Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Turley: The "haymaker" in Supreme Court arguments. Chief Justice Roberts. "Openly mocking of DC Circuit."
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 5:59 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (5 comments) [129 views]

pb's Legal Goobers #s 2 & 3: The NY v Trump case is collapsing
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 3:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [26 views]

The Oval Office Oaf calls for "Four more years. Pause."
Entertainment by HatetheSwamp     April 24, 2024 2:56 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [75 views]

Republicans: Do you know where your political donations are?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 6:12 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (7 comments) [324 views]

The latest general election polls from this weekend reveal something interesting.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 22, 2024 11:03 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (10 comments) [423 views]

So Ukraine got money.
Military by oldedude     April 24, 2024 3:58 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [89 views]

Donna may be getting her wish granted: Gateway Pundit to file for bankruptcy
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [31 views]

James Comer hopes for divine intervention to save him from embarrassing impeachment fiasco.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [77 views]

Trump, Giuliani, Meadows are unindicted co-conspirators in Michigan fake elector case, hearing reveals
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 4:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (3 comments) [38 views]

Russia is even more furious over vote by Congress to support Ukraine than MTG.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 21, 2024 6:09 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [640 views]

Crime selectors, pages, etc.
Hey, Curt, get this: AOC takes heat over 'RICO is not a crime' comment in Biden impeachment probe hearing
By HatetheSwamp
March 21, 2024 3:20 am
Category: Crime

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Bobulinski attempted to tell AOC that RICO is "a category of crimes that you are then charged under" as the congresswoman talked over him

Read the link.

Oh, and watch the video. Bobulinski skewered her. Well, she embarrassed herself... and all woke sheeple.

In another thread, I told Curt that right-wing media would go bonkers over the exchange between brainless AOC and an American hero.

I also noted, accurately, again, just yesterday that AOC is the Dem equivalent of Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Now? I'm thinking about apologizing to Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Cited and related links:

  1. foxnews.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Hey, Curt, get this: AOC takes heat over 'RICO is not a crime' comment in Biden impeachment probe hearing":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2024 3:36 am

    Tryin the video again...

     View Video

  2. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 7:30 am
    It's up here.

  3. by Curt_Anderson on March 21, 2024 9:06 am
    Sorry, HtS, OD and MAGA world, RICO is not a crime. Nobody has ever been arrested for committing RICO. RICO is a prosecution tool.

    RICO, which stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act, is federal law that fights against organized crime in The US. The statute allowed prosecutors to pursue the powerful people inside a criminal organization, rather than merely targeting the lower-level individuals indulged in dirty work.

    Bobulinski claimed he witnessed Joe Biden commit crimes, when AOC asked which crimes specifically, Bobulinski started with RICO. It’s not a crime.

  4. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 9:47 am
    Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman was arrested tried and convicted under the Rico statue. So was the Teflon Don. and thousands of others. Yes, it's a "chapter under the law, just like "burglary" or "horse theft" or "homicide."

    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal law (codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68) targeting organized criminal activity and racketeering. RICO enhances existing criminal punishments and creates new causes of action for acts done as a part of an organized criminal enterprise.

    RICO imposes a maximum criminal penalty of 20 years in prison for violations of the statute. If sentenced the defendant must also forfeit all proceeds obtained while engaging in racketeering activity to the government. To be convicted under RICO, a pattern of racketeering activity is necessary. This means that at least 2 separate activities that can be classified as racketeering must have occurred within 10 years of each other.

    I've covered this many times before. You should read sometime.
    First level. "arresting" the drug dealer
    Second level. finding out that he's a gangster and they're selling multi kilos a day. (do they fit the "Continuing Criminal Enterprise requirements[CCE]). This is open to OCEDTF approval for wire taps, extra money, buy money, etc. Many times these are multiple agencies (FBI, DEA, USMS, BATFE, Postal Inspectors, etcetcetcetc)

    Third level. If they fit the CCE requirements, are the requirements under RICO satisfied. (this is Gotti/ Chapo stuff). Many times international trafficking (but not required) (Requires OCEDTF Approval to be "official")
    law.cornell.edu
    law.cornell.edu

  5. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 9:49 am
    Referencing your BS is either a savior. Or your demise. Take your pick.

  6. by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2024 9:54 am

    Curt,

    You're playing a semantic game...

    ...and, losing.

  7. by Curt_Anderson on March 21, 2024 10:26 am
    HtS,
    When it comes to law, semantics are important. In fact, semantic analysis is a big part of the job of lawyers and judges.

    I said RICO is a prosecution tool. OD says RICO is a "chapter under the law" which is close to AOC saying that RICO is a "category". OD quoted a definition saying RICO "enhances existing criminal punishments". Trump and his fellow defendants are learning that lesson.

    A person could say that RICO is a statute or that RICO is a law. However, you cannot say RICO is a crime. Bobulinski certainly did not witness Joe Biden "committing RICO".

  8. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 10:27 am
    Bobski mentioned "conspiracy" (a crime attached to the act to indicate an agreement to commit a crime and carries the same charges as those who commit the act (sometimes), conspiracy and material assistance= we talked about murdering curt. I give indy the gun. I am in essence, the murderer.

