The Impeachment Thread

I know you two and McDad might think it is a perfect document with change built literally into it's foundation. It's a perfect theory and sound in principal. But here is where you might need to do some thinking, can non-partisan change happen?

Yes.

And it is a perfect document because it can be changed. It isn't easy to do so and that adds to it's perfection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and McDad
We must protect the imbeciles by limiting freedom of speech / expression.
You posted the meme Hershey gave their employees the December advertising budget to their employees as a bonus because they have used the same commercial for 20 years.

We are here to protect you.
 
In reply to your second paragraph; It probably doesn't surprise you, then, when I say I never assume statements are true when made by politicians or those in the legal system.

So what I’m trying to get to is for you to explain how the swearing of an oath adds some evidentiary value to an inherently incriminating statement.

Mulvaney under oath and Mulvaney at a press conference is still the same Mulvaney, he’s still a political operative.

Under oath, a self-serving lie becomes a statement against interest, because it’s subject to prosecution for perjury.

Absent the oath, a statement against interest is, definitionally, still a statement against interest.

So it’s still the same motive to tell the truth.

But the words that you used were that the statement had no value because it wasn’t under oath. So you said that you think the statement would have evidentiary value, if it was made under oath.

Where does that value come from?
 
I know you two and McDad might think it is a perfect document with change built literally into it's foundation. It's a perfect theory and sound in principal. But here is where you might need to do some thinking, can non-partisan change happen?
That is a good question. But that is neither the fault of the constitution nor does it render the document dead. That is a fault of the character of who we elect and those attracted to positions of power.
 
It also ignores the real point. The issue is not whether Russia actually changed any votes. The issue is WHY they tried to do so, successful or not.

How's the saying go, the enemy of your enemy is my friend? Severe political discourse within America is music to Putin's ears.
 
I wonder if she's considering running as an I. She is about the only person in your party with even a tad of sense
I'm not a member of any party. But yeah, I think she could run as an independent. She's got conservative and liberal support. Probably explains her present vote last night. Keeping her options open and such.
 
It also ignores the real point. The issue is not whether Russia actually changed any votes. The issue is WHY they tried to do so, successful or not.

The answer was given yesterday. They want us at each others throats, they want hate and division within our country, they want us to tear ourselves apart and you and yours are giving them what they want.
 
It also ignores the real point. The issue is not whether Russia actually changed any votes. The issue is WHY they tried to do so, successful or not.

we've heard a lot about quid pro quo. I would like to introduce another latin phrase to explain why Russia tried to change votes; tit for tat.
 
You posted the meme Hershey gave their employees the December advertising budget to their employees as a bonus because they have used the same commercial for 20 years.

We are here to protect you.

I feel safer already. Please make sure Hershey doesn't corrupt our next election with their dastardly schemes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb and hog88
The answer was given yesterday. They want us at each others throats, they want hate and division within our country, they want us to tear ourselves apart and you and yours are giving them what they want.
You are so anti government your view is skewed more to that of Putin than America.
 
So what I’m trying to get to is for you to explain how the swearing of an oath adds some evidentiary value to an inherently incriminating statement.

Mulvaney under oath and Mulvaney at a press conference is still the same Mulvaney, he’s still a political operative.

Under oath, a self-serving lie becomes a statement against interest, because it’s subject to prosecution for perjury.

Absent the oath, a statement against interest is, definitionally, still a statement against interest.

So it’s still the same motive to tell the truth.

But the words that you used were that the statement had no value because it wasn’t under oath. So you said that you think the statement would have evidentiary value, if it was made under oath.

Where does that value come from?

I go from no value to questionable value because a lie under oath when proven a lie has a punishment in place. That's the only quality which makes the two identical statements made under oath and not any different to me.
 
You are so anti government your view is skewed more to that of Putin than America.

How so? Putin loves and adores government as long as he is the government and has control without accountability. I want LESS government control and more accountability regardless of who is in the government.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top