Was Hunter Biden qualified to serve on the Board of a Ukraine gas Company?

And what the hell does Lolling mean Mr. Hummer? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

That's his way of begging for another lollipop to suck on while waiting for his next glory hole customer.

That's his way of begging for another lollipop to suck on while waiting for his next glory hole customer. Originally Posted by lustylad

You're wit deserves an award.

Hun, Mr. Hummer is actually YssupRider. A poor soul who keeps getting banned because he's an idiot. He thinks he is a political savant but in actuality is one of the biggest dumbshits on this site. His only purpose in life is to to get the most post counts in order to be the " top poster" here on ECCIE. Unfortunatley, this has lead him down the path of posting bullsheeeeeeet all day long so he can fulfill his dream.
I do feel sorry for this lost soul who keeps coming back with fake handles.
Opps, disregard that feeling sorry part - it's a lie.

I was but I can't help but wonder who you think I might have meant.


And what the hell does Lolling mean Mr. Hummer? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

You're wit deserves an award. Originally Posted by WTF

Your grammar sucks, even without a lollipop.

First, I admire your writing.

Second, ignore a dumbass poster at your misfortune. Even a blind squirrel can smell out a nut, and a broken clock is write twice a day.

Point is - you might find their lunacy to lead to pertinent data.

Your last question wasn't asked of me directly but I'd like to answer and also respond to CT who also didn't address me directly but seemed to lump me in with anybody offering a counter argument to what he believes as "people afraid to answer questions". That sure as hell isn't me, I thrive on answering questions. I consider it an intellectual challenge, a mind game challenge to see who can offer the best debate. All this calling people names, challenging others "manhood", I have absolutely zero interest in. On the other board I was on for 15 years, we could choose to ignore certain posters and never see what they write. I had an ignore list as long as your arm. I didn't want to see comments from anybody not worthy of a spirited civil debate. If I had the ignore button on here CT would certainly be on it. I have no use for comments like he just made not addressing the subject but commenting on people and personalities.


Having gotten that off my chest. Yes, I think the IG of the Intelligence community had a duty to "investigate" the whistle blower complaint. He also had a duty to tell us he thought

If it can be argued there is no bias . . .

the whistle blower just might

would it lend more credibility to the complaint?

have a bias in his complaint which he did which then leads me to believe that the whistle blower needs to be further investigated and absolutely needed to be questioned under oath in closed hearings at first but if this goes to trial in the Senate, he will have to testify in open hearings where Trumps attorney can challenge him under 6th amendment rules that say the accused may confront his accuser in open court.

Is this a court of law? Or the court of "public opinion"? The legislature and judiciary are separate.


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...till-credible/


Intel IG Found Whistleblower Has ‘Arguable Political Bias’ against Trump, But Complaint Is Still ‘Credible’




But guess what, the complaint was investigated by the legal council of the DOJ

The DOJ legal council is under the control of Bill Barr . . .

and they dismissed it. Of course the left will respond with "OH, we can't trust Bill Barr". Well, it wasn't Bill Barr that made that decision it was the Office of Legal Council

who is under the control of the POTUS.

that made that decision.


https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/o...lease-congress

The OLC argues that the conduct described in the complaint does not involve an “urgent concern” as the intelligence community inspector general described it. The OLC said it made that determination because it “does not relate to ‘the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity’ under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.”

“As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees,” the opinion reads.

The OLC argues that the conduct described in the complaint does not involve an “urgent concern” as the intelligence community inspector general described it. The OLC said it made that determination because it “does not relate to ‘the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity’ under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.”
“As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees,” the opinion reads.







I don't have a problem with having an investigation but I have a big problem with the way it was done. This investigation belonged in the Judiciary

I agree with you here. But do you mean the Judiciary Committee or Judiciary Branch?

As soon as the DNI agreed it was a simple quid pro quo/bribe/extortion, it should have gone to Nadler. The Democrats wasted all that time, just getting closer to the election, for a simple strong arm twist.