    It does NOT have to be a RICO in order to charge the conspiracy. I am at a meeting with donna and po discussing their house. I am a money guy and a well known "connected" person (black suit, snap brim hat)" and donna is a relative. I am the one that wants them in the house. We are talking to the banker. I don't say a word. I know they are committing an illegal act. I am a conspirator.

  9. by Curt_Anderson on March 21, 2024 10:37 am
    OD,
    I don't see the crime in your example of Ponderer, Donna and you talking to banker about buying a house.

    A conspiracy conviction requires that there is an underlying criminal offense.

    A person could conspire to throw someone a surprise birthday party. That's not a crime. I agree that conspire and conspiracy have a negative connotation. Conspiracies are secretive.


  10. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 10:39 am
    I know they are committing an illegal act.

    I just told you that for one reason or another I KNOW they are committing an illegal act with the banker. I didn't think I had to spell that out.

    And quit using the birthday party comparison. I already sent you the reference that it is stupid.

  11. by Ponderer on March 21, 2024 11:06 am

    Curt is quite right. As always.

    RICO is not a crime. No one is ever charged with having committed RICO. No one is ever put under arrest for the crime of RICO. For lots of crimes under RICO maybe, but RICO is not a specific crime nor a crime in and of itself as Curt laid out.

    So Curt and AOC were accurate and completely correct.

    Saying RICO is a crime is like if you wanted to make a case against same sex marriage because of a passage in the scriptures that says it's a sin, and tried to say that when someone engages in it, they have committed the sin of "Holy Bible". Holy Bible is not a sin. The Bible sets out lots of sins a person can commit. But Holy Bible is not itself a sin. Like RICO itself is not a crime.

    Glad we could help ypou with your misunderstanding, od.


    I hate how Fox apparently depends so much on their viewers being pig-ignorant gullible morons.

  12. by Ponderer on March 21, 2024 11:08 am

    These MAGA Hats are just never going to admit that they've got absolutely nothing to charge Biden with.

  13. by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2024 11:22 am

    Curiously, po. All of pb's Legal Goobers knew exactly what he was claiming.

    In the end, the moderate and independent voters who see this will care more about AOC hissing and snarling and belligerently interrupting than whether or not Bobulinski spoke correctly... which he did.

    RCP has the GOP favored to win the House and Senate in 024 and Trump spanking the "dithering and diminished" Doddering Old "feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap."

    Why? Because you woke Swampsters are increasingly nasty. That's precisely what AOC's sniping at Bobulinski portrays.

  14. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 11:51 am
    Saying RICO is a crime is like if you wanted to make a case against same sex marriage because of a passage in the scriptures that says it's a sin, and tried to say that when someone engages in it, they have committed the sin of "Holy Bible". Holy Bible is not a sin. The Bible sets out lots of sins a person can commit. But Holy Bible is not itself a sin. Like RICO itself is not a crime.

    Had you been paying attention, you'd know and understand (in your purposefully misinformed voter mind) curt was purposefully lying through ommission. A LIE nonetheless. and one that you jumped on because, well, you can't handle the truth.

    I referenced Cornell Law in my definition. When Bobski was speaking, he CORRECTLY mentioned charges under the RICO statue. I referenced those. I'm pretty fucking sure Cornell Law knows more about this than either of you, or either combined. So argue with them. I even cited the law that talked about it. Had you read, or were capable of it.

    FUCK! I hate how msn/npr/etc apparently depends so much on their viewers being pig-ignorant gullible morons. That's a new good word for you. NOT an intentionally "Misinformed" you're too stupid to understand you're being mislead.

    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal law (codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68) targeting organized criminal activity and racketeering. RICO enhances existing criminal punishments and creates new causes of action for acts done as a part of an organized criminal enterprise.

    The law was originally passed in 1970 as a part of a larger movement to curb organized crime and to allow victims of organized crime to recover. While the original statute was primarily targeted at the mafia who’s disconnected structure made conviction of high-ranking members difficult due to the inability to tie them directly to crimes, the use of the statute has now been used to take down many notable criminal enterprises.

    Are you feeling smarter now that you know the facts? or you're just going to remain this stupid? I think the latter is the case.
    law.cornell.edu

  15. by Curt_Anderson on March 21, 2024 1:10 pm
    OD,
    Yes, Cornell knows law. You know how to misinterpret it.

    To follow Ponderer's biblical analogy, your saying "charges under the RICO statue" is much like saying "sins under the Ten Commandments". Just as the Ten Commandments is not a sin, the RICO statute is not a crime. Comprende?

  16. by Ponderer on March 21, 2024 1:21 pm

    Bless your heart, Curt. Of course he doesn't comprende or capiche.

  17. by Ponderer on March 21, 2024 1:23 pm

    Also, Obama was talking about businesses having not build the roads that they used. Not that they didn't build their businesses.

    I'll never understand why conservative Trump Party members enjoy parading their idiocy so.

  18. by Ponderer on March 21, 2024 1:25 pm








    And again... point being.... in response to what this thread was originally about...

    AOC was correct. RICO is not a crime.







