4 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Once again I have to ask all the adamant and denying posters why they can be so hateful against one criminal yet so lenient toward another potential criminal... where do they draw their line on investigating one over the other... what would be so wrong in their minds to go after every criminal with equal gusto???  It's an "investigation" so why not follow the leads and weigh the evidence???  

Better propaganda on Joe's side.

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Better propaganda on Joe's side.

Ahhh all the proof in the world on trumps side none on the Biden side hope that helps tho I doubt it 

4 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

It is during an investigation that evidence is either found or not found... thus investigation... it is still ongoing so no time to rest... you still cannot be honest in answering the question posed... would just prefer that everyone like you ignore it when it's your hero being investigated... you know that if there's a stink there is usually <deleted>e lying around... right

Usually, investigations look at evidence in hand.

 

In this case, the investigation is looking for evidence that no one has seen yet.

21 hours ago, Tug said:

Oh boy………….

Just another one who cannot answer the question... sad

17 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Usually, investigations look at evidence in hand.

 

In this case, the investigation is looking for evidence that no one has seen yet.

You have a wrong sense of definition for what investigation really means... look it up... google is so easy if you will use it... then get back to me.  

14 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You have a wrong sense of definition for what investigation really means... look it up... google is so easy if you will use it... then get back to me.  

Actually, the usual standard is to offer actual evidence before the House launches an official investigation. As their first 3 witnesses testified, there is currently no evidence to support charges of criminal activity on the part of Biden.

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually, the usual standard is to offer actual evidence before the House launches an official investigation. As their first 3 witnesses testified, there is currently no evidence to support charges of criminal activity on the part of Biden.

Who says that is the usual standard... investigation means what it means... now you want to redefine that.

GAG!

James Comer Melts Down Over Report He Did the Exact Same Thing as Joe Biden

https://news.yahoo.com/james-comer-melts-down-over-200048227.html

 

14 minutes ago, candide said:

GAG!

James Comer Melts Down Over Report He Did the Exact Same Thing as Joe Biden

https://news.yahoo.com/james-comer-melts-down-over-200048227.html

 

Too bad there's no video. I'm sure faux news won't have it. Probably CNN will, though. 

13 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Who says that is the usual standard... investigation means what it means... now you want to redefine that.

There are such things as probable cause being required before an investigation is authorized. I understand that your internet masters haven't told you about this.

 

By the way, it appears that what you really meant by "google is so easy to use" is "I don't know".

13 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Who says that is the usual standard... investigation means what it means... now you want to redefine that.

What nonsense are you on about now? The issue isn't the meaning of investigation It's whether the House is justified in staging an impeachment inquiry when there is no evidence of criminal activity to prompt such an investigation. As their own witnesses confirmed. An impeachment inquiry is only appropriate if there is evidence to support it.

10 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

There are such things as probable cause being required before an investigation is authorized. I understand that your internet masters haven't told you about this.

 

By the way, it appears that what you really meant by "google is so easy to use" is "I don't know".

Where did you get permission to state that probable cause is required before there can be an investigation... you watch too much TV... Probable cause is a requirement in criminal law that must be met before a police officer can make an arrest, conduct a search, seize property, or get a warrant.  Says nothing about "investigating"... in fact investigating is how they get enough evidence to satisfy the probable cause requirement... don't keep making things up... you really should try google then you wouldn't be so stupid.

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

What nonsense are you on about now? The issue isn't the meaning of investigation It's whether the House is justified in staging an impeachment inquiry when there is no evidence of criminal activity to prompt such an investigation. As their own witnesses confirmed. An impeachment inquiry is only appropriate if there is evidence to support it.

Listen to yourself... an inquiry or investigation done properly is the means that is used to determine if there was criminal activity... it's not a follow up... as the democrrapts keep doing... that states that there was a criminal activity now we are going to investigate.

2 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Listen to yourself... an inquiry or investigation done properly is the means that is used to determine if there was criminal activity... it's not a follow up... as the democrrapts keep doing... that states that there was a criminal activity now we are going to investigate.

More nonsense. In the case of the Democrats produced actual evidence of criminal or impeachable acts.  In the Republican case, no such criminal or impeachable acts are cited. 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

More nonsense. In the case of the Democrats produced actual evidence of criminal or impeachable acts.  In the Republican case, no such criminal or impeachable acts are cited. 

