Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 9 - The Shi'ites Hit The Fan (Cont. in Part 10, see OP)

[FireKrakouer]

If its gibberish then why do we have lawyers and court proceedings when it would be quicker and cheaper to just do the exact wording of the law.

Clearly the US should do away with every court, judge, and lawyer. The law is black and white, every case need simply be presented to SJ to make a call on based on info available in the public domain. Simple!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Huh the only knots I see are from you trying to justify your undergraduate understanding of law and how people behave in the real world.

I've done no such thing. I've referenced the specific law that Trump is accused of breaking and demonstrated how he has broken it.

And your response is "nah it's not about that". It's laughable.

I have constantly written there needs a full investigation, the fact you don't understand that or that you didn't know about Biden's son tells me you are narrowly focused.

The Democrats have opened an impeachment inquiry. That's the investigation.

What do you claim I didn't know about Biden's son?

You are correct in one aspect: I am focused on Trump's conduct and whether it was illegal. What are you focused on? Some other less relevant stuff? In other words, misdirection.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Clearly the US should do away with every court, judge, and lawyer. The law is black and white, every case need simply be presented to SJ to make a call on based on info available in the public domain. Simple!

The Etch-a-Sketch is off and running.

Let's see what argument you've prepared in the last 30 seconds.

If your case was presented to me, you'd be convicted of abject witlessness very quickly.

 

[Mick F]

For someone who likes telling us how educated you are, you have a narrow understanding of law and legal processes.

You don't seem to understand the reason why we have court proceedings and lawyers when in your view it is has simple as following the letter of the law.

Some lawyers like to follow the letter of the law while others prefer to focus on the intent of the law or those that made that law.

As I've repeatable said this needs a full investigation.

So the Whistleblower is CIA?

Guessing what the legislators’ intent was??!
The courts have repeatedly held that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no inquiry into legislative intent. You look at the plain meaning of the text contained within the legislation. If uncertain you refer to case law and judges’ rulings and reasons.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Guessing what the legislators’ intent was??!
The courts have repeatedly held that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no inquiry into legislative intent. You look at the plain meaning of the text contained within the legislation. If uncertain you refer to case law and judges’ rulings and reasons.

But human behaviour!

 

[Bombermania]

Guessing what the legislators’ intent was??!
The courts have repeatedly held that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no inquiry into legislative intent. You look at the plain meaning of the text contained within the legislation. If uncertain you refer to case law and judges’ rulings and reasons.

That is how i use to understand it but i once heard a uni law lecturer say that in some cases the legislative intent will be looked at.

 

[Bombermania]

But human behaviour!

This comment shows you don't seem to understand my point.

Every U.S President will do something similar to what Trump did in that transcript.

Biden offered investment in exchange for a crack down on corruption.

In your world view every President will face impeachment.

 

[Bombermania]

I've done no such thing. I've referenced the specific law that Trump is accused of breaking and demonstrated how he has broken it.

And your response is "nah it's not about that". It's laughable.

The Democrats have opened an impeachment inquiry. That's the investigation.

What do you claim I didn't know about Biden's son?

You are correct in one aspect: I am focused on Trump's conduct and whether it was illegal. What are you focused on? Some other less relevant stuff? In other words, misdirection.

I didn't say Trump is innocent but I've pointed out as others have that the transcript on its own isn't a smoking gun.

A few pages ago you didn't seem to know about Biden's son.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This comment shows you don't seem to understand my point.

You don't have a point. You are simply attempting to shuffle sideways from the facts that matter.

Every U.S President will do something similar to what Trump did in that transcript.

Prove it. Give me an example.

I didn't say Trump is innocent but I've pointed out as others have that the transcript on its own isn't a smoking gun.

If we accept the veracity of the "transcript", it shows Trump doing something illegal.

A few pages ago you didn't seem to know about Biden's son.

Know what exactly? Please show me what you're talking about.

Bearing in mind, I have posted several times Trump's own remarks referring to "Biden's son", as per the transcript.

 

[Bombermania]

I've done no such thing. I've referenced the specific law that Trump is accused of breaking and demonstrated how he has broken it.

And your response is "nah it's not about that". It's laughable.

The Democrats have opened an impeachment inquiry. That's the investigation.

What do you claim I didn't know about Biden's son?

You are correct in one aspect: I am focused on Trump's conduct and whether it was illegal. What are you focused on? Some other less relevant stuff? In other words, misdirection.

I didn't say Trump was innocent, but as others have said the transcript on its own probably wasn't the smoking gun the Democrats were expecting.

A few pages ago you didn't seem to know that Biden's son was on the board of a Ukrainian company that was later investigated for alleged corruption from a time after Biden's son had left the board.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I didn't say Trump was innocent, but as others have said the transcript on its own probably wasn't the smoking gun the Democrats were expecting.

You keep saying this. But the transcript shows him doing something illegal.

Which part of that is inaccurate?

A few pages ago you didn't seem to know that Biden's son was on the board of a Ukrainian company that was later investigated for alleged corruption from a time after Biden's son had left the board.

Please point me to the post in question.

Of course I knew Biden's son was on the board of this company that was investigated. It's a basic element of the story.

 

[Bombermania]

You don't have a point. You are simply attempting to shuffle sideways from the facts that matter.

Prove it. Give me an example.

If we accept the veracity of the "transcript", it shows Trump doing something illegal.

Know what exactly? Please show me what you're talking about.

