'Obamagate' Is the Newest, Dumbest Trumpian Distraction Bait

You are in above your head. The reason why the Special Prosecutor is called "Special" - is because Special Powers are granted - ones not normally allowed. This allows the Prosecution to engage in actions normally not allowed as per the principles of Justice - allows the Prosecution to "Violate" the normal rules and principles on which our justice system is based.

 

What channel do you watch?

remember the impeachment hearing??


Trump used the aid to Ukraine as a pawn to get Ukraine to announce in CNN that Biden was being investigated,, And that was just the start. Trump corrupted the entire foreign service department to cheat the next election. And you are worried about a silly report somebody wrote that said trump liked it when hookers Pee on him.

Give me a break. Biden and the Democrats are lightweights in the world of corruption compared to trump and company

 

Except he was found innocent of the charges..

 

trump and OJ are both innocent

 

Problem was there was evidence against OJ. With Trump is was 100% Democrat ass hat assumption and conjecture.

 

wow

only a person that is being paid for creating fake news could make such a silly statement

BTW trump was voted guilty on article 1 by 197 politicians

and on article 2 he was found guilty by 198 ...one from his own party

then there never was a trial because the GOP did not want to hear the evidence

kinda sad actually

 

The gop heard the "evidence " over and over and over and over... shitt made sure of that by leaking it to the fake news.

All the evidence was hearsay and assumptions. So the Senate did the right thing by calling thr Houses bluff.

 

must be very sad to live in your world. your support of trump shows your values

17 honest people testified that the fix was in

and you believe 17 honest people all conspired to take down trump ...

a decorated war veteran testified the fix was in and people like you think he is a liar

kinda sad

 

You first said "the SC violates rules of law'.

Now you say "the purpose of SC is to violate normal rules and principles'

Which is it?

And don't give me any crap that they are the same. They are not. I was arguing against the former, not the latter.

If you are going to argue in the arena of things legal, you must be precise. You are sloppy.

You said " Implicit in the creation of a special council is a violation of the Rule of Law...." Now you say "...rules and principles' . They are not the same.

Now then, here's what I know about the SC, the appointment of the Special Counsel ( used to be called a 'special prosecutor or independent counsel' ) is normally done to avoid a conflict of interest.

But, you wrote: 'implicit in appointment SC is a violation of the rule of law' ? Then you wrote "violation of rules and principles on which are justice system is based".

Which is it?

I've never heard that before. Now, I'm no expert, it's quite possible what you said is true, I just don't know.

So, Perhaps you can enlighten me with your legal prowess, and explain where it came from, or did you just make it up?

.

 

You obviously haven't done your homework on 'hearsay'.

This idea that hearsay evidence cannot be used in political hearing just isn't the case, it's done all the time. It's usually done to support corroborating testimony, but Trump would not allow his staff to testify so that the 'hearsay evidence' could be corroborated. The question then becomes, 'why'? That's we can presume the hearsay evidence carries a lot more weight,(especially when there are 17 foreign service professionals who have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by testifying, who are all saying the same thing) because it becomes logical that the reason the president doesn't want his staff to testify is that he doesn't want them to corroborate the hearsay evidence.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "no hearsay' and not allow witnesses who might corroborate it.

But the president would not testify. More reason to believe the foreign service pros.

 

It doesn't allow for the Constitution to be violated - which it hasn't been.

 

Nixon was removed for less.

Obama needs to go to jail.

The FBI is not his political toy to use to spy on another party, nor the IRS to silence other groups.

Obama is corrupt as they come, and it will be proven.

 

None of those 17 people whom you do not know and only assume to be honest had anythind substantive to say. All they had were assumptions.
By the way, one of those honest people, ambassador yanovick has just been recently revealed to have lied in her testimony about her knowledge of Burisma.

Yes i find it very highly likely that at least some of them conspired to take down the president, just like the FBI tried to do.

I am not a Trump supporter, but i am very much opposed to what establishment Democrats have tried to do for the last 4 years. They are truly despicable.