  19. by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2024 1:46 pm

    po,

    How bout violating corruption statutes?

  20. by Curt_Anderson on March 21, 2024 2:05 pm
    Corruption is not a crime
    Many perceive corruption to be a crime. In fact, however, corruption is not a federal crime, unless one is speaking about corruption of seamen and confederating with pirates, activities that are prohibited under the only federal statute in Title 18 of the U.S. Code that actually includes the term “corruption” in the title of the statute. A host of federal statutes beyond the criminal code use the term “corruption” with regard to programs that encourage good governance, such as providing aid to countries in order to combat corruption. And, of course, sentencing provisions reference corruption offenses. One might find the term “corruption” in legislative findings regarding extortionate credit transactions, for example. So too, there is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but the conduct outlined in these statutes is limited, with certain parties, such as foreign officials, excluded from prosecution. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act includes an entire definition statute that covers terms such as “racketeering activity” and what is meant by the term “enterprise.” But there is nothing to tell us what “corrupt” means because the term is not included in the description of prohibited activities under RICO.
    scotusblog.com

  21. by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2024 2:18 pm

    There are no corruption statutes?

  22. by Ponderer on March 21, 2024 2:22 pm

    Kinda like the word treason. Eh, Curt?


  23. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 2:51 pm
    we're in the realm of stupidity. now.
    You're talking about two separate laws. Much like you comparing canadian law to US law. NOT the same.
    To follow Ponderer's biblical analogy, your saying "charges under the RICO statue" is much like saying "sins under the Ten Commandments". Just as the Ten Commandments is not a sin, the RICO statute is not a crime

    The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

    Ergo it's a law that has specific guidelines, can be broken, and has sentencing guidelines. It is specific to ongoing criminal organizations. Much like the DNC.

    This is a lot like you two arguing about SCOTUS voting in trumpster's favor. NONE of them sided with you. NONE. Neither of you understand enough law to even make a remote thought. It's ALWAYS WRONG. just face it. Save yourself some embarrassment.

  24. by Curt_Anderson on March 21, 2024 2:58 pm
    "...provides for extended criminal penalties..."

    It's like Hamburger Helper. RICO cannot be applied if there is no beef to start with.

  25. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 3:05 pm
    Right. Like ALL laws there has to be an illegal activity.🤣 The predicate acts are specialized is all.

    You need to actually read the law instead of what MSN is telling you, which is crap. It's more like I explained before and you didn't read. There are laws. There are laws you use in a CCE, and there are laws you can use with a RICO.
    Please either read the fucking law or STFU. This never gets anywhere when you can't read anything except sheepnews.com.

  26. by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2024 4:17 pm

    Rudi Giuliani rips AOC a new one over her claim RICO ain't a crime!

     View Video

  27. by Curt_Anderson on March 21, 2024 4:32 pm
    🤣 🤣
    As if the Notorious Rudy G has an impressive legal record in the past few years.

  28. by HatetheSwamp on March 21, 2024 4:52 pm

    I knew you'd enjoy it.

  29. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 4:56 pm
    curt- I'm presenting and reading the section of law that covers RICO charges. So unless you're a scholar and is reading law better than Cornell Law, you might want to pay attention to the actual law, not what your losers say. As a matter of fact, I can't remember you ever being correct when it comes to us discussing points of law...You always pluck some nonsense out of your butt and call it the same. which has never made sense to me.

    It's like Hamburger Helper. RICO cannot be applied if there is no beef to start with.

    1. You don't have any case if there's no hamburger. As much as you'll disagree, you can't make up a law to charge with. The criminality has to be there previously to the charge and predicate acts.

    I said this one before. You chose what you wanted to argue about and didn't read shit else.
    2. First level. "arresting" the drug dealer for slinging heroin.

    Second level. SAME asshole and heroin. finding out that he's a gangster and they're selling multi kilos a day. (do they fit the "Continuing Criminal Enterprise requirements[CCE]). Same charge, but now you get to add things like wire taps, going back further in history, etc.

    Third level. SAME ASSHOLE AND HEROIN. You find out this is a multinational investigation. Much bigger than what you thought when you brought from said asshole and he sold to you. This is open to OCEDTF approval for wire taps, extra money, buy money, etc. Many times these are multiple agencies (FBI, DEA, USMS, BATFE, Postal Inspectors, etcetcetcetc). That's your usual charge.

    Remember- this is all the same ASSHOLE and the SAME HEROIN. So your fucking hamburger has ALWAYS BEEN THERE TO CHARGE. Unless you're one of your FBI buddies during CROSSFIRE HURRICANE and invented evidence and lied to the courts.

    In all three cases, you are charging the crime listed in each section of the statutes (the crime, CCE rules, RICO rules).

  30. by Curt_Anderson on March 21, 2024 5:53 pm
    We've beat this horse to death. Some here say RICO is a crime; others including me say RICO is a statute used as a prosecutorial tool to charge people for their part in a criminal conspiracy.

    What makes RICO interesting is that a person's involvement in a crime covered by the RICO statutes might be legal viewed in isolation. Buying a gun is legal. Driving a car is legal. Visiting a bank is legal. But if you supply the guns for a bank robbery, surveil the bank or drive the getaway car, you are as guilty as the guys wearing the masks pointing their guns at the teller.

