The Impeachment Thread

#20,856
#20,856
NorthDallas40 said:
I deferred to Turley. That was clear as was his statement . You’re not good at this comprehension thing or deflection frankly. And his opinion on the law is weighted more than mine or yours.
Click to expand...

Did I misrepresent his argument?

Here's what he said:

"But the problem is that it was not the case - that bribery was defined differently, but it was not as broadly defined as Chairman Schiff suggests.
Indeed, there were exchanges during the Constitutional Convention, particularly between Mason and Madison, where there was an objection that treason and bribery were too narrow. And there was a suggestion - or a proposal to include the term maladministration, a much broader term for impeachment. That was rejected. But it was spurred - that suggestion came about because they felt bribery was too narrow."

So the most this shows is that bribery is not as broad as maladministration. That's fine and seems right. There are all sorts of things that could be maladministration (such as negligent acts). But that says nothing about the meaning of bribery at that time, much less whether Trump's actions would fall under that meaning. To say it doesn't, without offering any analysis of how bribery was understood at the time, begs the question (ie assumes what is to be proven).

In contrast, the articles I've linked provide sustained historical analysis of that term and explain that Trump's actions fall under it.
 
#20,862
#20,862
luthervol said:
Once again. This has never had anything to do with beating Hillary. None of the other 16 would have gone through this.
This is all about Trump; nothing more, nothing less. The sooner you guys process that fact the better.
Click to expand...
Bullsqueeze. IT has everything to do with beating that ****.
 
#20,863
#20,863
luthervol said:
Once again. This has never had anything to do with beating Hillary. None of the other 16 would have gone through this.
This is all about Trump; nothing more, nothing less. The sooner you guys process that fact the better.
Click to expand...

Actually it is about beating Hillary, and the Clintons and Soros are ultimately behind this somewhere. That will prove itself out when someone close to the Clintons and this farse threaten to come clean. They will suicide.

This started the day he won the election. Not one time, ever, did any Dem in DC ever attempt to work with this president. And no Dem since has actually performed any job duties the base hired them to do. The sole focus since Nov 2016, before he was even sworn in was to get rid of him. Why? Cause he beat Hillary. Why? Cause they had a falling out, and Trump said I'll show you. And he switched sides and beat her. We know it's all about Trump. It's not about legalities. The American Public is not that dumb. Viewership and public interest in this sham is dropping like a lead balloon because they are seeing it for what it is. A Trump hate hunt. Because he's a bad person. Despicable, reprehensible DC politicians...pick a name. Actually name one who isn't, shorter list. It's all about trump alright. Mean while back in America, GOP's are busy doing their jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC and SpaceCoastVol
#20,867
#20,867
evillawyer said:
Did I misrepresent his argument?

Here's what he said:

"But the problem is that it was not the case - that bribery was defined differently, but it was not as broadly defined as Chairman Schiff suggests.
Indeed, there were exchanges during the Constitutional Convention, particularly between Mason and Madison, where there was an objection that treason and bribery were too narrow. And there was a suggestion - or a proposal to include the term maladministration, a much broader term for impeachment. That was rejected. But it was spurred - that suggestion came about because they felt bribery was too narrow."

So the most this shows is that bribery is not as broad as maladministration. That's fine and seems right. There are all sorts of things that could be maladministration (such as negligent acts). But that says nothing about the meaning of bribery at that time, much less whether Trump's actions would fall under that meaning. To say it doesn't, without offering any analysis of how bribery was understood at the time, begs the question (ie assumes what is to be proven).

In contrast, the articles I've linked provide sustained historical analysis of that term and explain that Trump's actions fall under it.
Click to expand...
You’re damn sure altering his summary conclusion. Here I’ll repeat it again for you. And I defer to his judgment on the matter. I’ve highlighted the key statement you seem to be shrieking in contention about.

...
TURLEY: I'm afraid history does not support Chairman Schiff on his suggestion of a bribery article of impeachment. His position is that bribery was defined differently during the colonial times and had this much broader meaning. On the face of it, I thought that was a little bit humorous because, you know, Chairman Schiff seems to support a living Constitution, so suddenly, he sounds like an originalist. But the problem is that it was not the case - that bribery was defined differently, but it was not as broadly defined as Chairman Schiff suggests.
...
Click to expand...

Let me clarify that for you girl. Turley is laughing at Schitt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#20,872
#20,872
NorthDallas40 said:
You’re damn sure altering his summary conclusion. Here I’ll repeat it again for you. And I defer to his judgment on the matter. I’ve highlighted the key statement you seem to be shrieking in contention about.



Let me clarify that for you girl. Turley is laughing at Schitt.
Click to expand...

So where's the historical argument? Oh yeah, that one where he talked about how a maladministration basis for impeachment was rejected, which I've explained is question begging crap.

But your big boy pants on and engage the argument.
 
#20,873
#20,873
evillawyer said:
So where's the historical argument? Oh yeah, that one where he talked about how a maladministration basis for impeachment was rejected, which I've explained is question begging crap.

But your big boy pants on and engage the argument.
Click to expand...
I don’t have to. I’d rather make an appeal to a clear higher authority and watch you try to reject it. Let’s see you actually successfully dispel an argument by Jonathan Turley 😈 🍿

Turley. Laughed. At. Schitt
 
#20,875
#20,875
RockyTop85 said:
Called it yesterday, “It was all Rudy” is now the play.
Click to expand...

Kudos. I see now that this is the only way out of the box the POTUS has put the GOP in, when they can't even acknowledge his mistakes.

Rudy corrupted poor choir-boy Donny with his magic Mayor powers is the play, but Nunes and Jordan are probably too dumb to get on board.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top