And you just have to give it to him for being a delusional old fart when you listen to what he says.
"No one’s taken as much heat and as many lies thrown at them as I have," Biden said during a campaign stop in Ottumwa on Dec. 20,
Yeah, Joe. No one has taken as much heat! What a hoot. Hope you enjoy your time in prison when Durham gets around to taking you to court with your corrupt son and John Kerry's son, and Pelosi's son and some others. You haven't seen the worst of it yet. But, Karma will catch up to you and the rest of the corrupt people from the Obama administration.
Originally posted by MadMark: And adding to the hypocrisy is Joe Biden. He now says that he would not comply with a subpoena if the Senate did subpoena him.
"No show Joe" now says he will obey any lawful order.
"No show Joe" now says he will obey any lawful order.
What does it take to obey to a subpoena ?
Court.
Gropin' Joe loves to spew a lot of bravado.....right up until his political handlers remind him that he's supposedly running for president and that defying a Congressional subpoena while doing so is a VERY bad choice.
I wonder if the Senate must pretend the articles do not exist (since they have not been formally presented), or if they could just go ahead and draft a resolution refuting or condemning them.
^ seems to be a useful symbol as of late
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
(NO, it's not that Nixon)
In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the SCOTUS basically found that the United States Senate can pretty much do whatever they want with regard to an impeachment trial.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-28-2019).]
Lyin' Liz Warren could pull U.S. military aid from Israel if it does not stop building settlements in the West Bank.
The Democratic 2020 primary candidate, who has taken a lead in recent polls, told The Hill "everything is on the table" should she become the next president and Israel continues building settlements in the West Bank.
If either of them became POTUS, they could work within their proper Article One boundaries to have U.S. aid to Israel curtailed, or made conditional upon Quids (or Quo's) for the Israel government to undertake, with respect to the West Bank (etc.)
But if Congress were to approve an aid package for Israel as a budget item, in a bill that does not make it conditional upon any "strings" that Israel has to do This or That, as a condition for getting the package, and then President Warren (Sanders... whoever) were to attempt to leverage their Article One authorities beyond their proper limits, as a way to block the aid package... then it seems to me that would be another "Ukraine-gate" kind of situation. Even more so, if testimony were to emerge to make it clear that the objective (or among the objectives) of President Warren (etc.) were a transparent and highly partisan or political kind of a favor from Israel, designed to be used in a very direct way during their Presidential reelection campaign.
There is a relatively recent federal legislation that was passed (Nixon era, I think) that is being quoted in this context, about the President having to respect what Congress approves in terms of budgetary outlays.
(Have to boil this down quite a ways to turn it into another highway road sign.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-30-2019).]
But if Congress were to approve an aid package for Israel as a budget item, in a bill that does not make it conditional upon any "strings" that Israel has to do This or That, as a condition for getting the package, and then President Warren (Sanders... whoever) were to attempt to leverage their Article One authorities beyond their proper limits, as a way to block the aid package... then it seems to me that would be another "Ukraine-gate" kind of situation.
Your raging, untreated, MENTAL ILLNESS is still a real liability for you Ronald.
It's likely a very big part of what causes your illusion that you're smarter than you actually are.
GET HELP
(All you had to do was simply READ THE DAMN ARTICLE you psychotic moron)
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-31-2019).]
The House of Representatives voted 378 to 34 yesterday to approve the bill, which has now been sent to the White House for US President Barack Obama to sign it into a law.
I did some checking, for rinselberg [/sarcasm], on which party had control of the House in the US Congress. Republicans sent it to Nobama's desk for signing.
Now, Democrats are impeaching the Republican President because he did not do what Republicans wanted.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: Uh, wouldn't the House have to pass a budget for that to work?
Well olejoedad, ... wait ... is your last name Biden, ? According to my link ... :
quote
WASHINGTON―The U.S. House on Thursday passed legislation to make sure Ukraine can spend $250 million in military aid after White House delayed it this summer.
The language was among provisions tacked to a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown through Nov. 21 to buy more time for Congress’s spending negotiations. The Senate is expected to take up and pass the stopgap spending bill as-is next week.
************************************************
The Nutsy Nancy delay ? Pundits say it is for Schroomer to get time to build up public support for the Dumbs to keep making the rules. Umm, good luck with that. The Dumbs have not swayed one member of their President's core of support.
Nutsy Nancy had used the excuse that she needs to know what kind of a trial there would be before she picks her managers. Why doesn't she just send her top attack dogs, Shifty and Naddster ? Oh wait, that didn't work out too well, .
Originally posted by cliffw: Now, Democrats are impeaching the Republican President because he did not do what Republicans wanted(?)
No. But better to let the Articles of Impeachment "speak" for themselves. I don't think it would be hard to find the text of it online and review it.
