The Impeachment Thread

#30,027
#30,027
BowlBrother85 said:
I understand that and that is fine. I was responding to a previous poster who tried to claim that none of the people who had testified before the House Oversight Committee, were appointed by Trump. That was wrong.
Click to expand...

OK, I misunderstood your position. To me it's offensive that ambassadors basically buy their positions, and that goes for all elected and appointed positions. It may be a fact of life, but it's truly offensive, and obviously money doesn't buy better government.
 
#30,029
#30,029
ajvol01 said:
Link?
Click to expand...

"The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency'—even if those deeds didn't violate any criminal laws."
Click to expand...

Bowie, Nikolas (December 10, 2018). "High Crimes Without Law". Harvard Law Review.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[6] A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. For example, Chief Justice John Marshall when writing about the phrase "levying war" said, "It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."[7][8]

Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of "high crimes and misdemeanors" were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping "suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament," granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[9] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not.[citation needed] They can be thought of as serious cases of power abuse or dereliction of duty, without a requirement for these cases to be explicitly against the law.
Click to expand...

See the footnotes indicated, High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

As you can see, the phrase had particular meaning, taken from English common law by the Founding Fathers, and it specifically IS NOT limited to"crimes," as we use the phraseology today.

This is really not a debatable point.
 
#30,031
#30,031
luthervol said:
You view things so simplistically.

If my kid lies to me about taking a cookie out of the cookie jar it's different than lying to me about killing the neighbor's cat.
The lying is bad either way and will be dealt with, but the reason for the lie is also significantly important; sometimes even more so.
Click to expand...

You are wrong Luther. Under oath a lie is a lie regardless what it is about.

It doesn't matter if you lie under oath about the color of the underwear your wearing or whether you committed mass murder it's still perjury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orange_Vol1321
#30,032
#30,032
They keep saying the American people know the real truth. The last poll I saw, the American people were split down the middle and almost all of them wanted the Senate to call Bolton and other witnesses in the trial.
 
#30,033
#30,033
JCP201 said:
They keep saying the American people know the real truth. The last poll I saw, the American people were split down the middle and almost all of them wanted the Senate to call Bolton and other witnesses in the trial.
Click to expand...

I can't decide whether what appears on the surface to be true: that Bolton would crush Trump and reveal how f'd up his administration is on foreign policy; or whether its a shell game, and the GOP will spring him at the last second, and he will defend Trump gloriously.
 
#30,034
#30,034
JCP201 said:
They keep saying the American people know the real truth. The last poll I saw, the American people were split down the middle and almost all of them wanted the Senate to call Bolton and other witnesses in the trial.
Click to expand...

Hell yes I want Bolton and crew to testify. I want as many witnesses as possible to testify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin and JCP201
#30,036
#30,036
lawgator1 said:
I can't decide whether what appears on the surface to be true: that Bolton would crush Trump and reveal how f'd up his administration is on foreign policy; or whether its a shell game, and the GOP will spring him at the last second, and he will defend Trump gloriously.
Click to expand...
Needs to be done, whatever the result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#30,037
#30,037
hog88 said:
You are wrong Luther. Under oath a lie is a lie regardless what it is about.

It doesn't matter if you lie under oath about the color of the underwear your wearing or whether you committed mass murder it's still perjury.
Click to expand...
Good grief. Again with the simplicity.
Speeding is speeding. Right?
But if you were pulled over for speeding and it's because your wife was in labor, it may be viewed a little differently than if you were pulled over for speeding and it's because you were trying to escape from the police.
But I agree....speeding is speeding.
Lying is lying.
Perjury is perjury.
They're just not always viewed equally, nor should they be.
 
#30,039
#30,039
JCP201 said:
Needs to be done, whatever the result.
Click to expand...

Well, it does if he knows something about Ukraine and the military aid. I wouldn't want him to just come in and launch a tirade against Trump on some other unrelated issue. As entertaining as that would be, we need this not to be gummed up with side issues, either way.
 
#30,041
#30,041
#30,044
#30,044
lawgator1 said:
Now now, that's minus 5 style points for breaking from the GOP talking points memo that impeachment is distracting the Congress for working for the American people.
Click to expand...

The less productive they are the less they can **** up.

Plus the more and varied witnesses that are called the more information we the public get. Maybe they can convince some Ukrainian prosecutors, the president and some ministers to come testify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#30,045
#30,045
luthervol said:
Good grief. Again with the simplicity.
Speeding is speeding. Right?
But if you were pulled over for speeding and it's because your wife was in labor, it may be viewed a little differently than if you were pulled over for speeding and it's because you were trying to escape from the police.
But I agree....speeding is speeding.
Lying is lying.
Perjury is perjury.
They're just not always viewed equally, nor should they be.
Click to expand...

Perjury is perjury in the eyes of the law. Stop with the moronic arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, AM64, hjeagle1vol and 1 other person
#30,046
#30,046
lawgator1 said:
Now now, that's minus 5 style points for breaking from the GOP talking points memo that impeachment is distracting the Congress for working for the American people.
Click to expand...
Of course it is, but you all haven't cared so at this point the hell with it. Let's make this thing the biggest circus in our history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#30,048
#30,048
volfanjustin said:
Of course it is, but you all haven't cared so at this point the hell with it. Let's make this thing the biggest circus in our history.
Click to expand...
You support a clown, so it time for him to make his Big Top appearance.

trump_BestJoker.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#30,049
#30,049
luthervol said:
Good grief. Again with the simplicity.
Speeding is speeding. Right?
But if you were pulled over for speeding and it's because your wife was in labor, it may be viewed a little differently than if you were pulled over for speeding and it's because you were trying to escape from the police.
But I agree....speeding is speeding.
Lying is lying.
Perjury is perjury.
They're just not always viewed equally, nor should they be.
Click to expand...
Let’s clear this up:

He lied about having sex with a subordinate. In a lawsuit where he was accused of sexually harassing a subordinate. The lie wasn’t to cover up some marital issue. Or to cover up some moral issue. He lied to cover the fact that he had a history of targeting those who worked under him. The questions were legitimate. And him lying under oath about it was criminal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, AM64 and hog88
#30,050
#30,050
volfanhill said:
Let’s clear this up:

He lied about having sex with a subordinate. In a lawsuit where he was accused of sexually harassing a subordinate. The lie wasn’t to cover up some marital issue. Or to cover up some moral issue. He lied to cover the fact that he had a history of targeting those who worked under him. The questions were legitimate. And him lying under oath about it was criminal.
Click to expand...
It was already crystal clear. He lied to cover up a consensual tryst with a subordinate.
It was wrong, horrendously despicable behavior; and it was wrong to lie about it.
I never once in my life defended it as anything else.
Now take it to the 6th power, and you have Trump.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top