    Back to the hearing yesterday. Tony Bobulinski said he witnessed Biden committing a crime, adding that crime was RICO. I'd like to know what he might have witnessed that anybody could have defined as "committing RICO". I wonder why the Republicans didn't press Bobulinski to learn what the predicate acts of the supposed RICO-worthy case he witnessed Biden doing.



  31. by oldedude on March 21, 2024 7:09 pm
    Some here say RICO is a crime; others including me say RICO is a statute used as a prosecutorial tool to charge people for their part in a criminal conspiracy.

    Just to clarify, I'd say they're both. AOC argued there are no "crimes" associated with it, which is false. And like I said before, it's also a level of the crime that is mandatory when using the statute. How I know it's a crime, is that it falls under Title 18, USC. Title 18 is THE criminal title. AOC's preppers should have known that if they were any good. She's got enough problems in her district.

    Back to the hearing yesterday. Tony Bobulinski said he witnessed Biden committing a crime, adding that crime was RICO. I'd like to know what he might have witnessed that anybody could have defined as "committing RICO". I wonder why the Republicans didn't press Bobulinski to learn what the predicate acts of the supposed RICO-worthy case he witnessed Biden doing.

    He knew that he watched pedojoe in on a conversation regarding illegal activity that he feels falls under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Obviously, the GOP didn't need that and would prove it later, during the evidence phase of the proceedings. He had stated earlier, and in other testimony he witnessed meetings, etc. They're putting together the information available to them. And the dims.

    Even cops working in RICO cases have to look up predicate acts in the law EVERY time they are ensuring a case fits the description and insuring they can charge the crime. It's usually a cross referencing between three or four chapters in the title depending on the charges. And that's for EACH CHARGE. That's a stupid question, especially with the hostile line of dims questioning.

    He was also threatened to have his phone subpoenaed after he had given them all the information. That was just to fuck with him, nothing else.
    law.cornell.edu

  32. by Ponderer on March 21, 2024 10:05 pm

    You're getting warmer, od. Except that RICO is not a crime.

  33. by oldedude on March 22, 2024 7:12 am
    You can't accept any facts, can you. You only listen to folks that purposefully keep you bleating at their whim without looking at facts.

    Like not wanting to know that everyone in under US law has a right to (sorry indy, she still doesn't want to get it) "due process." And you don't even know what that means to use it correctly. That's a basic feature in not only our system, but most systems in the western world. Not so much for your buddies putin and Hamas.

    You're intentional about this. It's worse than a low informed voter that doesn't care. You claim to care but are mislead and know it. You're nothing but a useful idiot to them.

  34. by HatetheSwamp on March 22, 2024 7:26 am

    OD,

    All the lawyers I've read or watched have no problem with Bobulinski saying RICO, and they understand what he meant and why he'd say it.


    Question: Why do you think the Dem Swampcult is pitchin a hissy?

    Are they defensive about the brainless AOC?
    Do they sense that Bobulinski landed a punch on Biden?
    Are they intimidated by Bobulinski himself,... a patriotic, stand up guy... whom moderate and independent voters might find credible?


    The obvious overreaction to that brief exchange by po and the metaphorical Rachel interests me more than that brief exchange of words.

    *****

    AND, lost in all of this is Bobulinski's mention of FARA. Bobulinski really hit the nail on the head there. No one on the Biden team is denying that Hunter and Jim broke that law...

    ...or, is FARA just a category?... bahahahahahaha.

  35. by oldedude on March 22, 2024 7:54 am
    Again, those vaguely familiar with our legal system understand exactly what the reference is. Others don't understand framing the subject of speaking of the "legal" term, not a party for his wife. The dims are playing "willful stupidity" with the public. Some are lead down whatever they say because facts don't matter when it comes to politics.

    I would argue just the opposite. And it doesn't matter who says what. If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for the other. po calls that "MAGA." I'm like the penguins in Madagascar, I just "smile and wave boys, smile and wave."

    I think our system isn't perfect, but no "system" is for everyone all the time. It's kinda the definition of compromise. Like I said before, I'm also a MLK Jr dem. I do anger some of my family sometimes. I don't care what you call yourself, just don't expect me to "guess" what you want to be called. I look at the content of your character. So in that, and living in so many places, I like it here. Otherwise, I have the choice to move. If I hate it that much, I would find a way to get out.

    Sorry, I'm ranting today. I'll stop.

  36. by Ponderer on March 22, 2024 8:33 am

    "[Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...]" -olde dude

    And yet none of the irrelevant blather you've spent so many sentences bloviating about in this thread alters the fact that RICO is not a crime. That's all I have been saying in this entire thread. And I have been saying it because RICO is not a crime anymore than the Bible is a sin.


    Hate started this thread trying to make fun of AOC for saying that RICO is not a crime. As if she was stupid to say such a thing. She wasn't. She was absolutely correct in saying that RICO is not a crime and you MAGA Hats just don't want to admit that y'all were ignorant about it and wrong.

