The Impeachment Thread

#29,276
#29,276
hog88 said:
LOL

Panties twisted again this morning? No I am not saying anything of the sort. I am saying impeachment and removal from office should be reserved for when an elected or appointed official actually commits a crime, not as a political tool. For anything less than criminal activity, elections are how we hold an elected official accountable.
Click to expand...
How do you propose proving that there is criminal activity if the accused gets to determine what proof is available?
 
#29,277
#29,277
37L1 said:
Gee, and all this time I thought our system of justice required that the prosecution prove that a suspect was guilty. You know, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thingy.
Click to expand...
LOL.....
Process this.
A person is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt BUT the person is actually innocent.
I would think that the person would jump at the chance to defend himself, suggest witnesses, and prove why the jury was wrong and there should be reasonable doubt.
 
#29,278
#29,278
utvols88 said:
Who knows. Schiff blocked them.

Furthermore, let's not let Trumps impeachment distract us from you thinking it's ok that the mere sight of a person AFTER the crime is enough to consider "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt"

I think it's clear that not only do you misunderstand the MEANING of beyond reasonable doubt but you also devalue the importance of the principle in and outside of the court.
Click to expand...
Because none of them had anything to do with what was being investigated.
 
#29,279
#29,279
RockyTop85 said:
How do you propose proving that there is criminal activity if the accused gets to determine what proof is available?
Click to expand...

You take it to court and if the courts rule he must comply then he doesn't you have grounds to impeach on that alone. It's not hard, the Dems rushed it and will pay with another loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, Sandman 423 and VolnJC
#29,282
#29,282
RockyTop85 said:
What do you believe the second article is, if not accountability for failing to comply with the impeachment?

I don’t recall you ever saying how you think a president can/should be held accountable, if he doesn’t have to comply with impeachment; only that you didn’t accept the lack of accountability that was status quo. I thought I gave up on trying to square what you were saying with what I thought were your principles. I’ll go back and read through it again.
Click to expand...

The second article is ill defined to me. Obstruction of Congress is vague. I suspect intentionally so; but i readily admit that is because of my profound distrust of politicians. Perhaps obstruction of congress means obstruction of congressional impeachment. Or, maybe OoC means obstruction of the constitution. The cynic in me says OoC could simply mean gridlock with the Congress.

Clinton's impeachment was well defined as perjury (i don't know how many articles were voted on). I don't remember Johnson's. Also, don't recall what Nixon's would have been had he not resigned.
 
#29,285
#29,285
luthervol said:
LOL.....
Process this.
A person is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt BUT the person is actually innocent.
I would think that the person would jump at the chance to defend himself, suggest witnesses, and prove why the jury was wrong and there should be reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
And yet in a vast majority of cases, I can even spitball a "luther percentage", 99%, the defense attorney does not want the accused to take the stand and advises against it even if the defendant claims/believes s/he is innocent. Wonder why that is?

Ever hear of Executive Privilege? It exists and the courts are used as the arbiter between the Executive and Legislative branches to determine what is considered privileged and what is not, ergo, why it is going to be in front of SCOTUS, as it should be. Since the Democrats are acting liked spoiled children, "I want it now", they are not comfortable with letting the process play out but instead rant about how it is obstruction, even though there is a legal path that exists to resolve this issue. Wonder why that is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#29,286
#29,286
For those of us who think Trump is a horrible president now, god help us all if he gets a second term.

Completely. Unhinged.

And the Congress will officially neuter itself her shortly my summarily dismissing impeachment as a partisan hack.

President 1
Checks and Balances 0

This is not a good thing. Don't care where you sit on the aisle.
 
#29,287
#29,287
MontyPython said:
A group of more than 700 historians, legal scholars and others published an open letter Monday urging the House of Representatives to impeach President Trump, denouncing his conduct as “a clear and present danger to the Constitution.”

The letter’s release comes two days before the House is expected to vote on two articles of impeachment.

“President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government,” the scholars write in the letter, which was published online by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.

“So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law,” they add.
Click to expand...

Yesterday, I read about how lobby groups created advocacy groups designed to craft messages to sway the public opinion when the ACA debate was in full swing.

Do you know who funded Protect Democracy? I don't.
Did the 700 people work on the open letter as a group project or was the letter crafted and then the 700 simply signed their name to it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, NurseGoodVol and hog88
#29,288
#29,288
utvols88 said:
Says you, Mr. Conjecture. The defense disagrees. But you're not interested in the defense being able to defend themselves. You're interested in getting that guilty conviction based solely on that conjecture.
Click to expand...
What witnesses were they asking for that had any first hand knowledge?
 
#29,290
#29,290
Mick said:
Not anymore. He was a pawn in Trumps abuse of office. He was directed by Trump to facilitate Rudy's/Trump's agenda of undermining American National security by withholding aid to our ally for personal political gain.
Click to expand...
Luther finds him credible. I assume you do too even though you previously saw him as a criminal?
 
#29,291
#29,291
MontyPython said:
For those of us who think Trump is a horrible president now, god help us all if he gets a second term.

Completely. Unhinged.

And the Congress will officially neuter itself her shortly my summarily dismissing impeachment as a partisan hack.

President 1
Checks and Balances 0

This is not a good thing. Don't care where you sit on the aisle.
Click to expand...
It will be unbearable for you, so thoughts and prayers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#29,292
#29,292
McDad said:
Yesterday, I read about how lobby groups created advocacy groups designed to craft messages to sway the public opinion when the ACA debate was in full swing.

Do you know who funded Protect Democracy? I don't.
Did the 700 people work on the open letter as a group project or was the letter crafted and then the 700 simply signed their name to it?
Click to expand...
Who cares? Doesn't matter. 700. Not 705, or 698. 700.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#29,296
#29,296
MontyPython said:
For those of us who think Trump is a horrible president now, god help us all if he gets a second term.

Completely. Unhinged.

And the Congress will officially neuter itself her shortly my summarily dismissing impeachment as a partisan hack.

President 1
Checks and Balances 0

This is not a good thing. Don't care where you sit on the aisle.
Click to expand...
From a guy who's party has been completely unhinged for 3 years this is awesome.

Dems had control for 6 years of Congress while barry was in office and routinely went around them and you all were fine with that, so none of you dems have any credibility
 
#29,297
#29,297
hog88 said:
It will be unbearable for you, so thoughts and prayers.
Click to expand...

I've heard a lot of fear mongering from both sides in my 48 years. I am sure you have, too. I cannot recall any politician's fearful prediction which came true ...or was even close to what actually transpired.
 
#29,299
#29,299
hog88 said:
You take it to court and if the courts rule he must comply then he doesn't you have grounds to impeach on that alone. It's not hard, the Dems rushed it and will pay with another loss.
Click to expand...

How is that a superior than “the president has to turn over documents sought by congress or risk impeachment?”

Please address the fact that it’s been almost a year since the democrats took Congress and has been almost 8 months since the Mueller report and the subpoena of Don McGahn hasn’t even been ruled on by a circuit court.
 
#29,300
#29,300
luthervol said:
Only to the degree that what he says is completely supported by every other witness.
Click to expand...

That's the rub. The quotes you provided from him and the video of his testimony plus the transcript of his testimony put him all over the place. He seems to be inconsistent.

The only qpq i found he articulated in his testimony was in reference to Guiliani.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top