Chump change compared to the Obama's and Clinton's...
Sure but one was a former senator and two-term president, and the other was the wife of a two term president, a former senator, a secretary of state, and the democratic nominee for president.
Politicians that hold these high positions have valuable knowledge having served in a position that very few people will ever obtain. It's not totally absurd that they'd make money off of book deals and speaking tours, as there is value in what they have to say. I have no problem whatsoever with Bernie being a millionaire and selling books.
That said, I was never a fan of Hillary receiving half a million bucks (or more) for speaking to Goldman Sachs for an hour or whatever. That seemed like basically trading money for influence and access.
Do you have a problem with Bernie having his "campaign" buy a Half Million $$$ of his books?
Chump change compared to the Obama's and Clinton's...
Sure but one was a former senator and two-term president, and the other was the wife of a two term president, a former senator, a secretary of state, and the democratic nominee for president.
Politicians that hold these high positions have valuable knowledge having served in a position that very few people will ever obtain. It's not totally absurd that they'd make money off of book deals and speaking tours, as there is value in what they have to say. I have no problem whatsoever with Bernie being a millionaire and selling books.
That said, I was never a fan of Hillary receiving half a million bucks (or more) for speaking to Goldman Sachs for an hour or whatever. That seemed like basically trading money for influence and access.
Really?
What “valuable knowledge” did you or have you gained from either zerO or the Clintoons?
(02-06-2020 09:04 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.
Bernie Sanders is never going to be President. He is eventually going to die having never done anything of value for this country. He will leave a nice little multi-million dollar inheritance for his family, however. Which is a bit odd for a Socialist politician who has never had a job outside of politics in his entire life.
This is why the attacks on Bernie from the right are gonna be great. Oh wow you really got Bernie in his financial disclosures (which Trump's never going to give and that's fine it was kinda funny to watch him flip the bird over that) he made 1.7 million from book sales. You guys had legitimate and extremely valid arguments about real corruption, covering up of sexual assault allegations, and more stuff that can even be named on Killary to attack. This is gonna land with the velocity of a turd coming from Trump. What's next is Trump gonna attack him for sexism?
Sexism?
Nah. We can leave that up to Fauxcahontas to allege.
This thing is going get down, dirty, and outright hilarious before it’s over.
I already, simultaneously, look forward to the mayhem in Milwaukee and feel sorry for the honest folks that live and work there.
But, it’s the left. They can’t contain themselves.
never be late to the party.....it's already begun....
NanFranCiscoKid just backtracked the 'tearing' (with tears in subtle laughter)....
I'm going to have more than one Sonic blast with all this bs.....no blue pill req'd....
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2020 11:36 AM by stinkfist.)
Chump change compared to the Obama's and Clinton's...
Sure but one was a former senator and two-term president, and the other was the wife of a two term president, a former senator, a secretary of state, and the democratic nominee for president.
Politicians that hold these high positions have valuable knowledge having served in a position that very few people will ever obtain. It's not totally absurd that they'd make money off of book deals and speaking tours, as there is value in what they have to say. I have no problem whatsoever with Bernie being a millionaire and selling books.
That said, I was never a fan of Hillary receiving half a million bucks (or more) for speaking to Goldman Sachs for an hour or whatever. That seemed like basically trading money for influence and access.
Do you have a problem with Bernie having his "campaign" buy a Half Million $$$ of his books?
Or his wife being ‘campaign’ manager and collect 10% of his political contributions as ‘salary’?
(02-06-2020 11:28 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: Do you have a problem with Bernie having his "campaign" buy a Half Million $$$ of his books?
Depends on the context. His campaign would have had to buy them from the publishing company, not directly from Bernie. From what I've read, Bernie received no royalties whatsoever from books purchased by his campaign. His campaign then probably used copies of the book to help boost fundraising, but he never personally profited from those copies.
