Are chemtrails part of this scenario too?
QAnon says “most def”!
Some of that cool billion dollars was no doubt used to finance the child kidnapping ring that is using the underground tunnels that connect all of the WallMarts.
I have a feeling Area 51 has something to do with this also. So nefarious.
Let’s leave Biden/Burisma/Conspiracy Theories out of the thread, please. You know, lest they look like a hijack.
nm
Others mentioned that, not me, this is related though, so again:
Do you have any other explanation then why the Ukrainians dropped the big announcement that was going to be made on CNN?
Yes if they were really going to launch in investigation over legitimate corruption concerns, then why isn’t that still happening once they got the aid they were promised? Also, going on CNN to announce an investigation would be “making stuff up” since you know, there is no investigation.
This response is so disjointed it is hard to know how to respond. Seriously. I asked a question about 4th amendment protection. This rattles on about how republicans and democrats have changed philosophies. I asked what justifications congress has for looking into Trump’s finances. This espouses Trump to be a liar and how seven people are in jail. Does that justify digging into his personal life? If so, how? Please connect the dots of what you answered to what I asked.
If you honestly believe that no one will look into your financial records if you never do anything wrong, I’d really like to know what color the sky is in your world. Can you say Benghazi? I knew you could.
There is a defense against having people look into your finances and it isn’t because you did nothing wrong. At least, I surely hope there is. It is the only one I know of. Simply, if there isn’t any reasonable justification for checking into your finances. Even if you are guilty, without that I don’t see how it can be justified. Which is why I asked about the 4th amendment aspect.
To this point, the only one who answered that point said it was because those aren’t his papers. But then that was refuted, so I’m back to where I started. And the follow up answers both indicated that a reasonable justification was necessary, but I’ve never heard one officially. If there has been one, then okay, we are done.
I never claimed Trump was laudable. I didn’t say he shouldn’t be investigated because he is laudable. So, what does that statement have to do with any of this?
Please try to stick to the question. I realize the hatred for Trump runs deep and I’m among that group, but this type of non-sequitur does not help. At all.
Wait, you just “made up information.” Right there. In that post right before you said that nobody is making up information.
Trump bribed Zelensky to smear Biden with my money.
In no way can this accurately be described as anti-corruption. The abuse of entrusted power for private gain is the definition of corruption.
Post #5052. 
You didn’t read my post very closely. I didn’t say “nobody” is making up information (I happen to think a lot of people in this thread are making up information). I said “he”, referring to President Trump, and it was specifically regarding the topic that JC has asked us to drop, and I intend to.
It can’t be said enough.
cmosdes, I twice directed you to read a cite that I believe explains both the legislative history of the 1924 statute and addresses why it overcomes your Fourth Amendment concerns. In the first instance, you did not answer whether you’d read it. In the second instance, you evaded answering the question by saying you’re not interested in the statute. Yet it is the best information I am able to provide about your Fourth Amendment issue.
Read it or don’t, but hurling Trump hatred accusations as being the only basis for why anyone is responding to you is unfair – and rather ironic, given that you yourself indicated that you “loathe Trump” in your own Post #5037.
Meanwhile, Andrew Bakaj, attorney for the whistleblower, is fed up with Gym Jordan:
Followed by:
I think he’s pissed.
To the extent that the President is concerned, Constitutionality, Congress is “the police”. Robert Mueller, as example, can’t investigate nor accuse the President of bribes, emoluments, treason, nor high crimes and misdemeanors. The ability to investigate and “charge” the President as well as the duty to do so both lie in Congress.
So to consider Congress as being “the police”, they have all the same justifications as actual police do.
They have credible reason, based on testimony and public information, that implicate the President in financial crimes, emoluments, bribery, corrupt actions in office, campaign finance crimes, and failure to perform his constitutional duties. The level and quality of information that they have, if the President was not the President, would be sufficient for a criminal case to be opened against him and his personal finances examined under warrant.
If you want a walk-through of the evidence, I’d probably recommend a new thread since most of that is unrelated to Ukraine.
If you are implicated in activities that are considered trial-worthy, via documentary evidence and witness testimony, the police look into you. There’s nothing unique nor special about that.
I read the cite. If it explains why it can supersede the 4th amendment you’ll have to spell it out for me. It does explain the history of the statute and the balance congress tried give between access to the information and dissemination, but it doesn’t explain the rationale why that information, against a particular individual, is available with no justification. Did I miss that? I apologize if I did. I thought I followed the article, but maybe I didn’t.
There is a justification for access in a general sense, not against a particular corporation (or person) simply because congress is curious about one entity.
You can believe me or not, but I truly do despise Trump. The question of whether the 4th amendment came up in my head, all on my own, while I was running. This didn’t originate from watching Fox News or other right wing propaganda. I knew about the statute and I knew it had a history and was compelling and I had a vague notion it was related to the Teapot Dome scandal. I also knew it did not require a justification as per the law as written, but I didn’t know if there were already settled arguments why the 4th doesn’t apply. So I asked here.
Instead, I was told about how Trump is a liar, in over his head, 7 of his cronies in jail, defenses against libel and, weirdly, how it was okay to make this request with justification even though no justification has ever been given.
It would seem a simple answer to this is not available. That was all I wanted to know. Just because the statute exists doesn’t mean the 4th doesn’t apply. I sure as hell hope Trump doesn’t weasel out of this, but I would feel a lot better if a justification were proffered that made the question moot.
See, if any of that had been stated by Neal I don’t think any of this would be a question for me. Has any of that been offered as the reason for the request? I honestly don’t remember hearing it or reading about it, which is why I asked about the 4th amendment.
The 4th amendment obviously allows for search and seizure under some circumstances. I did not see why Trump and his returns are part of the exceptions rather than being protected.
I’ve been down this road (discussing process vs. outcome) before, so I’ll drop this now. Please… I’m asking in all sincerity, do not confuse questioning the process by which an end is obtained with objecting to the desired ending. In short, I hope Trump gets nailed to the wall and spends the rest of his life in prison. But more than that, I want the process to be just and aligned with our democratic principles.