How does it serve the interest of national sexurity for the POTUS to get opposition research for personal gain?

awwww those poor pussies at the NSC. they think they make foreign policy. well they don't. this is happening because the person who does make foreign policy .. the President is unconcerned with the NSC's "opinions". Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

and yes I know that Pelosi can do this any way she wants but the precedent was not followed and you know how Democrats love their precedents like Roe v Wade. This should have started in the Judiciary with the Presidents attorney there and Republicans ( the minority ) being able to call their own witnesses. That would have been a fair process, the Schitt show was not. Again, no way in hell should the whistle blower have been exempt from cross examination.

Do you need to question the person who pulled the fire alarm when the building is burning? Maybe. Maybe they started the fire. In this case, the one who blew the whistle didn't tell the POTUS to hold the money unless he received his "dirt" on the Bidens.

Imagine the precedent that sets that a person can make a complaint knowing that he can't be challenged under oath and penalty of law.



To be impeached does not require that a law be broken.



But it should

It's about public trust. Do you trust this POTUS with the football?

I sure, as hell, don't! WHY? Waco said it better than I could.

awwww those poor pussies at the NSC. they think they make foreign policy. well they don't. this is happening because the person who does make foreign policy .. the President is unconcerned with the NSC's "opinions". Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

and if one of the articles of impeachment says that Trump broke the law of bribery, then that has to be debated as to whether it meest the criteria for considering it illegal which will be done in the Senate.

The Senate doesn't determine what's legal. It will only determine what is ethical, proper and trustworthy. If you, and the Senate beleive what he did, and you know who he is, is unethical, improper and untrustworthy, then the country will be in a better place for having removed him. I say, execute him. THIS, OF COURSE, IS JUST AN OPINION OF MINE.

Why wait for the Senate to debate the legal merits of the case?

It isn't a legal matter.

That should be done from the get go and perhaps avoid a trial in the Senate if a compelling legal argument can't be made in the House. This of course is just an opinion of mind.


I notice you didn't comment on my argument that Hilary violated federal election law

She got away with it.

and no comment on the article showing that Bernie Sanders was fined for hiring foreign nationals to work on his campaign. No opinion?

Hiring illegal citizens is not uncommon. He was fine. Ends the story. The American story.

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I was but I can't help but wonder who you think I might have meant.


And what the hell does Lolling mean Mr. Hummer? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Lolling is lol'ing. But I bet you knew that. And I thought you meant lustylady was the new guy. Thanking WTF.



P.S. If the Steelers lose to the winless Bengals, I'm blaming you, personally, lusty.

P.S. If the Steelers lose to the winless Bengals, I'm blaming you, personally, lusty. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Steelers won, thanks to Hodges. Go suck on hummer's lollipop.

Steelers won, thanks to Hodges. Go suck on hummer's lollipop. Originally Posted by lustylad

Your last question wasn't asked of me directly but I'd like to answer and also respond to CT who also didn't address me directly but seemed to lump me in with anybody offering a counter argument to what he believes as "people afraid to answer questions". That sure as hell isn't me, I thrive on answering questions. I consider it an intellectual challenge, a mind game challenge to see who can offer the best debate. All this calling people names, challenging others "manhood", I have absolutely zero interest in. On the other board I was on for 15 years, we could choose to ignore certain posters and never see what they write. I had an ignore list as long as your arm. I didn't want to see comments from anybody not worthy of a spirited civil debate. If I had the ignore button on here CT would certainly be on it. I have no use for comments like he just made not addressing the subject but commenting on people and personalities.


Having gotten that off my chest. Yes, I think the IG of the Intelligence community had a duty to "investigate" the whistle blower complaint. He also had a duty to tell us he thought the whistle blower just might have a bias in his complaint which he did which then leads me to believe that the whistle blower needs to be further investigated and absolutely needed to be questioned under oath in closed hearings at first but if this goes to trial in the Senate, he will have to testify in open hearings where Trumps attorney can challenge him under 6th amendment rules that say the accused may confront his accuser in open court.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...till-credible/

Intel IG Found Whistleblower Has ‘Arguable Political Bias’ against Trump, But Complaint Is Still ‘Credible’




But guess what, the complaint was investigated by the legal council of the DOJ and they dismissed it. Of course the left will respond with "OH, we can't trust Bill Barr". Well, it wasn't Bill Barr that made that decision it was the Office of Legal Council that made that decision.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/o...lease-congress

The OLC argues that the conduct described in the complaint does not involve an “urgent concern” as the intelligence community inspector general described it. The OLC said it made that determination because it “does not relate to ‘the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity’ under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.”
“As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees,” the opinion reads.