Bearing in mind, I have posted several times Trump's own remarks referring to "Biden's son", as per the transcript.

Go and tell that to the Washington Post which raised the same points i have.

As i asked you the other day what do you think Trump or other Presidents discuss when they ring an Australian PM, it sure isn't for a GF tip.

Yeah you did raise Biden's son but only after it was raised by others to your surprise.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Go and tell that to the Washington Post which raised the same points i have.

This is not an argument.

The transcript shows Trump doing something illegal.

What is your argument against that statement? Is it simply "nah it's about something else"?

As i asked you the other day what do you think Trump or other Presidents discuss when they ring an Australian PM, it sure isn't for a GF tip.

What are you talking about?

Yeah you did raise Biden's son but only after it was raised by others to your surprise.

What are you talking about? What "surprise"?

You are becoming increasingly untethered from reality.

 

[ChappyUK]

[QUO

So if the WH did indeed take action to "lockdown" the record of Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president, what is going to be the self-serving Trumpet explanation for that?

It surely undermines the previous claim that whatever Trump said was utterly benign. Such action would in fact suggest the WH aides knew it was bad at the time and acted to conceal it.

But then they just decided to release it when they didn't have to.

I would think that after calls with Turnbull and the like were leaked that they would more a lot of calls to a more secure server to prevent this happening again.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

But then they just decided to release it when they didn't have to.

I do not know the precise decision-making process of the WH. Nor do you.

However, they may well have concluded they needed to release something, to at least appear to be addressing and neutralising a damaging story. So they dusted off the Mueller playbook and released a "transcript" they thought was benign enough to reframe the narrative as "nothing to see here". That worked a treat when they released a confected "summary" of the Mueller report. This time, it backfired.

Fundamentally, this is not about why the WH released the transcript. It is about what the transcript reveals. Your argument is "why would they release it?" You can ask that question until the cows come home. But it does not address the fact it shows Trump breaking the law. You still have no direct, coherent response to that central point.

I would think that after calls with Turnbull and the like were leaked that they would more a lot of calls to a more secure server to prevent this happening again.

Because Trump routinely breaks the law during these calls?

 

[ChappyUK]

I do not know the precise decision-making process of the WH. Nor do you.

However, they may well have concluded they needed to release something, to at least appear to be addressing and neutralising a damaging story. So they dusted off the Mueller playbook and released a "transcript" they thought was benign enough to reframe the narrative as "nothing to see here". That worked a treat when they released a confected "summary" of the Mueller report. This time, it backfired.

Fundamentally, this is not about why the WH released the transcript. It is about what the transcript reveals. Your argument is "why would they release it?" You can ask that question until the cows come home. But it does not address the fact it shows Trump breaking the law. You still have no direct, coherent response to that central point.

Because Trump routinely breaks the law during these calls?

Did he break the law in the Turnbull call?

 

[GuruJane]

Let's say for argument's sake certain doors opened more readily for Hunter Biden due to his father's connections.

If we're issuing indictments for garden variety nepotism, we're going to be here a while.

Meanwhile, Trump considered Ivanka for positions at the UN and World Bank. Because she's "good with numbers".

whataboutism notwithstanding, the story of Hunter the young recovering drug addict and his ascension to riches and redemption following the father's promotion to heartbeat- from- presidency status is far too juicy for the media not to explore. To the very end.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Did he break the law in the Turnbull call?

Huh? What are you on about?

With every one of your posts, it becomes increasingly clear you have no direct rebuttal to the issue at hand.

The "transcript" shows Trump breaking the law. Which part of that is inaccurate? You don't have an argument.

 

[ChappyUK]

Huh? What are you on about?

With every one of your posts, it becomes increasingly clear you have no direct rebuttal to the issue at hand.

The "transcript" shows Trump breaking the law. Which part of that is inaccurate? You don't have an argument.

I see it's now the 'transcript'. Why the need to discredit it's validity of it does exactly what you say it does?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I see it's now the 'transcript'. Why the need to discredit it's validity of it does exactly what you say it does?

Because it's being referred to as a transcript but is not a complete, exact record of the call.

Nonetheless, this document, which was compiled and released by the administration, shows Trump breaking the law. Which part of that is inaccurate? You don't have an argument, do you?

 

[Les Malone]

standard hypocritical behaviour by the left, blame everyone else for what they are actually doing or have done, exactly like the Russian collusion crap

 

[Sweet Jesus]

standard hypocritical behaviour by the left, blame everyone else for what they are actually doing or have done, exactly like the Russian collusion crap

What's your point?

Trump is accused of breaking the law by soliciting foreign aid from the Ukrainian government, asking them to investigate a political rival.

How does any of what you've posted argue against that?

Do you think Biden's involvement in the removal of Viktor Shokin is some big secret?

 

[NSWCROW]

panahi bwwaaaaaaaaa

 

[Les Malone]

Ukraine transcript is like a lousy sequel to Russia ‘collusion’ controversy

Well, the transcript is out, and it’s already clear that Biden-Ukraine is the even-lousier sequel to the already-lousy Russian “collusion” flick. As a narrative of supposed Trumpian corruption, th…

nypost.com

They just can't help themselves, i love watching the left explode in uncontrolled rage, it would make for a change to attempt beat their opposition on some actual policy.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

They just can't help themselves, i love watching the left explode in uncontrolled rage, it would make for a change to attempt beat their opposition on some actual policy.

Which is your favourite of Trump's policies?

Do you like the way he kowtows to Israel and the Saudis?