I remember donating to his campaign in 2016 and since I donated a certain amount, they mailed me a copy of his book. As long as everything was above board, I don't see any issues.
If you've found any evidence that what he did was wrong or illegal, I'd like to see it.
(02-06-2020 11:28 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: Do you have a problem with Bernie having his "campaign" buy a Half Million $$$ of his books?
Depends on the context. His campaign would have had to buy them from the publishing company, not directly from Bernie. From what I've read, Bernie received no royalties whatsoever from books purchased by his campaign. His campaign then probably used copies of the book to help boost fundraising, but he never personally profited from those copies.
I remember donating to his campaign in 2016 and since I donated a certain amount, they mailed me a copy of his book. As long as everything was above board, I don't see any issues.
If you've found any evidence that what he did was wrong or illegal, I'd like to see it.
So you sent him a donation and 10% landed in his wife’s back pocket. What part of this is you didn’t buy a book?
What “valuable knowledge” did you or have you gained from either zerO or the Clintoons?
This should be fascinating
Are you being serious?
There are currently only 5 people alive in the whole wide world that can say they've held the title of the President of the United States.
It's an experience that very few people will ever get to know and whether you liked Obama or the Clintons is irrelevant. There's a demand for their recollection of their time in office and insights gained from said experience, and I see nothing wrong with meeting that demand by publishing a book or two.
(02-06-2020 11:28 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: Do you have a problem with Bernie having his "campaign" buy a Half Million $$$ of his books?
Depends on the context. His campaign would have had to buy them from the publishing company, not directly from Bernie. From what I've read, Bernie received no royalties whatsoever from books purchased by his campaign. His campaign then probably used copies of the book to help boost fundraising, but he never personally profited from those copies.
I remember donating to his campaign in 2016 and since I donated a certain amount, they mailed me a copy of his book. As long as everything was above board, I don't see any issues.
If you've found any evidence that what he did was wrong or illegal, I'd like to see it.
Surely you know book writers do not sell books out of the trunk of their car, and publishers ARE who pay the book writers. The books the campaign bought were the re-edition of a book he wrote in 1997 Outsider in the House re-released as Outsider in the White House. The campaign was basically the only ones that bought it. He made money on it. That was the purpose of releasing it and for the Campaign buying it.
(02-06-2020 09:04 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.
Bernie Sanders is never going to be President. He is eventually going to die having never done anything of value for this country. He will leave a nice little multi-million dollar inheritance for his family, however. Which is a bit odd for a Socialist politician who has never had a job outside of politics in his entire life.
This is why the attacks on Bernie from the right are gonna be great. Oh wow you really got Bernie in his financial disclosures (which Trump's never going to give and that's fine it was kinda funny to watch him flip the bird over that) he made 1.7 million from book sales. You guys had legitimate and extremely valid arguments about real corruption, covering up of sexual assault allegations, and more stuff that can even be named on Killary to attack. This is gonna land with the velocity of a turd coming from Trump. What's next is Trump gonna attack him for sexism?
Sexism?
Nah. We can leave that up to Fauxcahontas to allege.
This thing is going get down, dirty, and outright hilarious before it’s over.
I already, simultaneously, look forward to the mayhem in Milwaukee and feel sorry for the honest folks that live and work there.
But, it’s the left. They can’t contain themselves.
Oh it already is all those things. The DNC just somehow figured out a way to make themselves more of a clown show and more of a fraud than everyone already knew they were with this Iowa nonsense. If they steal this from Bernie then oh well the party burns to the ground as it should, Trump wins 48 states give or take, and there's never a Democrat president elected again. There's very few people on this board I agree with politically in any way, but we are in complete alignment on the DNC and the mainstream Dem party of being the biggest group of corrupt, con artists, backstabbers, and any other awful adjective you can come up with.