I don't have a problem with having an investigation but I have a big problem with the way it was done. This investigation belonged in the Judiciary and yes I know that Pelosi can do this any way she wants but the precedent was not followed and you know how Democrats love their precedents like Roe v Wade. This should have started in the Judiciary with the Presidents attorney there and Republicans ( the minority ) being able to call their own witnesses. That would have been a fair process, the Schitt show was not. Again, no way in hell should the whistle blower have been exempt from cross examination. Imagine the precedent that sets that a person can make a complaint knowing that he can't be challenged under oath and penalty of law.


To be impeached does not require that a law be broken.



But it should and if one of the articles of impeachment says that Trump broke the law of bribery, then that has to be debated as to whether it meest the criteria for considering it illegal which will be done in the Senate. Why wait for the Senate to debate the legal merits of the case? That should be done from the get go and perhaps avoid a trial in the Senate if a compelling legal argument can't be made in the House. This of course is just an opinion of mind.


I notice you didn't comment on my argument that Hilary violated federal election law and no comment on the article showing that Bernie Sanders was fined for hiring foreign nationals to work on his campaign. No opinion? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Hate my computer. Hit a wrong key and everything disappears.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Basketball/football watching yesterday and church this morning. Plus your post #154 was so long and involved I didn't know where to begin.

As for Hillary Clinton breaking the law. You cited information that you believe supports your argument that she broke the law by requesting information from a foreign national. I cited information that stated otherwise. It depends on which side of the aisle one sits as to which side of the argument one will believe.

I researched your comment on Bernie Sanders:

Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign has paid the Federal Election Commission a $14,500 civil penalty for improperly accepting Australian volunteers whose expenses and stipends were funded by the Australian Labor Party. Federal election law does not permit “any foreign national from donating anything of value in U.S. elections.” According to a statement from Bernie 2016, campaign workers managing the seven Australian volunteers didn't believe the stipend disqualified them. The campaign maintains it did nothing wrong, but agreed to settle the complaint to avoid “an expensive fight.”

The difference between what Sanders and Clinton did is that Sanders got something for nothing -- a true "donation". Clinton paid for the information she received. No donation.

I have no problem with the whistle blower coming forth to testify. However, under law he (or she) has the right to remain anonymous. Donald Trump, as I stated in a different thread, is the most vindictive POTUS in my lifetime. He would make the whistle blower's life a living hell if he found out who he was.

If Trump withheld funds from the Ukraine in order to force them to investigate possible inappropriate conduct by Joe Biden and his son and Burisma, that is wrong. But such action by Trump does not deserve removal from office in my opinion.

A little background for you on myself. Until 2008 I had never voted for a Democrat for a federal office (House, Senate, or POTUS) in my rather long life. In 2008, with my 401k having lost about 25% of its value and retirement looming in the not too distant future, and with the Republicans offering a ticket of McCain and Palin, I decided to go with Obama. From a purely personal point of view, I chose wisely. Stock market rebounded and my 401k recovered. In 2012, again based on finances, I again went with Obama. In 2016 I thought both candidates sucked but Trump's lack of character cost him my vote.

SR - if you were addressing me - I agree with Rep Hurd's comments regarding the criteria for impeachment. i disagree on the comments regarding the phone call with the President of the Ukraine. There is lots of evidence that no "quid pro quo " happened, and even if it did - it is trump's right to request and use the stick to address corruption involving americans. That the Corruption involved A former American VP and son, and current political candidate - is not a free pass for committing , or immunity from, investigation of corruption.

Whistleblower - . As i understand - and don't have details at my fingertips - but discussed in this Forum elsewhere - the criteria for first hand experience to file a "whistleblower" complaint was changed ( under questionable circumstances) to not require first hand experience - and the protection statutes protect a "whistleblower from being fired, or retaliation, but do not protect the identity - something ginned up by Schiff to protect his Schiff-show.