Then why was he not found guilty??? TWICE the democrapts failed... they charged ahead without an investigation first... then they found out that their evidence wasn't honest or factual.

The republicans are investigating first... as it should be done... and then we will find out if there are criminal or impeachable acts

52 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Where did you get permission to state that probable cause is required before there can be an investigation... you watch too much TV... Probable cause is a requirement in criminal law that must be met before a police officer can make an arrest, conduct a search, seize property, or get a warrant.  Says nothing about "investigating"... in fact investigating is how they get enough evidence to satisfy the probable cause requirement... don't keep making things up... you really should try google then you wouldn't be so stupid.

So, what you are saying is that there is no probable cause for an investigation, but if they investigate, maybe they will find something.

 

You do understand that's not the way it works, right?

12 hours ago, gargamon said:

Too bad there's no video. I'm sure faux news won't have it. Probably CNN will, though. 

Here is the video!

Rep. Moskowitz Challenges Oversight Chair Comer About Loan to Brother | C-SPAN.org

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Then why was he not found guilty??? TWICE the democrapts failed... they charged ahead without an investigation first... then they found out that their evidence wasn't honest or factual.

The republicans are investigating first... as it should be done... and then we will find out if there are criminal or impeachable acts

Trump was acquitted by the Senate in both cases because the requirement for a successful impeachment was a 60% majority Senate vote.

 

The same would happen if Biden was ever impeached. The GOP are the only doing this on behalf of Trump and to normalize Trump's abhorrent behaviour.

 

The first impeachment was investigated for two months before impeachment was agreed by the House.

 

The second impeachment needed little investigation as Trump's Insurrection was live on World TV and there was urgency by both parties to hobble a tyrant.

 

The evidence was both honest and factual and in the first, the Senate trial saw no witnesses or documents, as GOP senators rejected attempts to introduce them. The second was witnessed by the World.

 

'The inquiry process which preceded the first impeachment of Donald Trump, was initiated on September 24, 2019....on December 18, the House voted to impeach the president'.

 

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump - Wikipedia

Edited November 16, 20232 yr by LosLobo

10 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Trump was acquitted by the Senate in both cases because the requirement for a successful impeachment was a 60% majority Senate vote.

 

The same would happen if Biden was ever impeached. The GOP are the only doing this on behalf of Trump and to normalize Trump's abhorrent behaviour.

 

The first impeachment was investigated for two months before impeachment was agreed by the House.

 

The second impeachment needed little investigation as Trump's Insurrection was live on World TV and there was urgency by both parties to hobble a tyrant.

 

The evidence was both honest and factual and in the first, the Senate trial saw no witnesses or documents, as GOP senators rejected attempts to introduce them. The second was witnessed by the World.

 

'The inquiry process which preceded the first impeachment of Donald Trump, was initiated on September 24, 2019....on December 18, the House voted to impeach the president'.

 

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump - Wikipedia

Well done post spot on the problem is you are answering……..let’s just say d….than a box of hammers or don’t feed the t…..lol hey but thanks for spelling it out anyway cheers!!

On 11/16/2023 at 6:43 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

Then why was he not found guilty??? TWICE the democrapts failed... they charged ahead without an investigation first... then they found out that their evidence wasn't honest or factual.

The republicans are investigating first... as it should be done... and then we will find out if there are criminal or impeachable acts

The first impeachment was preceded by an investigation.

 

The evidence was publicly shown, and no one disputed it. Except you, but of course, you are exceptional.

 

If you disagree, feel free to debunk the evidence from the first impeachment.

On 11/16/2023 at 6:43 AM, Skipalongcassidy said:

Then why was he not found guilty??? TWICE the democrapts failed... they charged ahead without an investigation first... then they found out that their evidence wasn't honest or factual.

The republicans are investigating first... as it should be done... and then we will find out if there are criminal or impeachable acts

Maybe, just maybe, that's because the jurors in the case weren't chosen by voir dire but were rather elected representatives.

As for the Democrats not finding their evidence to be honest or factual, what evidence exactly are you referring to?

An impeachment committe should be informed after there is evidence as was the case with the Democrats. Invoking the possible of impeaching via a fishing expedition is nonsense.

Edited November 26, 20232 yr by placeholder