Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Allan Fritzke]

There’s no “constitutional infraction”. The Constitution says that each state decides how their elections are run. It is simply not the business of the 17 Trump states (many of which — including Texas made their own adjustments for COVID) to dictate to any state (after the fact) how they should operate. Period.

I thought it would be good to clarify what the constitution states about elections and the manners in which you decide how an election is to be run.  In Georgia, It is not up to Raffensperger and Abrams to decide and change the entire election system (mail-in votes, extending election deadlines etc.).     If 2 people can meet behind closed door are a Governor can make a decision on his own and the SCOTUS does not want to hold these people accountable to the people (legislature), there is an issue and a divided country!

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/

Clause 1

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

[/b]

That is intention of the constitution. If SCOTUS does not want to even examine what was done in the backroom, the constitution no longer applies to the nation as it not being followed!

[Allan Fritzke]

You are correct. Hunter Biden was indeed with Burisma until April 2019 and Shokin was fired in 2018. I'm not sure what I was thinking of when I wrote that, but it was not correct. Given the rest of my reply, I most likely thinking that Hunter Biden had already left Burisma before Guilliani concocted his "scandal".

Not that it matters if he was still there or not. Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma (which was indeed confirmed by Ukraine officials) and was fired after pressure from the International Monatary Fund, several European Government and the Obama administration. His firing had nothing to do with Hunter Biden.

It wasn't the first time Hunter Biden ended a job because of his father's political activities. He left his position at Amtrak and ended his lobbying activities when his father started his vice presidential campaign.

Beyond that I can't make any sense of your post as you seem to have been throwing parts of several previous posts together.

What report? What are you going on about? You claim that Burisma "happened to be very corrupt" yet there has never been any proof of that presented and as far as I know Burisma has been investigated in the past but never been convicted, or even brought to trial, for being corrupt. Now, don't get me wrong. The entire Ukraine has been corrupt for years so it's unlikely that  Burisma was white as snow, but then they wouldn't be the only ones. Corruption is widespread and not limited to Ukraine. All you need to do is look at the list of people Trump has now pardoned. Some corrupt individuals there as well.

You keep on saying that Burisma was corrupt, but in truth you have no way of knowing. All you do is listen to people who claim the company is corrupt and not presenting evidence for it. You just believe it because you want to believe it.

Pure anti-Biden speculation on your part. The article says that $6 million was paid to an anti-corruption bureau official to drop an investigation into the affairs of Mykola Zlochevsky. Although Zlochevsky founded Burisma, this had nothing to do with the company! And Ukraine ruled out that Joe or Hunter Biden were involved.

You seem not to believe them, which only shows your anti-Biden bias. When the top corruption prosecutor says the Bidens had nothing to do with it, what proof do you have that they were involved. The answer is a simple one; none. You just don't like the Bidens so anything negative you can say about them, regardless if it's not true, you will say.

You behave like Guiliani has been doing for months. Just throw allegations out there and keep on repeating them over and over again. Eventually, some people will be gullible enough to believe the allegations to be true despite a total lack of evidence. It's the Trump playbook at work. He did it with his fake birtherism claim against Obama, he did it against Hillary Clinton with his fake email "scandal" and he is doing it again with his fake Hunter Biden "scandal"... They all end the same way with turning out to be nothing burgers.

The only thing I did was called on your fake post.   You are entitled to your opinion and so am I wrt to your last paragraphs.  The facts lie somewhere in between and I can tell you  horses eat hay and you can say cows eat hay too!

[Martin Weidmann]

The only thing I did was called on your fake post.   You are entitled to your opinion and so am I wrt to your last paragraphs.  The facts lie somewhere in between and I can tell you  horses eat hay and you can say cows eat hay too!

There was nothing fake about my post, just a minor error. You seem to like to throw the word "fake" around for everything you don't like. But I'm glad you think I'm entitled to my opinion. For a moment, I was really worried 

Now let me tell you what my opinion is re Hunter Biden/Shokin/Burisma.

You are not making any kind of sense and neither does the allegation.

1. Even if Shokin investigated Burisma for corruption in 2010 - 2012, for which there is no proof and it's denied by the Ukraine Government - that has nothing to do with Hunter Biden, who did not join the board of Burisma until 2014

2. The financial aid package for Ukraine after the Russian invasion of Crimea was put together by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and the Obama administration. Joe Biden was merely the messenger who told the Ukraine Government to clean up it's act and start fighting corruption seriously or they wouldn't get the financial aid. Firing Shokin, who wasn't investigating any corruption at Burisma or elsewhere and was in fact corrupt himself, was part of the demand. Again, none of it had anything to do with Hunter Biden, because Shokin wasn't even investigating Burisma when he was fired in 2016 (in my previous post I wrote 2018 in error. I have since corrected it).

It is beyond belief that the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and the Obama administration would all conspire to have a prosecutor fired to protect Hunter Biden, who wasn't even being investigated.

3. When Shokin was fired there was no "Hunter Biden scandal". Nobody complained, nobody cared and nobody made any allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden. That only changed, some three years later, after it had become clear, in 2019, that Joe Biden would run for President. Then, suddenly, this "scandal" was concocted by Rudy Guiliani et all out of thin air.

You may not want to know any of this and ignore it but those are the facts and your bogus claim that Shokin was fired to protect Hunter Biden is just that: bogus.

[Martin Weidmann]

I thought it would be good to clarify what the constitution states about elections and the manners in which you decide how an election is to be run.  In Georgia, It is not up to Raffensperger and Abrams to decide and change the entire election system (mail-in votes, extending election deadlines etc.).     If 2 people can meet behind closed door are a Governor can make a decision on his own and the SCOTUS does not want to hold these people accountable to the people (legislature), there is an issue and a divided country!