Under these circumstances - I do not believe the "whistleblower" complaint is credible - or should have been referred to the judiciary committee . good chance it ws orchestrated by Schiff himself - as there is evidence the Whistleblower approached the committee prior to the complaint filing.

That whole scenario reeks - but the DPST's just seem to get away scot free with their malfeasance.

My bottom line - "no effect on the outcome" is no rationale or excuse to nullify a criminal act from prosecution - and i doubt anywhere in the Federal code is there that exemption for criminal behavior. i disagree with that opinion. Originally Posted by oeb11

First, I researched information on the whistle blower remaining anonymous:

CRS, Sept. 23: Section 7(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable:

The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

So I was wrong when I said that identifying the whistle blower was against the law. Only the IG and his staff cannot do wo.

However: "While there is no statute that specifically prevents anyone, other than the inspectors general and their staffs, from disclosing a whistleblower’s identity, legal experts we consulted said there may be cases when disclosing the identity of a whistleblower could result in actions that are subject to other federal laws."

As for Trump's right to request an investigation of possible criminal actions in another country, I agree with you that he certainly has the right to do so. I will repeat that his timing on doing so is rather suspect -- waiting 34 months after assuming office and doing so against your primary political rival. But if Trump withheld funds from the Ukraine in order to force them to investigate the possible commission of a crime, that is wrong in my opinion. That is where our opinions differ. And as I stated, at no time has Trump defended such a quid pro quo. He simply denies it happened.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind at all if those on the impeachment committee, simply said "We will not proceed with the impeachment process due to insignificant information against the POTUS."

Hate my computer. Hit a wrong key and everything disappears.

Try writing and editing from a tablet. I swear to get a burner laptop before the new year.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Basketball/football watching yesterday and church this morning.

In 2016 I thought both candidates sucked but Trump's lack of character cost him my vote. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Same here, but for Hillary. The nasty bitch know-it-all character. I didn't vote for either. Did you vote for her?

CRS, Sept. 23: Section 7(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.)

The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

So I was wrong when I said that identifying the whistle blower was against the law. Only the IG and his staff cannot do [s]o.

However: "While there is no statute that specifically prevents anyone, other than the inspectors general and their staffs, from disclosing a whistleblower’s identity, legal experts we consulted said there may be cases when disclosing the identity of a whistleblower could result in actions that are subject to other federal laws."

Would you mind, please, sir, citing where this, in quotes, comes from?

As for Trump's right to request an investigation of possible criminal actions in another country, I agree with you that he certainly has the right to do so.

Why would it be within the POTUS' right to request an investigation in another country if it had nothing to do with national security? Do you stipulate it was for personal interest?

I will repeat that his timing on doing so is rather suspect -- waiting 34 months after assuming office and doing so against your primary political rival. But if Trump withheld funds from the Ukraine in order to force them to investigate the possible commission of a crime,

Remember: it was "the possible commission of a crime" in another country.

that is wrong in my opinion.

Since it was wrong, in your opinion, he should not have mandated.

That is where our opinions differ. And as I stated, at no time has Trump defended such a quid pro quo. He simply denies it happened.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind at all if those on the impeachment inquiry committee, simply said "We will not proceed with the impeachment process due to insignificant information against the POTUS." Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Me either. An inquiry is not needed. Go straight to the Judiciary Committee.

[QUOTE=eccieuser9500;1061861009]First, I admire your writing.


Thank you.


Second, ignore a dumbass poster at your misfortune. Even a blind squirrel can smell out a nut, and a broken clock is write twice a day.

Point is - you might find their lunacy to lead to pertinent data.

I'll keep that in mind but I have little patience wading through the dumbassery in hopes of seeing any pertinent data.

Lolling is lol'ing. But I bet you knew that.



Laugh out louding? No, never heard of the word louding, figured it had to be something else.

First, I admire your writing. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Thank you.

Second, ignore a dumbass poster at your misfortune. Even a blind squirrel can smell out a nut, and a broken clock is write twice a day.