    You never want to admit that you are wrong. Ever. It's as if you believe that you'll spontaneously combust if you ever admitted to an error or being mistaken about anything.

    And the funny part is that you Trump Party members are wrong all the freaking time! Yet you seem bound and determined to present the most comical way of demonstrating how wrong you are. Just as you have in all the volumes of blather you've posted in this thread to obfuscate the fact that Hate was an idiot for starting this thread in the first place.


    Because RICO is not a crime. AOC was 100% absolutely and totally correct and you guys are wrong.


    Deal with it, od.




  37. by HatetheSwamp on March 22, 2024 8:39 am

    This is when you are in your element, po. Flaunting the fact that you are an Ivy League law school professor and Jonathan Turley is only on the faculty at George Washington University.

    You know. RICO ain't a law... no matter what those pickers say.

    Stick to your guns. Youdabomb!

    Curious, though. Why don't you just come out an address the real issue. Tell us that the Biden Crime Family ain't guilty of racketeering.

    Hmmmmmm?

  38. by Curt_Anderson on March 22, 2024 9:40 am
    “ Why don't you just come out an address the real issue. Tell us that the Biden Crime Family ain't guilty of racketeering.”. —HtS

    Not quite. The real issue is for you to explain how Joe Biden is guilty of racketeering or any other crime as president. That presumably was the goal of the Republican led house oversight committee’s impeachment inquiry.

  39. by HatetheSwamp on March 22, 2024 9:58 am

    Curt,

    You're missing my point. Even if Bobulinski misspoke when he said, "RICO," is a crime that the "dithering and diminished" Doddering Old Fool has committed, his point was that Biden is guilty of breaking racketeering statutes... and, it's as if po and the metaphorical Rachel are trying to divert away from the real issue by kicking and screaming over semantics.

    I'll repeat.

    Based on the substantial circumstantial evidence, I think it's extremely likely that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" is guilty of many crimes. But, no evidence directly implicates him.

    T'other day, I gave up watching the hearing because all Dems did was scream TRUMP. And, all the GOPs did was show one fact after another that suggests that what Hunter and Jim did lined the Former Trucker's pockets... but they never got there.

  40. by Curt_Anderson on March 22, 2024 10:11 am
    "But, no evidence directly implicates him." ---HtS

    Otherwise known as not guilty and not even having a case. If there was any evidence, it would be plain sight. Certainly obtainable by a congressional committee. Tip to GOP: find witnesses not currently in prison, under indictment or disgruntled former business partners with an axe to grind.

    If he's guilty, it seems that Joe Biden is just too dang smart for the Republicans. Either way, the Republicans should call it day, maybe turn their attention to defrocking and ex-communicating Mike Johnson.



  41. by HatetheSwamp on March 22, 2024 10:32 am

    I think that you are Good Germaning again, Curt.

    I suspect that many "low information voters" have already concluded that Joe is a DC equivalent of a mafia Don. Investigations can get close to him but not all the way to him. Read that Jonathan Turley article. That's why all polls have him losing to Trump, the vibrant economy notwithstanding.

    The statistical probability that Joe's clean is, as po might say, EFFINminute. Thankfully, for he who is "dithering and diminished," enuff HouseGOPs apply Bill of Rights due process guarantees to their impeachment votes... because, if all of this were true of Trump kids and siblings, Trump would have impeached long ago with every Dem walking in lockstep... and a few dozen GOPs joining in.

    There's plenty of evidence... but just enuff plausible deniability.

  42. by Curt_Anderson on March 22, 2024 11:13 am
    “ I suspect that many "low information voters" have already concluded that Joe is a DC equivalent of a mafia Don”. —-HtS

    If so, the Republicans have accomplished their goal. They should celebrate their success.

  43. by HatetheSwamp on March 22, 2024 11:28 am

    And, Curt, that's exactly what I've been saying all along.

    I've been saying that the HouseGOPs timed this out so the hearings would be taking in the spring, when Trump's trials were scheduled and during Primary season. Badabing. Remember?

    It seems that the Dem lawfare has flopped but the GOP Biden Crime Family scheme has been a smashing success...

    ...who knows what will be going on in November, but, for now...

  44. by Curt_Anderson on March 22, 2024 11:31 am
    That’s because the Republicans have a built-in advantage. They have a near monopoly on low information voters.

  45. by HatetheSwamp on March 22, 2024 11:46 am

    Baha.

    By definition, low-information voters are apolitical.

    What is true, though, is that the great preponderance of intentionally misinformed voters are progressive disciples of po's metaphorical Rachel and your Holy Trinity.

  46. by oldedude on March 22, 2024 3:13 pm
    Curt- I think there's a difference between. I agree there are many low information voters. Many libs are willfully ignorant, which to me is far worse. I don't rely on what "right wing" news says. At all.

    What I look at is the surrounding story. Like the "law" they reference. Many times I have to look at the reference from the reference of the reference to the law to find out an answer.

    This is easy for anyone to do. If it really didn't matter, and I'll just listen to the nightly or BS by the water station or coffee pot at work, that's one thing.

    But to know you're listening to "mis" "bad" "stupid" "erroneous" information and fall for it hook, line and sinker, that's a problem.