(02-05-2020 07:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Here's where I come down on the two charges, as a lawyer, for the record:
1) On the first charge, there is precious little direct evidence of anything. I believe a number of the "witnesses" had never had any direct contact with Donald Trump, and I don't believe that any of them were able to testify as to any direct evidence of any such acts. But beyond that, an essential element of the charge is that Donald Trump did it (which is unproved) for the sole purpose of his own political gain. That part is nowhere even close to being proved, nor is there in fact any evidence of it. There is ample evidence, in the form of Hunter Biden's absurdly lucrative contract with Burisma, to conclude that something untoward was going on. What the prosecution would have to argue is that a president cannot cause to be investigated, or seek the assistance of any foreign country in the investigation of, any potentially illegal or corrupt conduct by any American, if such American is a potential future political opponent. I reject that argument as absurd, and therefore would vote "not guilty" on the first article. Not that there is nothing that John Bolton could testify to, that would swing that argument the other way.
2) On the second charge, note that the alleged offense is described as, "obstruction of congress," not, "obstruction of justice." The latter is a crime, the former isn't. Presidents get to obstruct congress, it's inherent in the separation of powers into three co-equal branches. To convert, "obstruction of congress," to, "obstruction of justice," there is a simple path for congress to follow. Issue subpoenas, and when they are not complied with, go to the third branch, the courts, to obtain a judgement. If the judge upholds the subpoenas, and the subject continues to refuse, then you have the requisite elements for, "obstruction of justice." But the accusation, as written, is totally bogus, like accusing you of going 54 in a 55 mph zone.
yeah, but, Mittens begs to differ (did you watch his rant on it? Would be interested in your comments on what he said.
(02-06-2020 12:51 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote: Surely you know book writers do not sell books out of the trunk of their car, and publishers ARE who pay the book writers.
I understand this. In my last response I mentioned that his campaign would have had to purchase the books from the publisher. And yes, the publisher does indeed pay the author.
They way book deals work is that the publisher offers the author an advance prior to the book release (oftentimes while the author is still in the process of writing the book). They also offer the author a percentage a.k.a. royalties of the book sales. However, the author must first pay back the advance prior to receiving any royalties. For instance, using round numbers to keep this simple:
In exchange for writing the book and signing the rights away of said book, Verso Publishing offers Bernie Sanders a $100,000 advance and 10% royalties on the retail price to write a book.
Book goes out for sale for $20 retail. Bernie does not see any royalties for the first 50,000 books sold in order to pay back his advance:
$20 x 0.10 = $2
$2 x 50,000 books = $100,000
Bernie sanders receives 10% of any book sold after 50,000 since he has now paid off his advance.
Now lets look at his campaign. His campaign bought the book in bulk at wholesale prices. He did not receive any royalties on any book purchased by the Sanders campaign. This was confirmed by Senate Finanial Disclosures provided here. Therefore, he never personally profited from any sales of the book that the campaign purchased.
Quote:The books the campaign bought were the re-edition of a book he wrote in 1997 Outsider in the House re-released as Outsider in the White House.
So?
Quote:The campaign was basically the only ones that bought it.
Quote:He made money on it. That was the purpose of releasing it and for the Campaign buying it.
No. I don't believe he did.
And finally.....
(02-06-2020 11:47 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote: If you've found any evidence that what he did was wrong or illegal, I'd like to see it.
(02-05-2020 10:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote: Okay Owl, I'm not a lawyer but I played one on tv. What route specifically could Trump have taken to get the full disclosure about daddy's boy Hunter's shenanigans? Is a president allowed to even ask someone to get info on Hunter without seeming to be interfering in Bite'em's run for president?
I’m not sure why you’re questioning me. I think the duty to enforce the laws requires that a president do those things.
(02-05-2020 10:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote: Okay Owl, I'm not a lawyer but I played one on tv. What route specifically could Trump have taken to get the full disclosure about daddy's boy Hunter's shenanigans? Is a president allowed to even ask someone to get info on Hunter without seeming to be interfering in Bite'em's run for president?
