That Impeachment Thing....
|
That impeachment thing....
So do you want Joe Biden investigated or not?
Viciouss said: » So do you want Joe Biden investigated or not? It’s irrelevant to me because nothing would happen even if there was wrongdoing discovered. I just think it’s an incredibly stupid reason to impeach a president. Give some examples, Shi. Let’s debate.
[+]
Uh, Clinton actually committed a crime. She was investigated and got off for intent. There was no weaponization.
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Uh, Clinton actually committed a crime. She was investigated and got off for intent. There was no weaponization. It's not 2016 anymore. What about the investigation into the Clinton foundation. In 2017, whistleblowers dropped thousands of pages of evidence on the IRS and FBI. Not an “I talked to a guy who heard another guy say a thing” whistleblower complaint like in the impeachment, but hard documents that raised sufficient concern to be investigated. The investigation is winding down and has received little media attention. Not exactly a weaponization either. Give me another one. Wow, as expected, Rand Paul just tried to out the whistleblower, but the chief justice declined to ask the submitted question. Of course, Paul is pouting about it, but that was pretty amazing.
I suppose that Rand Paul could try to pressure Mitch McConnell to hold a vote on whether or not to force the Chief Justice to read a question that outs the whistleblower, but that's a perilous vote for the GOP with no guarantee of success, and absolutely no positive would come from it.
Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Not an “I talked to a guy who heard another guy say a thing” whistleblower complaint like in the impeachment See, I don't understand why you can't debate in good faith. The whistleblower report has been deemed credible and urgent by the IG. It has also been corroborated by people with first hand knowledge. Even Trump's defense is no longer denying it. Is my characterization wrong? You may not like my tone, but that’s basically how it went down. Also, let’s not get to tangential here. .
Viciouss said: » I suppose that Rand Paul could try to pressure Mitch McConnell to hold a vote on whether or not to force the Chief Justice to read a question that outs the whistleblower, but that's a perilous vote for the GOP with no guarantee of success, and absolutely no positive would come from it. The whistleblower has been outed already so I’m not sure what the big deal is, but whatever. My guess is that Rand Paul is just ticked off that he can’t ask questions that would address the origins of the inquiry without officially outing a whistleblower that has already been identified. Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Is my characterization wrong? Yes it is, it does not matter if the whistleblower report came from second hand knowledge, because it has been verified and found out to be credible by the IG. Um, you’re strawmanning pretty hard here. My characterization doesn’t even play into the argument that I was making other than to point out that the documents used to justify the Clinton Foundation investigation were based on hard documents. This is a pointless tangent. Do you or do you not have a recent example of the GOP weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents?
Bahamut.Ravael said: » The whistleblower has been outed already so I’m not sure what the big deal is, but whatever. My guess is that Rand Paul is just ticked off that he can’t ask questions that would address the origins of the inquiry without officially outing a whistleblower that has already been identified. They don’t if that is the actual whistle blower. Just who the conservative media sphere suspects. It’s a federal crime to out the whistle blower due to federal whistle blower protection laws. We shouldn’t be so far gone that we’re presenting bad faith logic like this ignoring that there is intent to break a federal law and an attempt to get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to break said law by reading the suspected name in a question. The question Rand Paul submitted:
Quote: Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings. So, if Chief Justice Roberts refused to answer that question on the basis that he cannot legally out the whistleblower, does it not stand to reason that the name of the whistleblower was found somewhere in that question? No. That's what they're trying to surmise though. It doesn't matter if the question stated that trump himself was the whistleblower, it still would be against the law to read.
And the senators purposely trying to circumvent that law should be imprisoned.