 

Yawn... so what you're saying it he didn't let congressional Democrats and proven liars **** all over him...... again...

Goid Trump.

 

I did not say that the purpose of the SC is to violate normal rules and Principles. The SC has many purposes.
I said that it is implicit in the creation of the SC - that the SC is given the ability to violate the normal rules.

So
1) The SC has the power to violate the normal rules
2) The SC has violated the rules - countless times - during Russiagate

1) - is a fact - it is not my opinion ... get it -- got it -- good.

You - are Projecting - you are the sloppy one .. as illustrated your much needed correction above.

Don't blame your lack of understanding on me - you are projecting again. I did not "Make Up" the idea that the sun will rise Tomorrow - nor did I make up the idea that the Special Prosecutor has "Special Powers"

This is a fact - well known - well understood - not some big secret.

Get it - Got it - Good

 

Nothing better than a major political scandal and criminal action within the highest level of the government to distract attention from the dreamland of Democrats. But not to worry; the MSM will not be fooled or detracted from their purpose.

 

Sure it does - 6 ways to Sunday.. The first amendment (free speech is limited - in ways greater than normal) 4th amendment - Gone - you have no rights to privacy - arbitrary search and seizure rights are reduced - your home is no longer your castle - they can violate you many ways - not normally allowed - as we have witnessed - and you can not do squat.

After the Slick Willy affair - the Dems passed legislation that was supposed to curb these powers - obviously this did not do much good.

 

and in your mind you assume they all are liars...again, it is kinda sad to live in a world believing everybody is a liar

and believing 17 people could conspire to take down trump is even more sad..

the FBI did not try to take down trump..they were just doing their job ...

only the trumpers believe Russia did not interfere in the election...

the FBI investigated election interference and found trump fingerprints all over everything

and don't forget the infamous "Russia if you are listening" rally speech made by trump

and BTW I have been to Russia ...that speech could have been written by Putin himself

and where was Yonanovitch proven to have lied??

you condone trumps behavior but claim not to be a supporter??

only a paid poster could make such a claim

 

And to think.....had Trump not been elected, the weaponization of the FBI, Cia and Department of Justice would have been complete. Like President Washington, I believe the hand of Providence assures the survivability of this Great Nation!

 

Yeah, leftists just don't understand the humor relating to Hillary and her "private" illegal use of her server.

Don't you forget the famous unintended hot mike Obama assertion "tell Vladimir I'll have a lot more flexibility after the election!"

 

Here we go with the leftist accusation. Sorry Charlie. I am Not a leftist. I just know a snake oil salesman when I see one

kinda sad others don’t

 

Not a word of that is a true response to what i actually said.

1. I didn't say they all lied. I said their testimony was based on hearsay and assumptions

2. I didn't say they tried to take down the president, i said it was believable that they would.

3.yes the FBI tried to take down Trump and it's got Hillary's fingerprints all over it.

4. I didn't say Russia didn't try to influence our election.

5. The Mueller investigation did not conclude idea that Trump colludee with Russia.

6. Yavonovick had at least one meeting with the heads of Burisma but testified she knew little about the business.

7. I don't condone Trump's actions
I think the evidence shows that what his supposed actions were, never actually occurred.

8. I believe it's against the policy of this site to accuse people of being paid posters

But have a nice day.

 

Maybe you aren't a leftist ....but you seem to work in unison with them.

 

What is sad is you say these 17 people were all honest, yet none of them could put their personal bias aside. They were handpicked by Schiff who has had a seething hate for Donald Trump since his election. Not a one was selected that had ever shown support for the President. Remember, Benedict Arnold was also a decorated war veteran. Doesn't begin to give anyone Carte Blanc immunity from bias.
And you try to convince others you are not a shill for the left! Sheesh!

Given all that, not a one of your 17 could give evidence and swear to a fact that Trump colluded with Russia!

 

It’s true dems don’t believe evidence and were so out o fm touch with America they blindly followed Obama and Clinton and didn’t realize trump could win.

once he did, they panicked and obamagate has been exposed