Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I guess this logic makes sense to liberals?
She is self-described as "Author of the The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness"
Impeachment
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
I guess this logic makes sense to liberals?
She is self-described as "Author of the The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness"
Lots of Switzerese here.
Someone who says what you described would also be disqualified. An actual juror wouldn't be allowed to judge anything at all until he or she has actually heard evidence. A "middle ground" wouldn't suffice.
Personally, I don't want to smell Joe Biden's junk, but to each his own.
But you don't actually know what Trump's stuff smells like because you haven't heard evidence. You've presumed based on the comments of people who also haven't heard evidence.
A grand jury still has to put on sufficient evidence to prove probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the defendant is guilty. Has that happened? Very, very thin ice. If we're playing the indictment card, it's also worth noting that an indictment can be challenged for failing to set forth a a violation of law and failing to plead all the elements of a crime. The impeachment articles fail on both counts.
I'm not saying you need those things to impeach, but I am saying that if you're going to analogize to the indictment to justify the evidence being weak, you should also consider the downsides of the analogy. The point is that, even if you don't like to admit it and think Trump is a bad guy (and I don't think he's a good guy), nobody has ever been impeached on flimsier evidence, and it's a blowout.
Considering that he promised to dramatically boost spending on defense and infrastructure and to oppose entitlement reform, you were crazy to think this. And you can throw his fiscal irresponsibility at Trump voters' faces. I get it, and I've done it some. However, keep in mind that nobody has offered a better alternative. Instead of offering a more fiscally responsible alternative, the opposition party is offering fiscal lunacy. The choices are pretty crappy.
Someone who says what you described would also be disqualified. An actual juror wouldn't be allowed to judge anything at all until he or she has actually heard evidence. A "middle ground" wouldn't suffice.
Personally, I don't want to smell Joe Biden's junk, but to each his own.
But you don't actually know what Trump's stuff smells like because you haven't heard evidence. You've presumed based on the comments of people who also haven't heard evidence.
A grand jury still has to put on sufficient evidence to prove probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the defendant is guilty. Has that happened? Very, very thin ice. If we're playing the indictment card, it's also worth noting that an indictment can be challenged for failing to set forth a a violation of law and failing to plead all the elements of a crime. The impeachment articles fail on both counts.
I'm not saying you need those things to impeach, but I am saying that if you're going to analogize to the indictment to justify the evidence being weak, you should also consider the downsides of the analogy. The point is that, even if you don't like to admit it and think Trump is a bad guy (and I don't think he's a good guy), nobody has ever been impeached on flimsier evidence, and it's a blowout.
Considering that he promised to dramatically boost spending on defense and infrastructure and to oppose entitlement reform, you were crazy to think this. And you can throw his fiscal irresponsibility at Trump voters' faces. I get it, and I've done it some. However, keep in mind that nobody has offered a better alternative. Instead of offering a more fiscally responsible alternative, the opposition party is offering fiscal lunacy. The choices are pretty crappy.
Last edited:
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
You are right bystander. The truth there is good and bad factors going on at the same time, but there is a consistent factor behind at least some part of the stock market gains. It is also why the stock market did well under Obama even when the rest of the economy totally sucked.
The Wealth Redistribution Scam that Is "Inflation" | Thorsten Polleit
Wait. So she says the human brain doesnt fully develop till 25, and risk taking is higher in younger people, yet shes ok with addictive activites like drinking being legal at 16? Say what? And mentally immature people should be able to vote at 16?
And what about the legal age of consent? How does she leave that off?
She destroys her own arguments all in the same tweet...
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Obama's quid pro quo didnt' involve a foreign government helping him win an election. That will be the response, and it won't be entirely wrong.
But Horn6721, you present a great example how politicians make millions of dollars through corruption and bribery. I don't know how you eliminate this type of corruption, but I am open to ideas.
The main way is that you get the government out of these aspects of life. If education was not run by the FedGov, then Obama wouldn't have had the opportunity to steal money from us in this way.
But Horn6721, you present a great example how politicians make millions of dollars through corruption and bribery. I don't know how you eliminate this type of corruption, but I am open to ideas.
The main way is that you get the government out of these aspects of life. If education was not run by the FedGov, then Obama wouldn't have had the opportunity to steal money from us in this way.
Im tired of the narrative that Trump is looking for help in the 2020 election. FFS investigating Biden in Ukraine doesnt equal 2020 election interference. Biden and his son aren't immune just because hes running.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
In this regard, it is somewhat like the release of the tranche of DNC/Podesta emails. The entire time, the media myopically focused on "the hack" itself. They never examined the content of the emails. Still have not dealt with them to this day.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
It makes sense in liberalville.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I agree with you, but Trump did himself no favors. He knows the apparatus of the Deep State and elected Democrats are after him and will twist anything he says to make him look bad.
All Trump has to do is, do the job of President in a circumspect way. If he doesn't, there will be more investigations.
I35
5,000+ Posts
Why Bubba......... why? You already have your head up their ***, no need to smell their junk too.