  47. by HatetheSwamp on March 22, 2024 3:18 pm

    But to know you're listening to "mis" "bad" "stupid" "erroneous" information and fall for it hook, line and sinker, that's a problem.

    Preach it, OD. Bang on.

  48. by Ponderer on March 22, 2024 8:14 pm

    At least we've all reached a consensus that RICO is not a crime. So finding common ground is possible.

  49. by oldedude on March 23, 2024 2:49 am
    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    you're not worth a comment

  50. by HatetheSwamp on March 23, 2024 3:19 am

    Y'know. Think about it. po is AOC with a Y chromosome.

  51. by oldedude on March 23, 2024 4:54 am
    That would make her equal to an MTG, right? The same reasoning capabilities?

  52. by HatetheSwamp on March 23, 2024 4:58 am

    The three are equally wacky, for sure.

  53. by Ponderer on March 23, 2024 9:50 am

    This thread was started by Hate whose comments on it tried to make AOC look completely stupid for saying what was in actuality completely and totally correct, thereby making Hate look completely stupid.

    And he now knows that's what happened.

    So now, totally embarrassed by how stupid he has made himself look, he and his accomplice in bullshit propaganda, olde dude, are trying their darnedest to obfuscate and distract us away from how stupid Hate and all those who are attacking AOC for what she said and asserting she was wrong.

    They do this kinda thing all thefucking time. Nailing them on their self-impaling idiocy and their resultant attempts to cover it up is one of my favorite joys of coming in here.

  54. by oldedude on March 23, 2024 10:54 am
    I have no control over your complete lack of the law. Or how to read it. Or the stupid people you listen to when you get your information. Much like every other argument you've been proven wrong on.

    AOC is like you. She can't tell her big ass from two holes in the ground. This just gets funnier as you have no "facts" that you've referenced. Only hearsay, and zero evidence from other people that don't know. You're "opinion" doesn't mean crap to anyone worth listening to.

    If you're so fucking sure, give me facts. and fucking reference them. Curt at least came to his senses. And at that point it wasn't an argument. Only the facts. And there were things where he was correct. You have nothing correct to stand on. And saying it's so just makes you look more stupid than you are if that's possible.

  55. by Ponderer on March 23, 2024 11:50 am

    "If you're so fucking sure, give me facts." -olde dude

    Okay. It's a fact that RICO is not a crime. Whatever RICO entails, consists of, and contains, the simple, blatant, and undeniable fact remains that RICO is not a crime.

    od, you seem to be trying to make the argument that if anyone was schooled enough in the law, they would see that RICO is a crime. But that simply isn't the case. That is wrong. It is an erroneous conclusion to come to with any amount of learning behind it. Because RICO is not a crime.

    You don't need a law degree to know that RICO is not a crime just as you don't need a seminary degree to know that the Bible is not a sin. Kinda simple stuff here.


    And just so you know, you are in no way helping Hate to look less stupid than he is for posting this thread.

    Valiant effort, though.

  56. by HatetheSwamp on March 23, 2024 12:13 pm

    It's a fact that RICO is not a crime.

    Wrong.

    Or, as my Legal Goober #2 says, "Tell that to Fani Willis.

    Oh and you're wrong about how pb started this thread. pb pointed out that AOC is being widely criticized for that ridiculous suggestion that RICO ain't a crime.

    That's factual.

  57. by oldedude on March 23, 2024 12:17 pm
    od, you seem to be trying to make the argument that if anyone was schooled enough in the law, they would see that RICO is a crime. But that simply isn't the case. That is wrong. It is an erroneous conclusion to come to with any amount of learning behind it. Because RICO is not a crime.

    Prove it. Show me where it says that the RICO Statute in Title 18, USC (criminal code) is NOT. You have zero facts behind you. You have your second grade mentality, and no evidence.

    And saying "because it isn't" doesn't matter to me. As usual, you're bringing your juvenile reasoning to someone that has shown the fact of this.

  58. by Ponderer on March 24, 2024 10:04 am




    *sigh*




    "The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization."

    olde dude, is it your contention that a congressional act that sets out a collection of targeted laws, statutes, and penalties can accurately be labeled as a crime?

    I'm just wondering, because it can't be. It's an Act that established a collection of laws, statutes, and penalties.


    Is it so important to you to always be right not be wrong that you can't even acknowledge a simple piece of logical, semantic reality?


    The Constitution of the United States is also a collected list of many laws, statutes, and penalties. Is the Constitution of the United States therefore a crime? Can a government agency that denies a minority group of their First Amendment rights to free speech be charged with the crime of "Constitution"?


    Again... the Bible sets out a ton of sins and commandments and penalties for engaging in or violating them. Is the Bible therefore a sin?

    A pitcher is a container with a handle and spout that contains and dispenses various beverages. Is a pitcher therefore a beverage?

    This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to comprehend, od. If only you were capable of admitting you were wrong, you could save yourself a lot of self-imposed anguish over this.


    RICO is not a crime. Whine and bitch and moan and stomp your feet in histrionic consternation all you want to over it. It just isn't.

