The "Whistle Blower" has a GoFundMe account

[RoccoSifred]

If this isn't a criminal matter, then how do you expect Trump to be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?

Hold up...you and other trumpers on this forum believe POTUS is subject to criminal prosecution?! A simple yes or no will do.

Your answer will frame my argument. Protip: i suspect you never read the Federalist Papers. most faux conservatives have not.

[topperstyle]

Apparently you do not read the Constitution.please explain how the confrontation clause applies to impeachment.

I'll wait for your reply.

First of all it's not a "clause". It's an "amendment".

Would you agree that the impeachment is being brought forward regarding the allegation of a high crime or misdemeanor?

[Retoaded]

Ah ha! So you agree the confrontation clause does not apply to impeachment.

Thanks for playing.

I absolutely agree with you there, and that is the problem and that is the point. That impeachment should be conducted in the spirit of our justice system, and it is not. It SHOULD apply to impeachment, but it doesn't. This impeachment inquiry is a one-way prosecution, and sets a pretty crappy precedent moving forward. I thought that was the point of most of my posts in this thread telling Sillie that I'll wait until Trump's team has an opportunity to present a defense before making decisions, as everyone should.

[RoccoSifred]

First of all it's not a "clause". It's an "amendment".

lololololololololololololol. Sorry dude, not arguing with uneducated trumpers.

lol...I suggest you google constitutional clauses. you must be a product of public education. you guys dont even know the difference between amendments, articles and clauses.

brb Due process clause is an amendment. smdh.

[rise21]

Tipster is not a witness. You stated in previous posts the tipster had no first hand knowledge. Now you are saying he does?

FYI: This is not a criminal matter. So i am not sure why you cited confrontation clause.

Whistleblower perjured themselves on the form. Must testify.

[RoccoSifred]

I absolutely agree with you there, and that is the problem and that is the point. That impeachment should be conducted in the spirit of our justice system, and it is not. It SHOULD apply to impeachment, but it doesn't.

interesting...so you know better than the founder fathers. I take it you disagree with the Federlist Papers too? You will have to excuse me...I take the word of Hamiliton and Madison over miscers when it comes to the best way our country should be run.

[Retoaded]

interesting...so you know better than the founder fathers. I take it you disagree with the Federlist Papers too? You will have to excuse me...I take the word of Hamiliton and Madison over miscers when it comes to the best way our country should be run.

Interesting strawman argument.

I am not familiar with the Federlist Papers.

[NitrogenWidget]

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...post1591461351

You know it's not only ok to admit when you're wrong, it's an intelligence marker.

[Steemboat]

lololololololololololololol. Sorry dude, not arguing with uneducated trumpers.

lol...I suggest you google constitutional clauses. you must be a product of public education. you guys dont even know the difference between amendments, articles and clauses.

brb Due process clause is an amendment. smdh.

Lmao. These are the same dudes who chit on actual attorneys who post in here because they don’t know the law. What do you expect?

[topperstyle]

lololololololololololololol. Sorry dude, not arguing with uneducated trumpers.

lol...I suggest you google constitutional clauses. you must be a product of public education. you guys dont even know the difference between amendments, articles and clauses.

brb Due process clause is an amendment. smdh.

Actually the "due process clause" is, indeed, a clause of the 14th amendment.

(There's a lot going on in the 14th amendment)

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

versus

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[RoccoSifred]

Interesting strawman argument.

I am not familiar with the Federlist Papers.

if you are not familiar with the Federalist papers then why are you commenting on the impeachment process? Serious no hate dude. But if you want to understand the thought process behind the framers of the constitution, then you should read them. They should be mandatory reading for all americans.

Check out #65 and #66 as it pertains to impeachment. The framers of the Constitution specifically did not want the impeachment process to mimic criminal proceedings. They were very clear on this.

[401Delta]

if you are not familiar with the Federalist papers then why are you commenting on the impeachment process?

You're an idiot.

Seriously.

Also, LOL at the choice of your fake AVI.

[Retoaded]

if you are not familiar with the Federalist papers then why are you commenting on the impeachment process? Serious no hate dude. But if you want to understand the thought process behind the framers of the constitution, then you should read them. They should be mandatory reading for all americans.

Check out #65 and #66 as it pertains to impeachment. The framers of the Constitution specifically did not want the impeachment process to mimic criminal proceedings. They were very clear on this.

Haha I'm just giving you crap for spelling it Federlist.

I agree with you that it should be mandatory reading but if it doesn't have a Kardashian in it then 90% of the public isn't interested.

My original point to Sillie was that I'll withhold judgement until both sides can make their case fairly, which would happen in the Senate as the founders intended. But the founders framed it that way for a legitimate process. If the democrats do not take this to a vote and hold the inquiry in limbo in the house where its a one sided deal for spectacle/political purposes, then what the founders intended is thrown out the window. Which is what I think is going on, but I've been wrong before.

[Retoaded]

You're an idiot.

Seriously.

Also, LOL at the choice of your fake AVI.

Pretty sure this poster is the poster previously known as RSM3.

[RoccoSifred]

Actually the "due process clause" is, indeed, a clause of the 14th amendment.

