Fortwaynemobile says

flag

Fortwaynemobile says

Can I get unflagged please. Nothing wrong was said. I know my rules.

Fortwaynemobile says

flag

This is absolutely true.

Here's the quote that marcus flagged:

Fortwaynemobile says

You can probably convince them to mass suicide in name of virtue, that’s how dumb those people are.

C'mon, @marcus it does not directly insult another user of the site or insult the site itself, or violate any laws, so it should have been flagged.

Joefour20 says

Is it possible to flag a comment by accident?

Try clicking on the "flag" link by any of my comments. You should get a popup confirmation dialogue which you can dismiss.

So it would be hard to do it by mistake, I hope.

marcus says

I didn't see the quote - it's not what I was flagging.

@marcus OK just a mistake then. Thanks.

marcus says

You realize we raised far more money with tariffs than the subsidies cost.

After trillions on AFDC and Section 8, is the war on poverty won? Maybe it's time to end THAT war.

marcus says

'

According to whom, the Economist? hahaha

Remember when the consensus on the View was "It doesn't matter about the President's character, so long as he's doing a good job"?

www.youtube.com/embed/p03RxbANSiU&feature=youtu.be

NoCoupForYou says

Lol he prob just yelled at her "It's fucking Ma'am OK?!!!"

That picture is priceless; I'm posting it on Facebook "caption contest".

Let's see if anyone comments.

"It's Brenda, not Brad, got it???"

Smell this for size

Correct, it is not a "Criminal Proceeding." It is an attempted coup to distract from the upcoming Durham report.