It's amazing how many problems go away by simply following the Constitution. If we did that, most of our economic and pretty much all social problems and divisions would disappear.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Wow, look at you. A positive Happy New Year message
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I often wonder (aloud) how they come to their conclusions. They seem to love bad facts, no facts and and emotion-driven rationales. They are staggeringly unable to distinguish between fact and opinion. I usually suggest it is due to lack of maturity (their parents should be jailed), emotional retardation and/or that they need years of therapy.
But here is Scott Adams' explanation (btw, he is a traditional liberal and Democrat voter) in an indirect way. His idea is more polite/more simple than mine. But I would still argue that there is a reason they limit their sources of news. It is a choice they consciously make. And the reason is their underlying emotional instability.
@bystander , here is another article that discusses impeachment. I disagree with York when he says the Senate isn't composed of jurors. Senator Harkin's exact words weren't, "we aren't jurors." They were, "we're much more than jurors." In other words, he acknowledged that they were still charged to decide questions of fact like jurors. (In 1999, I hadn't started law school and hadn't had sex, so the nuances of a Senate trial was about as exciting as it got for me.) However, York is still mostly correct.
I guess someone explained to Biden that he was doing the same thing that they were impeaching Trump for (i.e. defying a Congressional subpoena).
Why is this guy still running for President? Does he really not have someone close enough that can tap him on the shoulder. It's sad.
Why is this guy still running for President? Does he really not have someone close enough that can tap him on the shoulder. It's sad.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
While I cant disagree with this, i do think you are making a mistake assuming that since "it worked this way in the past, it must go that way again this time." I do not believe this is correct. Ultimately the rules are up to them (them being the Senate). While they can follow past procedure if they choose, there is no rule that says they must. The process for Trump is something they must work through.
Sure, adopting the "Rules for Clinton" would be the easiest (and laziest) way (which makes it seem most likely), it also appears the Dems are adamantly opposed to allowing Trump to enjoy the same courtesies and due process that Republicans allowed Bill Clinton. If we can say anything with certainty, it is that Democrats believe in two tracks of justice, dependant upon party affiliation. Furthermore, as I have written on this thread and others, some key Senators have their own reasons for not letting this matter go too far into the weeds (i.e., Ukraine). Which means that just because the President is a Republican and might seek to introduce his own witnesses and evidence in his defense with regard to "what actually happened in Ukraine," it doesnt mean Senators from his from his own party are going to yield to him on this. When push comes to shove, self-preservation usually trumps all.
But back to the point, I also do not believe a court, any court, will interfere with their process - it is 100% on the Senate to do what it will do. If some lower court did agree to stick its nose in this, I think the SCOTUS would subsequently scorch that court for it. Exceptions made for issues of law regarding related but non-direct items such as subpoenas between the branches and the exercise of privilege.
Lastly, while the SCOTUS and probably all the federal courts are going to stay out of any review of whatever processes and procedures the Senate determines, John Roberts himself is going to be in a different role. My guess is that he will defer to the Senate to every extent possible - "Your rules, your constitutional role, your house, you decide." But if there is a wild card, he is it. It is possible that something so outrageously outside all reason will be put in front of him and he wont have any choice but to .... be John Roberts. How many degrees of John Roberts are there? We will see. It will be history revealing itself as the world live streams it.
It can write its rules anyway it wants. However, it can't compel any Senator's vote, and the Chief Justice can't issue a directed verdict (meaning take the issue away from the Senate and render judgment as a matter of law like a trial court judge can). Accordingly, each senator will decide what's an impeachable offense when he casts his or her vote to acquit or convict.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Apparently Dems are considering adding an impeachment article for Trump for legally tweeting out the name of the whistleblower?
When I first saw this, I snorted some peppermint mocha in and out a nostril
I thought someone was kidding
But I do hope they do it
Because, if they do, then we can finally have an adult conversation about the whistleblower - the person who started all this
His shady connections to Ukraine
His close relationship with Schiff
His close relationship with Brennan
His political life generally
And the rest of the Deep State spying on Trump
When I first saw this, I snorted some peppermint mocha in and out a nostril
I thought someone was kidding
But I do hope they do it
Because, if they do, then we can finally have an adult conversation about the whistleblower - the person who started all this
His shady connections to Ukraine
His close relationship with Schiff
His close relationship with Brennan
His political life generally
And the rest of the Deep State spying on Trump
To be clear, I don't think everything necessarily has to go exactly as it has in the past. There are a few constants. First, the Senate is the sole decision-maker on whether or not to convict the President. They can't delegate that to someone else, and nobody can take it away from them. Second, only a 2/3 majority can remove the President. However, within those parameters the Senate can make its own rules.
That may be true. The Senate can pick and choose what witnesses to call.
I agree.
Roberts would have absolutely no authority to take the matter away from the Senate and render judgment on his own. He could try it, but it would be by far the most controversial move by a Supreme Court justice in history. Furthermore, because he was acting in Trump's favor, it would ruin his image in DC, which we know he cares about (to a fault). It also likely wouldn't have much effect, since the Senate could overrule him.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
So worst case then is that he tried to leverage them but the aid went through without the additional consideration of the alleged quid pro quo. So if it WAS a quid pro quo attempt, was that in and of itself a high crime or misdemeanor?
They wanted to put Bush #2 to death but Michelle pardoned him and is now his BFF...
They can only remove him from office and bar him from holding future office. Only a court can impose a criminal punishment.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