I’m not sure why you’re questioning me. I think the duty to enforce the laws requires that a president do those things.
Don't get defensive Owl. The reason I asked you is because you're a lawyer and I'm not. It would be the same thing if there was something wrong with my car and I found out one of you was a mechanic and I needed to know what could be wrong with my car. I would ask that person as he would know more about mechanics than my wife or me.
(02-06-2020 09:04 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: I'm gonna laugh my ass off the first time President Bernie claims "executive privilege" on something and this board loses their damn mind calling it an abuse of power.
LOL, man you're a card. If you're so confident that Bernard would win the presidency why don't you bet that person (I'd have to go look to see who he was but I'm too lazy) who said whomever lost would leave the Spin Room. But, when that happens and Bernard loses I hope you don't welch on the bet like that little man, Tulane.
Take the bet man, since you're so sure you're crowning him before he even wins the Iowa caucus. If you want that answer for that write a letter to Ukraine or to Russia, I'm sure that they'll tell you. After all, one of those countries was communist like your hero. Boboso, or is that Bobisole? Why don't you take the bet too?
(02-05-2020 10:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote: Okay Owl, I'm not a lawyer but I played one on tv. What route specifically could Trump have taken to get the full disclosure about daddy's boy Hunter's shenanigans? Is a president allowed to even ask someone to get info on Hunter without seeming to be interfering in Bite'em's run for president?
I’m not sure why you’re questioning me. I think the duty to enforce the laws requires that a president do those things.
Don't get defensive Owl. The reason I asked you is because you're a lawyer and I'm not. It would be the same thing if there was something wrong with my car and I found out one of you was a mechanic and I needed to know what could be wrong with my car. I would ask that person as he would know more about mechanics than my wife or me.
That's all.
XOXO
Fair enough. Tone just struck me as a bit odd because I thought you agreed with me. Sounds like you do, so we are good.
I'm not 100% certain of the intricacies of what are and are not proper P's and Q's in this situation, but basically any applicable statutes would be process statutes and might cause some evidence to be excluded, but wouldn't result in criminal penalty unless attached to a large scheme with criminal intent. And intent is still the piece they don't have.
(02-05-2020 10:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote: Okay Owl, I'm not a lawyer but I played one on tv. What route specifically could Trump have taken to get the full disclosure about daddy's boy Hunter's shenanigans? Is a president allowed to even ask someone to get info on Hunter without seeming to be interfering in Bite'em's run for president?
I’m not sure why you’re questioning me. I think the duty to enforce the laws requires that a president do those things.
Don't get defensive Owl. The reason I asked you is because you're a lawyer and I'm not. It would be the same thing if there was something wrong with my car and I found out one of you was a mechanic and I needed to know what could be wrong with my car. I would ask that person as he would know more about mechanics than my wife or me.
That's all.
XOXO
Fair enough. Tone just struck me as a bit odd because I thought you agreed with me. Sounds like you do, so we are good.
I'm not 100% certain of the intricacies of what are and are not proper P's and Q's in this situation, but basically any applicable statutes would be process statutes and might cause some evidence to be excluded, but wouldn't result in criminal penalty unless attached to a large scheme with criminal intent. And intent is still the piece they don't have.
Ditto for me as for ollie on my post/question a little above--I'm not a lawyer, but wanted your further opinion on Mittens. But I guess the intent you noted here kind of covers it, right?
(02-05-2020 07:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Here's where I come down on the two charges, as a lawyer, for the record:
1) On the first charge, there is precious little direct evidence of anything. I believe a number of the "witnesses" had never had any direct contact with Donald Trump, and I don't believe that any of them were able to testify as to any direct evidence of any such acts. But beyond that, an essential element of the charge is that Donald Trump did it (which is unproved) for the sole purpose of his own political gain. That part is nowhere even close to being proved, nor is there in fact any evidence of it. There is ample evidence, in the form of Hunter Biden's absurdly lucrative contract with Burisma, to conclude that something untoward was going on. What the prosecution would have to argue is that a president cannot cause to be investigated, or seek the assistance of any foreign country in the investigation of, any potentially illegal or corrupt conduct by any American, if such American is a potential future political opponent. I reject that argument as absurd, and therefore would vote "not guilty" on the first article. Not that there is nothing that John Bolton could testify to, that would swing that argument the other way.