    Because it isn't.

    en.wikipedia.org

  59. by HatetheSwamp on March 24, 2024 10:31 am

    So, OD. I think that po's saying that Bobulinski misspoke but that Joe and the whole Family is guilty of racketeering. The I, i.e. influence, and C, i.e. corruption is the essence of the O, i.e. organization, or Family...

    ...and, more and more, America knows it.

  60. by Ponderer on March 24, 2024 11:09 am


    I have an admission to make.

    I have been commenting on this thread this whole time without having even watched the video that this thread links to. I was just going off of the thread title and what Hate and olde dude were saying on it in response to Curt.

    So I just watched it... And yeah. As I figgered...





    AOC is completely, totally, and absolutely 100% entirely correct in what she said.





    Those who are giving her "heat" for her factual comment are attacking her as if she is wrong, even though she is completely correct. Because they believe that their gullible, ignorant hoards will swallow the implied lie that she's wrong. The Trump Party has gone full propaganda. This is how they operate. This is how they lie monger their way into any place of power they manage to slime their way into.


    (Boy, Curt. I sure do miss being able to make gigantic text sometimes. Sometimes even making something bold, italicized, and underlined just doesn't seem to get the point across somehow.)

    (and even being able to make text really small was useful too.)


  61. by oldedude on March 24, 2024 11:36 am
    So you're still wrong even though you were presented with the facts. You have NO facts to support your side, and you're still stating you're "correct" somehow. That's just stupid. But I guess as a narcissist, it's hard to see your world any different since no one else is allowed to exist in it. I always wondered why you were so miserable in your pathetic, shallow life.

  62. by Ponderer on March 24, 2024 12:29 pm

    And don't even get me started on your projection problem.

  63. by HatetheSwamp on March 24, 2024 2:17 pm

    po,

    You're t'only poster in the history of SS who'd be obsessed with what two non-lawyers call, and don't call, a crime.

    Thanksaton!

  64. by Curt_Anderson on March 24, 2024 2:29 pm
    "You're t'only poster in the history of SS who'd be obsessed with what two non-lawyers call, and don't call, a crime." ---HtS

    Other than the guy who started this thread and others here, anyway.

  65. by oldedude on March 24, 2024 2:34 pm
    po- you can call it what you want. I do have to give curt kudos as he was willing to listen. You're continued to argue it "cannot" include crimes. I'm not arguing it's a level of crimes and a group of crimes listed in Title 18. Your refusal to negotiate on any part of something you know absolutely zero about would be funny if you didn't exclude the rest of the definition.

  66. by HatetheSwamp on March 24, 2024 2:36 pm
    I pointed out that Alexandria created a kerfuffle with her rudeness, obnoxiousness and ignerne.

    Since then, I've been trying to reason with the wokesters.

  67. by Ponderer on March 24, 2024 10:33 pm

    "po- you can call it what you want." -olde dude

    And you can call it whatever you want. As long as you don't call it a crime. Because RICO is not a crime.


    "You're continued to argue it "cannot" include crimes." -olde dude

    I have argued no such thing. All I have continued to argue quite consistently and solitarily is that RICO is not a crime. Literally the only thing and nothing else.


    "I'm not arguing it's a level of crimes and a group of crimes listed in Title 18." -olde dude

    And I am not arguing anything other than the fact that RICO is not a crime.


    "Your refusal to negotiate on any part of something you know absolutely zero about would be funny if you didn't exclude the rest of the definition." -olde dude

    There is nothing to negotiate. The rest of the definition is irrelevant. RICO is not a crime. No part of the definition defines RICO as a crime. Nothing you have brought up in this entire thread demonstrates that RICO is a crime. Because nothing can. Because RICO is not a crime.


    Glad I could clear that up for you, od.

  68. by Curt_Anderson on March 24, 2024 11:24 pm
    "I sure do miss being able to make gigantic text sometimes" ---Ponderer

    I hear you!


    You can use html font tags here. That's one of the reasons I retired the old forum. However, please the use the proper tags that close the font style, as you do with the italics and bold tags.
    tutorialspoint.com

  69. by oldedude on March 25, 2024 2:49 am
    The issue you have is that you have no facts to back up your claim. You claim it. And you've lied so much in the past that it doesn't matter. You're just lying again. So pull out facts. cite your work or STFU. One of the two. So far, you've done neither. So you're nothing better than a liar. This is like the dozenth time I've said this. You can't produce anything. So you've got nothing. Not an EFFEN word worth listening to.

  70. by oldedude on March 25, 2024 2:54 am
    Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes (27 federal crimes and eight state crimes) within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise."[1]

    Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.[2]

    In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."[3]

    A US Attorney who indicts someone under RICO has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or an injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property as well as to require the defendant to put up a performance bond. An injunction or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.

    This provision prevented the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations from absconding with assets. In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney.

    Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court because it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[4]
    en.wikipedia.org

  71. by HatetheSwamp on March 25, 2024 3:46 am

    I'm still fascinated by why woke, white electric limousine lovin progressive Swampcultists... like po... are so vexed by this brief exchange.

    Here's a theory:

    Curt, especially, for months, has polluted SS with Dem propaganda that the HouseGOPs have found no evidence of a "dithering and diminished" "feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" crime.