(There's a lot going on in the 14th amendment)



versus

lol...you still dont understand the difference between amendment, articles and clauses. Its amazing you know more about the Constitution than what is taught in law schools. You should email all the top law schools and tell them they are teaching law incorrectly. lolololololol. brb..the Confrontation clause is an amendment. hahahahahahahahahah!

cant make this stuff up. I mean I get you disagreeing on policy, interpretation, whatever. But facts taught in every single law school in the USA? smdh.

[Steemboat]

Actually the "due process clause" is, indeed, a clause of the 14th amendment.

Not the point. You didn’t know what it was, it’s okay to admit it.

The Confrontation Clause (which you have now correctly identified as a part of the Sixth Amendment) only applies in criminal trials, where the punishment is criminal (jail) and the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Jail restricts individual liberties, thus amplifying the importance of confrontation and a higher burden of proof.

Impeachment, though involving “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not a criminal trial, because the punishment is losing your job. Therefore, the Confrontation Clause does not apply. Make sense?

[RoccoSifred]

Haha I'm just giving you crap for spelling it Federlist.

lol. I didnt even catch the autocorrect. My eyes are not what they used be.

I agree with you that it should be mandatory reading but if it doesn't have a Kardashian in it then 90% of the public isn't interested.

I agree 100%. Far too many people rely on talking heads to describe the framers original intent.

My original point to Sillie was that I'll withhold judgement until both sides can make their case fairly, which would happen in the Senate as the founders intended. But the founders framed it that way for a legitimate process. If the democrats do not take this to a vote and hold the inquiry in limbo in the house where its a one sided deal for spectacle/political purposes, then what the founders intended is thrown out the window. Which is what I think is going on, but I've been wrong before.

Hmm, I never considered that. If they do not bring it to a floor vote, then it would be a gross abuse of power IMO and further degrade the lack of respect between the 3 branches of government.

[Retoaded]

lol. I didnt even catch the autocorrect. My eyes are not what they used be.



I agree 100%. Far too many people rely on talking heads to describe the framers original intent.



Hmm, I never considered that. If they do not bring it to a floor vote, then it would be a gross abuse of power IMO and further degrade the lack of respect between the 3 branches of government.

That is what I think is happening, but I could be wrong.

[chaunce54]

Tipster is not a witness. You stated in previous posts the tipster had no first hand knowledge. Now you are saying he does?

FYI: This is not a criminal matter. So i am not sure why you cited confrontation clause.

In these cases, the responding officers are witnessing criminal activity and are the witnesses and accuser, so there is no need for the tipster to testify. As I TRIED pointing out to you, the person was not arrested on a drug related charge despite the tipsters claim of "drug activity".

If the responding officers had not witnessed a crime, no arrests would have been made based solely on an anonymous tip.

[bezarker]

Fukcing morons, only dumb asses give to those gofundme schemes...

[RoccoSifred]

That is what I think is happening, but I could be wrong.

I hope you are wrong. I really have no love for either party and really not much surprises me anymore, but that would really blow my mind. I will subscribe this thread and see what happens. if you are right then you are Nostradamus!

[elterrible987]

government employee paid $227k to participate in political ploy to overthrow the president.

what a time to be alive

[BigRangs]

This will be the end of Drammpphhhfff

[Dorich]

Ah ha! So you agree the confrontation clause does not apply to impeachment.

Thanks for playing.

You are deflecting.

[semitope]

two of them. made over a million dollars.

democrats were also offering $750,000 to women to accuse Trump of sexual harassment during October of 2016 also: https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...trump-accusers

but hey lets believe this Ukraine thing from this anonymous dude that was friends with Biden.

its too late to not believe the ukraine thing. its been confirmed by multiple officials in the administration

and nice framing on the sexual harassment link. "democrats were also offering" when the link reads "A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential race, according to documents and interviews."

I'm sure you only know how to speak in Propaganda so not your fault I guess.

[BullittEV]

I'm sure you only know how to speak in Propaganda so not your fault I guess.

Says an account that was made in 2011, stopped posting in 2012 then comes back to make a majority of their posts in 2019. Obviously you wont admit it, hide behind your computer, but when you look in the mirror, know that everyone here knows youre a bottom of the barrel type of person. One that actually spends money buying old bodybuilding accounts and trying to break even by making super divisive posts.

Like I said, when you look in the mirror, think about the type of person that would do that. Pathetic. I'll never understand people like you. You literally must have nothing going for you IRL.

[LargePeter]

When you have no proof you have to smear and intimidate the accused.

Thee whistle blowers not allowed to testify so WGAF? Still no evidence of first hand witnesses to trump’s fictional abuse of power.

Fixed that for you, you senile old clown

[rise21]

Says an account that was made in 2011, stopped posting in 2012 then comes back to make a majority of their posts in 2019. Obviously you wont admit it, hide behind your computer, but when you look in the mirror, know that everyone here knows youre a bottom of the barrel type of person. One that actually spends money buying old bodybuilding accounts and trying to break even by making super divisive posts.

Like I said, when you look in the mirror, think about the type of person that would do that. Pathetic. I'll never understand people like you. You literally must have nothing going for you IRL.

And such the misc and bb.com die a slow death.

Bb.com doesn’t realize it, they just see more posts and think it’s a good thing, when in reality this just drives anyone who was left to purchase their supplements to amazon.

Good job mods. Time to stop the sh*tposting.