Think of Obama vs Trump in an "NFL" framework... as "wideouts" or Wide Receivers.
Obama runs an "Out" pattern that takes him downfield and then towards one of the sidelines.
quote
The ruling on the field is 'Complete.' But here comes the challenge flag from the Republicans. Did Obama come down with that second foot in bounds? That was close. I don't think there's going to be enough video evidence to have it overruled.
Trump, running the same kind of pattern.
quote
WTF? He was almost in the field level seating section at midfield when he caught that ball. He ran completely out of bounds, and then pushed his way through the Democrats that were watching from their sideline area. And now he's screaming at the officials, that he was inbounds when he caught that ball? I've never seen anything like it, Joe.
Well, I just wanted to add that it was the same offensive play call in both of my scenarios. "Ukraine 23." That's what it was called a few years ago, although now they're calling it the "Kiev Special."
Originally posted by rinselberg: No. But better to let the Articles of Impeachment "speak" for themselves. I don't think it would be hard to find the text of it online and review it.
I keep looking. Perhaps you can provide some help. All I find is Dumbocratic Articles of Impeachment.
Abuse Of Power and Obstruction Of Congress.
Abuse Of Power. Nobama said 14 times that he could not Constitutionally defer US Immigration law in the illegals favor. One time even saying "I am not a King". Yet he did in Deferred Action for Child Arrivals. Including their parents.
Obstruction Of Congress. What the hell is that ? Your President gave Mueller EVERYTHING he wanted, even though he could have claimed Executive Privilege on much/some. It wasn't even Congress, it was the House. Now Nutsy Nancy has to hope the Senate will go to court to settle the Executive Power matter.
Originally posted by rinselberg: Well, I just wanted to add that it was the same offensive play call in both of my scenarios.
True that, I guess. What you are missing I guess is the concept of football.
There is an offensive team, and a defensive team. Actually, two teams which rotate that need. You did know there was another team, yes ? A team of referees. I will call them the Supreme Court. The third coequal branch of government, umm, sports.
There are also other teams. The lobbyists, umm, cheerleaders, .
My response to that (from cliffw) is to provide some juxtaposition... a ONE and a TWO.
ONE Obama runs an "Out" pattern that takes him downfield and then towards one of the sidelines.
quote
The ruling on the field is 'Complete.' But here comes the challenge flag from the Republicans. Did Obama come down with that second foot in bounds? That was close. I don't think there's going to be enough video evidence to have it overruled.
That's the Obama Executive Orders About Immigration thing.
TWO Trump, running the same kind of pattern.
quote
WTF? He was almost in the field level seating section at midfield when he caught that ball. He ran completely out of bounds, and then pushed his way through the Democrats that were watching from their sideline area. And now he's screaming at the officials, that he was inbounds when he caught that ball? I've never seen anything like it, Joe.
Ukraine-gate.
If I wanted someone to help me sidestep some kind of rule or regulation--someone to help me "get away" with something--someone to help me with a conspiracy--Donald J. Trump would be the last person I would look to, after all the other umpteen billion people on the planet.
Ukraine-gate... it's like he wanted to be impeached.
"Not just a crime, but a BLUNDER..."
It's the dumbness of it that "gets" me.
So he will, in all likelihood, not be removed from office by whatever's going to play out in the Senate? So he could very well be reelected and have a second term?
Well, OK. Then what's all the fuss about here? Why is this Topic even happening?
I so need to move on.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-31-2019).]
If and that's an if Trump is guilty then by all means put him before a judge. But you can't pick and choose who gets prosecuted and who gets away with murder a crime.
Originally posted by rinselberg: My response to that (from cliffw) is to provide some juxtaposition... a ONE and a TWO.
ONE Obama runs an "Out" pattern that takes him downfield and then towards one of the sidelines. [QUOTE]The ruling on the field is 'Complete.' But here comes the challenge flag from the Republicans. Did Obama come down with that second foot in bounds? That was close. I don't think there's going to be enough video evidence to have it overruled.
That's the Obama Executive Orders About Immigration thing.
TWO Trump, running the same kind of pattern.
quote
[SIZE=2]WTF? He was almost in the field level seating section at midfield when he caught that ball. He ran completely out of bounds, and then pushed his way through the Democrats that were watching from their sideline area. And now he's screaming at the officials, that he was inbounds when he caught that ball? I've never seen anything like it, Joe. Ukraine-gate... it's like he wanted to be impeached.
"Not just a crime, but a BLUNDER..." It's the dumbness of it that "gets" me.
So he will, in all likelihood, not be removed from office by whatever's going to play out in the Senate? So he could very well be reelected and have a second term?
Well, OK. Then what's all the fuss about here? Why is this Topic even happening?
I so need to move on.