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/



That is intention of the constitution. If SCOTUS does not want to even examine what was done in the backroom, the constitution no longer applies to the nation as it not being followed!

If SCOTUS does not want to even examine what was done in the backroom, the constitution no longer applies to the nation as it not being followed!

You've got it backwards. Scotus protected the constitution by refusing the case because Texas had no say about how another state conducted it's business. Texas officials were elected in Texas and only have standing in Texas!

If Scotus had allowed the case to be brought, it would have opened up the door for a tidal wave of lawsuits brought by one state against another, simply because one state doesn't like what another state does or does not do.

Scotus did not reject the case because of the content of the complaint, so you misrepresent their decision to not to take the case.

[Bill Chapman]

Trump Crime Family* theme song

'Money, that's What I Want'   Flying Lizzards 1979


*credit Rick Plant

[Allan Fritzke]

If SCOTUS does not want to even examine what was done in the backroom, the constitution no longer applies to the nation as it not being followed!

You've got it backwards. Scotus protected the constitution by refusing the case because Texas had no say about how another state conducted it's business. Texas officials were elected in Texas and only have standing in Texas!

If Scotus had allowed the case to be brought, it would have opened up the door for a tidal wave of lawsuits brought by one state against another, simply because one state doesn't like what another state does or does not do.

Scotus did not reject the case because of the content of the complaint, so you misrepresent their decision to not to take the case.

No!  It just means you have 2 different countries running, one under the constitution, the other not.  There were 18 states banded together - not just Texas!  You can see a clear divide between rural and urban voters in this divide.   What don't you understand about who is allowed to make the rules for elections?   Under the warped Georgian rules (not constitutional), 2 people from 2 sides came together and decided the election rules.    In essence they become "the Legislature".   Is that what you are saying?   It wasn't "the State" that made the changes.  It was people behind closed doors that supposedly represented their parties and became in effect the Legislature in this instance.    The people have no say in creating new frameworks of rules and regulations is the SCOTUS conclusion we now have.  If 2 parties agree, then make new rules.  Some places the lower courts are being used to make these new rules.  That is unconstitutional.     
       
What is wrong with using a Legislature and legislating (like the constitution called for) in terms of managing the "manner of elections"?   There likely should be a great tidal wave of lawsuits brought forth so that arguments can be made and agreements struck.  That is all part of politics!   The country isn't going to stay together very long when there is no constitution to govern it by and no one wants to enforce its rules and even interpret what was meant by the Legislature or allowed to bring anything before it.   If you want to change the very constitution and make a "sanctimonious" change , go through the proper channels as laid out by the forefathers and have it passed through the House and Senate.  This can be done if you think you have the will of the people behind it.  Don't subvert the will of the people and real democracy by declaring that there should be any controversial disputes between set of states. 

Again, that is my opinion.   Something serious as elections should actually be very transparently and not done in secrecy to hammer out new rules.  We see happens with allowing mail-in/harvest votes and never ending election deadlines that don't need new rules invented on a play by play basis.  They need to be agreed upon by the  Legislature.   Not judges and not individuals, but by representatives of voters.    I stand by the constitution and what is says.  If it was good enough two hundred years ago, it is good enough today and should be relied on.     Finally what is the purpose of even having a SCOTUS if they avoid controversy at all costs and don't want to clarify a very clearly laid out constitutional clause?   You don't like it, go through the proper channels provided to change it.  No sense even having an appointed body like the SCOTUS if that is all they do.  They might as well be termed for 14 years (example) and kicked off at the end of their stay.    They are not there to be used to make laws, but interpret them against the present constitution.   Making laws is up to the legislative assembly (senate/congress) and needs to be voted on so the populous is represented!   This still is supposed to be a democratic society not a plutocratic society where a few rich rule!

Maybe you can understand football and baseball.   There is a set of rules.  During the game, you don't just arbitrarily change the rules yourself or by the referee so that you give your team 5 downs to make 10 yards because they need one more play to carry on and win the match!  That change has to be brought up and the majority of fans agree to. Not only do the fans in the stadium, need to agree, but the fans watching games across the entire country need to agree.    Otherwise the game is absurd.  The referee is not allowed to change rules on a play by play basis.   No fans would watch  if this happens nor allow it.   It is the same with state and federal laws.  If all are playing the same game on the same playing fields,  there should be the same rules applied to all - otherwise it is dysfunctional  and a farce and the game will become 2 different games.   You will have a situation like in the 2 baseball leagues.  However, they have to agree on rules when they meet each other at the World Series.

Clause 1

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

[/b][/size]

 

[John Tonkovich]

Wow.. Mr Allan is out there the busses don't run.
I worry about people  like this.

[Allan Fritzke]

Trump Crime Family* theme song

'Money, that's What I Want'   Flying Lizzards 1979


#credit Rick Plant

I think that song is better suited for the "Flying J's" really!     James, Joe, Jill and Hunter.   47 years in politics has made the Biden family very rich.  He shared it though with family which was nice!   They didn't make their millions in real estate but lived off of political position.  The Big Guy should be much appreciated by his family!
 
Trump, on the other hand, has been there for only 4 years, came in rich and left rich and like JFK didn't even take a wage in the process.  You might say he craved power but he did his best to protect the middle class, take people out of poverty, give them employment, protection and drain the swamp of Democratic and Republican creatures.   He made it a point of not taking money from Wall street and lobbyists because he didn't want to owe them a payback!

Biden will re-establish and give the power back to the rich lobbyists and Wall street who gave him the money to put basement Joe back in.   The Plutocrats!   Powerful Joe will even be able to pardon Hunter and cover all his tracks before Kamala takes over.    Deniable Plausibility gave the 78 year old man running on a 180K salary a much deserved unquestionable rich legacy.