    What Bobulinski did was to be specific. RICO. Corruption statues. FARA.

    And, what that world-class fool, AOC did was scream and chant over him so as to make a spectacle of it.

    The Bobulinski thing might have been a nuthin burger. Bobulinski ain't a lawyer. He ain't in law enforcement. He has no expertise that would equip him to suggest that Biden has committed actual crimes.

    But, good ol AOC asked a question that every other Dem in that hearing had the sense not to ask.

    Then, she meowed and howled at Bobulinski like a cat in heat...

    ...and, exactly as ol pb noted in starting this thread, AOC made that brief exchange the story of the day, making a nonlawyer's suggestion that the Doddering Old Fool committed real crimes the story that drove a huuuuuuuuuge news cycle.

    Now, the pos of the world,... curiously... can't let it go.

    Baha baha baha haha heehee haha, ha!

  72. by Curt_Anderson on March 25, 2024 8:37 am
    “Curt, especially, for months, has polluted SS with Dem propaganda that the HouseGOPs have found no evidence of a "dithering and diminished" "feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" crime.

    What Bobulinski did was to be specific. RICO. Corruption statues. FARA.” —-HtS

    Let’s analyze your statement and its ramifications logically:
    I am sure you’re aware that James Comer said he intends to make criminal referrals regarding Joe Biden to the justice department. Obviously to make criminal referrals, you need to refer to at least one specific crime. Maybe that “crime” is RICO. Tony Bolinski said he witnessed that crime being committed by Joe Biden. So what is James Comer waiting for? More to the point, if he has evidence of an actual crime, why not impeach Joe Biden? If Joe Biden committed a crime, why are Republicans skeptical of James Comer and the impeachment inquiry committee? I think you will agree that the impeachment inquiry appears moribund.

    I think we all agree that James Comer really wants to “get the president“. If he does not make a criminal referral or formally call for an impeachment vote, can we agree that James Comer has nothing?





  73. by HatetheSwamp on March 25, 2024 9:53 am

    I am sure you’re aware that James Comer said he intends to make criminal referrals regarding Joe Biden to the justice department.

    No,...

    ...please correct me if you can but I recall Comer suggesting that criminal referrals are an option. But, Comer knows better than we do that to make criminal referrals to this highly politicized DOJ would be a waste.

  74. by Curt_Anderson on March 25, 2024 10:16 am
    The following is from a Newsmax article reporting on a Newsmax interview. I read that as being less ambiguous than merely considering a criminal referral as a potential option

    Comer said he would "vote to impeach" Biden now, but that the best path to holding him accountable is through criminal referrals.
    newsmax.com

  75. by HatetheSwamp on March 25, 2024 10:28 am

    So there!

    Re: "...can we agree that James Comer has nothing?"

    Curt, ma man! pb's said that... to YOU!

    The congressional investigations have revealed a mountain of evidence that members of the Biden Crime Family have committed RICO and FARA offenses... but, were pb a member of Congress, he would not vote to impeach the "dithering and diminished" "feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap."

    Were he on a jury and Hunter or Jim were charged with the crimes Bobulinski mentions, he'd vote guilty in a heartbeat.

  76. by Curt_Anderson on March 25, 2024 10:35 am
    I am not going to bother with all your apparent contradictions and reversals in your last comment except this one" Bobulinski claimed he witnessed Joe Biden "committing" RICO. So why wouldn't you include Joe with Jim and Hunter who you'd "vote guilty in heartbeat"?

  77. by HatetheSwamp on March 25, 2024 10:49 am

    With the "dithering and diminished" "feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap," we're talking about impeachment. With the rest of the Crime Family, I'm talking about criminal charges.

    Now, c'mon, Curt. You watch Fox waaaaaaay more than do I. You know. There's documentary evidence of the crimes of Hunter and Jim. Back when the Doddering Old Fool still had a working brain, he was able to create plausible deniability for himself...

    ...and, dagnabbit, if Hunter had not dropped off his laptop,... containing legitimate incriminating financial and legal documents,... he'd have been perfectly safe and no one would have asked any questions.

    There are documents a prosecutor could show a jury that prove Hunter and Jim are filthy. Not Joe.

  78. by Curt_Anderson on March 25, 2024 11:02 am
    "There are documents a prosecutor could show a jury that prove Hunter and Jim are filthy. Not Joe." --HtS

    So you think there is an evidentiary case against Hunter and Jim, but not Joe. I certainly agree* with your conclusion about Joe Biden. You also think that Joe has "plausible deniability". Do you know when a potential defendant has a strong defense of plausible deniability? When they are innocent and/or no crime has been committed.

    *Here's to finding a point of agreement! 🍻


  79. by HatetheSwamp on March 25, 2024 11:09 am

    Do you know when a potential defendant has a strong defense of plausible deniability? When they are innocent and/or no crime has been committed.

    I don't even understand the question. I wish I were smart enough to be a progressive.

Go To Top

Comment on: "Hey, Curt, get this: AOC takes heat over 'RICO is not a crime' comment in Biden impeachment probe hearing"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
 SelectSmart.com home page