[+]
Asura.Eiryl said: » No. That's what they're trying to surmise though. It doesn't matter if the question stated that trump himself was the whistleblower, it still would be against the law to read. And the senators purposely trying to circumvent that law should be imprisoned. Um, the word “whistleblower” was not found anywhere in that question. You’re actually doing more to out the whistleblower by NOT addressing the question because you’re basically admitting who it is just by your unwillingness to even say the name out loud. “Is Eric Ciaramella the whistleblower?” “I cannot out the whistleblower.” This response does not out the whistleblower “Was Eric Ciaramella on the plot to impeach the President?” “I cannot out the whistleblower.” This response outs the whistleblower completely. Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Is my characterization wrong? Yes it is, it does not matter if the whistleblower report came from second hand knowledge, because it has been verified and found out to be credible by the IG. Um, you’re strawmanning pretty hard here. My characterization doesn’t even play into the argument that I was making other than to point out that the documents used to justify the Clinton Foundation investigation were based on hard documents. This is a pointless tangent. This is exactly where you are contradicting yourself, the whistleblower report isn't invalid because you don't like it. Your view: Clinton Foundation > Whistleblower > Not Weaponization Trump/Ukraine > Whistleblow > Weaponization It's the same god damn thing and yes both are using it as a weapon. You can be sure if they would have found anything close to wrong with the Clinton foundation, it would have been flaunted by Trump all over the place. ? Okay, clearly you don’t understand what it means to weaponize law enforcement. Bragging about the outcome of an investigation does not qualify. Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Not an “I talked to a guy who heard another guy say a thing” whistleblower complaint like in the impeachment See, I don't understand why you can't debate in good faith. The whistleblower report has been deemed credible and urgent by the IG. It has also been corroborated by people with first hand knowledge. Even Trump's defense is no longer denying it. According to who you someone random Canadian ? Bahamut.Ravael said: » Asura.Eiryl said: » No. That's what they're trying to surmise though. It doesn't matter if the question stated that trump himself was the whistleblower, it still would be against the law to read. And the senators purposely trying to circumvent that law should be imprisoned. Um, the word “whistleblower” was not found anywhere in that question. You’re actually doing more to out the whistleblower by NOT addressing the question because you’re basically admitting who it is just by your unwillingness to even say the name out loud. “Is Eric Ciaramella the whistleblower?” “I cannot out the whistleblower.” This response does not out the whistleblower “Was Eric Ciaramella on the plot to impeach the President?” “I cannot out the whistleblower.” This response outs the whistleblower completely. Or simply as Republican and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court you're aware of what name is being floated around and you arent even playing that dumb ***because you understand federal laws. YouTube Video Placeholder Chief Justice Roberts to Rand Paul Shiva.Zerowone said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Asura.Eiryl said: » No. That's what they're trying to surmise though. It doesn't matter if the question stated that trump himself was the whistleblower, it still would be against the law to read. And the senators purposely trying to circumvent that law should be imprisoned. Um, the word “whistleblower” was not found anywhere in that question. You’re actually doing more to out the whistleblower by NOT addressing the question because you’re basically admitting who it is just by your unwillingness to even say the name out loud. “Is Eric Ciaramella the whistleblower?” “I cannot out the whistleblower.” This response does not out the whistleblower “Was Eric Ciaramella on the plot to impeach the President?” “I cannot out the whistleblower.” This response outs the whistleblower completely. Or simply as Republican and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court you're aware of what name is being floated around and you arent even playing that dumb ***because you understand federal laws. Yeah, sure, that’s it. Better make sure to not allow questions that involve someone who isn’t the real whistleblower just because people think he’s the whistleblower even though the actual question doesn’t even use the word “whistleblower”. That makes perfect sense. Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable
Republican theory for Trump acquittal could unleash unrestrained presidential power Both CNN This is being called the Louis XIV defense.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Shiva.Zerowone said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Asura.Eiryl said: » No. That's what they're trying to surmise though. It doesn't matter if the question stated that trump himself was the whistleblower, it still would be against the law to read. And the senators purposely trying to circumvent that law should be imprisoned. Um, the word “whistleblower” was not found anywhere in that question. You’re actually doing more to out the whistleblower by NOT addressing the question because you’re basically admitting who it is just by your unwillingness to even say the name out loud. “Is Eric Ciaramella the whistleblower?” “I cannot out the whistleblower.” This response does not out the whistleblower “Was Eric Ciaramella on the plot to impeach the President?” “I cannot out the whistleblower.” This response outs the whistleblower completely. Or simply as Republican and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court you're aware of what name is being floated around and you arent even playing that dumb ***because you understand federal laws. Yeah, sure, that’s it. Better make sure to not allow questions that involve someone who isn’t the real whistleblower just because people think he’s the whistleblower even though the actual question doesn’t even use the word “whistleblower”. That makes perfect sense. Good thing you're not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Okay, clearly you don’t understand what it means to weaponize law enforcement. Bragging about the outcome of an investigation does not qualify. It's using something that is meant to be impartial as a weapon to hurt your opponents. That’s not a good characterization, though. There is practically no politician on the planet who wouldn’t point out their opponent’s criminal record. There’s isn’t much wrong with that. Weaponization of law enforcement is rooted in influencing it so that it is not impartial in the first place.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.