2) On the second charge, note that the alleged offense is described as, "obstruction of congress," not, "obstruction of justice." The latter is a crime, the former isn't. Presidents get to obstruct congress, it's inherent in the separation of powers into three co-equal branches. To convert, "obstruction of congress," to, "obstruction of justice," there is a simple path for congress to follow. Issue subpoenas, and when they are not complied with, go to the third branch, the courts, to obtain a judgement. If the judge upholds the subpoenas, and the subject continues to refuse, then you have the requisite elements for, "obstruction of justice." But the accusation, as written, is totally bogus, like accusing you of going 54 in a 55 mph zone.
I totally agree on 2)..and although I believe what he did was a totally wrong for the President to do and that he did try to smear Biden politically?...I agree the managers failed to prove it was criminal or grounds for removal from office based on the evidence. Im of the opinion that DJT should find the whistle blower and thank him. If he had blown the whistle this Spring?..There is a very good possibility that Trump could have been too deep into this scheme to be able to defend himself. He was very lucky in the timing of all of this to be able to get out early into the scheme. Ive said many times...TIMING is EVERYTHING..in life.
(02-06-2020 09:22 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: I totally agree on 2)..and although I believe what he did was a totally wrong for the President to do and that he did try to smear Biden politically?...I agree the managers failed to prove it was criminal or grounds for removal from office based on the evidence.
It seems like you share the opinion of the likes of Senator Portman of Ohio, Senator Collins of Maine and Senator Alexander of Tennessee. Most posters here in the Spinroom disagree and think Trump did absolutely nothing wrong and that his actions were justifiable.
My question for you is if you believe the President was in the wrong here, what actions should Congress have taken to ensure this behavior is corrected? Do you think he ought to be censured? It seems to me that Trump cannot and should not get away from this unscathed, or else what will stop him from doing something similar in the future? Furthermore, what stops any future president, democrat or republican, from doing this?
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2020 11:16 AM by BobcatEngineer.)
(02-06-2020 09:22 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: I totally agree on 2)..and although I believe what he did was a totally wrong for the President to do and that he did try to smear Biden politically?
To me, that depends. If it were done solely to smear Biden, then I would agree with you, and depending on the severity, I might even have to vote guilty. But's that's where the case against him is not just weak, but virtually non-existent. If there were a valid reason to suspect that the Bidens and Burisma had engaged in some sort of illegal or corrupt acts, then I think he his justified in going full bore with any investigation, regardless of the political implications. As someone said, otherwise you could murder someone and then file to run for president and become immune from prosecution. And I believe that Hunter's absurdly lucrative contract with Burma provides enough smoke to justify looking for a fire. So I would find the actions justified on that basis, even more so if not everything that has been alleged could be proved.
This is where the democrat narrative loses me. From them, we have rumors that he did certain things, and obviously, the rumored acts could be motivated only by political ambition. Even if the first part proves up (and so far it doesn't) that doesn't get over the hurdle provided by the second part. And they simply haven't addressed that part. Bolton could maybe prove up the first part, but he can't prove up the second.
![[Image: lHsMT60.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/lHsMT60.jpg)
![[Image: e02e5ffb5f980cd8262cf7f0ae00a4a9_press-x...19-238.png]](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/021/e02e5ffb5f980cd8262cf7f0ae00a4a9_press-x-to-doubt-memes-memesuper-la-noire-doubt-meme_419-238.png){kind=icon}