Point is - you might find their lunacy to lead to pertinent data. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I'll keep that in mind but I have little patience wading through the dumbassery in hopes of seeing any pertinent data.

Lolling is lol'ing. But I bet you knew that. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Laugh out louding? No, never heard of the word louding, figured it had to be something else. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I kind of know what you mean. It was a conjunction. There's trying to portray vernacular, and then there's poor literary skill.

Tangent: I have no formal training but do read, not voraciously, but, a fair amount. Thank God for public school teachers who care.

Avoiding the dumbassery (auto-correct gives me embassy, go figure) is part of the art. Context clues, leading information and suggestion is all in the fun of the rhetoric. I'm not saying read everything on here. Just don't ignore anyone. You might miss a joke for joke's sake.

First, I researched information on the whistle blower remaining anonymous:

CRS, Sept. 23: Section 7(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable:

The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

So I was wrong when I said that identifying the whistle blower was against the law. Only the IG and his staff cannot do wo.

However: "While there is no statute that specifically prevents anyone, other than the inspectors general and their staffs, from disclosing a whistleblower’s identity, legal experts we consulted said there may be cases when disclosing the identity of a whistleblower could result in actions that are subject to other federal laws."



Maybe we will find out since Mark Levin outed Eric C ( the whistle blower ) on his TV show.


As for Trump's right to request an investigation of possible criminal actions in another country, I agree with you that he certainly has the right to do so. I will repeat that his timing on doing so is rather suspect -- waiting 34 months after assuming office and doing so against your primary political rival. But if Trump withheld funds from the Ukraine in order to force them to investigate the possible commission of a crime, that is wrong in my opinion. That is where our opinions differ. And as I stated, at no time has Trump defended such a quid pro quo. He simply denies it happened.



My goodness, if we impeached a President for doing what we thought was wrong, every President would be impeached. I base all my opinions on legal or illegal, constitutional or un-constitutional and whether it does serious, irreparable damage to the country. Simplifies matters for me And I don't think any of those apply in this matter and I think you agree. I thought Obama did many things wrong. I thought Hillary not only did things wrong, she did many illegal things but Democrats couldn't care less so I decided to adopt the same attitude towards Trump unless of course he does something like conspire with Russia to interfere in an election which Mueller could not find or if Trump had said what Schiff's "parody" said he did "I want you to find dirt on Biden even if you have to make it up" ( which Trump never said ) I would be voting for impeachment, well, maybe.


To be honest, I wouldn't mind at all if those on the impeachment committee, simply said "We will not proceed with the impeachment process due to insignificant information against the POTUS." Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't know why this didn't appear in your quote but I wanted to comment on them.


The difference between what Sanders and Clinton did is that Sanders got something for nothing -- a true "donation". Clinton paid for the information she received. No donation.



You seem to be hung up on "donation" when you should be looking at "something of value" which experts on election law all agree can be information. Soliciting information through a forign national on a political opponent is what we are talking about after all. It is what Trump is charged with not a donation. It is what was considered in charging Don Jr and it is in my opinion what Hillary did. She paid a foreign national to get dirt ( information ) on her political opponent but I can see you will not be convinced of this so I'll leave it at that.

I have no problem with the whistle blower coming forth to testify.



But Schiff and every Democrat obviously does not and the reason they do not now when they said they would in the beginning is that now the WB just might tell us that Schiff lied when he said he never meet the WB and has no idea who the WB is but it sure seems like he knows it was person #2 that Lt. Colonel Vindman spoke to about what he heard on that phone call. And it appears that Lt. Colonel Vindman is lying when he says he doesn't know who the WB is, Hell, he told the WB!!!!!


However, under law he (or she) has the right to remain anonymous.



No, he doesn't and I think you admitted that already. Only the IG by law may not mention his name, the rest of America can and has





Donald Trump, as I stated in a different thread, is the most vindictive POTUS in my lifetime. He would make the whistle blower's life a living hell if he found out who he was.


Trump knows who the WB is. Everybody in America paying any attention to this knows who he is, his name is Eric Ciaramella and if Lt. Colonel Vindman had not been stopped by Schiff from naming person # 2 that Lt. Colonel Vindman went running to to tell what he heard on the phone call............