Why is the Shampeachment even happening ? He will not be removed from office. Not just a crime, but a blunder ? What is the crime ? The Dumbs floated Quid Pro Quo, then extortion, then after poll tests, bribery,
In you first scenario, Nobama himself said he could not do it. In your second scenario, your President is not yelling at the officials. That is SCOTUS.
If you go, take Nancy Botox and Schroomers with you.
OK, the holiday break is over, we now return you to scheduled "Drama" programing. IOWs, Congress is back. Pelosi V McConnell
Like sands through the hour glass, so goes the Days of Our Lives.
Rams
Funny part is the dems, waiting and waiting, they want to use this dog and pony show to sway the 2020 outcome. doing exactly what they have Claim/hounded trump for doing for the last 4 years. They'll use fake b/s Russia/ Ukraine kangaroo court as election ad's, and have the liberal media select sound bites to get the narrative they want, to feed the sheeple.
The dem's play book, if we tell our base what "we" "claim" others have done, it is what we have been doing and will be doing.
Sadly when the time comes the sheeple will vote the same dolts back in. Even after they have showed their asses.
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 01-03-2020).]
Was my wife's for a long time. I think she still has some recordings hidden around here somewhere...…. More than once I told her that if she missed six months of it and then started watching it again, she could immediately pick up on the story line because, it rarely changed....
Nearly a dozen Senate Republicans have put forth a resolution that, if passed, would seek to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump immediately.
"The Constitution gives the Senate sole power to adjudicate articles of impeachment, not the House," said Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who introduced the resolution, in a statement Monday. "If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi is afraid to try her case, the articles should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and Congress should get back to doing the people’s business."
The resolution would change Senate rules to allow the upper chamber to vote on articles of impeachment if the House fails to send the articles over within 25 days. Pelosi has so far refused to send the articles because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not commit to having witnesses at the trial.
"Since the start of the impeachment process, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made a mockery of our Constitution and abused impeachment for political gain," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is co-sponsoring the resolution, said. "The Senate has the sole authority to try impeachment. It is the Senate’s duty to take up these articles without delay, and to resolve them in a timely and constitutionally appropriate manner."
Nearly a dozen Senate Republicans have put forth a resolution that, if passed, would seek to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump immediately.
"The Constitution gives the Senate sole power to adjudicate articles of impeachment, not the House," said Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who introduced the resolution, in a statement Monday. "If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi is afraid to try her case, the articles should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and Congress should get back to doing the people’s business."
The resolution would change Senate rules to allow the upper chamber to vote on articles of impeachment if the House fails to send the articles over within 25 days. Pelosi has so far refused to send the articles because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not commit to having witnesses at the trial.
"Since the start of the impeachment process, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made a mockery of our Constitution and abused impeachment for political gain," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is co-sponsoring the resolution, said. "The Senate has the sole authority to try impeachment. It is the Senate’s duty to take up these articles without delay, and to resolve them in a timely and constitutionally appropriate manner."
Rams
Very fascinating, I think it is also VERY hilarious, but intriguingly sad that our American politics have stooped to such an embarrassing low. It is like a political comic skit. One party says they have all the power and bucks the system, then the other party steps out of the ring to use unconventional tactics to get the crowd engaged. Sad but true.
Very fascinating, I think it is also VERY hilarious, but intriguingly sad that our American politics have stooped to such an embarrassing low. It is like a political comic skit. One party says they have all the power and bucks the system, then the other party steps out of the ring to use unconventional tactics to get the crowd engaged. Sad but true.
Interesting perspective.
This may not be the best response or answer but, I have believed for a significant time now that we should have term limits and not allow career politicians. That won't solve all of our issues but, there are some politicians that should have been gone long ago.
This may not be the best response or answer but, I have believed for a significant time now that we should have term limits and not allow career politicians. That won't solve all of our issues but, there are some politicians that should have been gone long ago.
Rams
I am neutral on the term limits issue. I just hate the thought of ousting a good person just because they have been there to long. It is almost like gun control laws. People do not like how things play out, so they result to limitations on the participants. I don't want to let the brain dead idiots ruin it for the rest of us. I just don't see how term limits can help? If one politician can keep hold of the strings, the puppet will do the work. Where is the cure to the "deep state"? I say let the voters do what's right. IF, we don't trust the election system then we should just be communist?
I am neutral on the term limits issue. I just hate the thought of ousting a good person just because they have been there to long. It is almost like gun control laws. People do not like how things play out, so they result to limitations on the participants. I don't want to let the brain dead idiots ruin it for the rest of us. I just don't see how term limits can help? If one politician can keep hold of the strings, the puppet will do the work. Where is the cure to the "deep state"? I say let the voters do what's right. IF, we don't trust the election system then we should just be communist?
I guess I don't see career politicians as good people. You do make some good points though.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-08-2020).]
... is your last name Biden, 
?
.
