The Impeachment Thread

#21,776
#21,776
Velo Vol said:
It seems to me better characterized as extortion rather than bribery.
Click to expand...

I’m kind of beyond caring what people call it as long as they acknowledge that he clearly did it and that it was clearly wrong.

Tell me why it’s not impeachable, but this idea that it’s unproven at this point is disconnected from reality.
 
#21,777
#21,777
RockyTop85 said:
I’m kind of beyond caring what people call it as long as they acknowledge that he clearly did it and that it was clearly wrong.

Tell me why it’s not impeachable, but this idea that it’s unproven at this point is disconnected from reality.
Click to expand...

Most of the hot takes I've seen from federal prosecutors is that a bribery claim is sustainable
 
#21,780
#21,780
MontyPython said:
In case you Diehard Trumpers missed it, per his interview on FoxNews, party's over...

Kenneth Starr:

“There will be articles of impeachment,” Starr said, according to The Week. While that seemed a foregone conclusion before, “it was just confirmed today,” he added. “Substantively, what we heard from [Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Adam Schiff] just now is: It’s over. We now know — this is his position — we now know that the president, in fact, committed the crime of bribery”
Click to expand...
Again, this didn't work out how you thought it would

 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD, NEO, VolnJC and 1 other person
#21,782
#21,782
RockyTop85 said:
I’m kind of beyond caring what people call it as long as they acknowledge that he clearly did it and that it was clearly wrong.

Tell me why it’s not impeachable, but this idea that it’s unproven at this point is disconnected from reality.
Click to expand...
Even if you prove QPQ happened, don't you still need to connect it as coming from Trump himself? Who's to say Rudy G. didn't come up with the idea without Trump's knowledge? I'm just saying, even if you prove a crime happened, don't you also need to prove who committed it? In order for impeachment, don't you think both need to be shown?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#21,783
#21,783
GVF said:
Beyond the shadow of a doubt.

If you have to ask, you're not a good lawyer.
Click to expand...

Shadow of a doubt is not a legal standard

Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt are the standards.

Note that impeachment is not criminal, so it's not clear that beyond a reasonable doubt would even be required.
 
#21,785
#21,785
evillawyer said:
Shadow of a doubt is not a legal standard

Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt are the standards.

Note that impeachment is not criminal, so it's not clear that beyond a reasonable doubt would even be required.
Click to expand...
That's what makes it a maddening process. The standard of evidence is whatever Congress says it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and 0nelilreb
#21,788
#21,788
evillawyer said:
Most of the hot takes I've seen from federal prosecutors is that a bribery claim is sustainable
Click to expand...
I mean you posted the statute and I agree it fits the elements.

But whether or not a criminal statute is applicable to the president doesn’t end there, IMO.

I’ve been saying for months that quid pro quo is an integral part of foreign policy. That opinion has been affirmed by these state dept. witnesses time and time again.

I think the bribery statute, alone, is too broad to be applied to the office of the President because there are likely to be situations that meet the elements of that statute that should not lead to impeachment and, as the last three years have shown, we can no longer rely simply on the prosecutorial discretion of Congress because their judgment is clearly compromised across the board (even if I think the Democrats are correct, here, I’ve seen some batshit arguments from them the last few years).

There needs to be additional elements that further distinguish. Which is why I’ve added “against the national interest.” The democrats got that out of the way on day 1, although they weren’t really trying to.
 
#21,790
#21,790
RockyTop85 said:
I’m kind of beyond caring what people call it as long as they acknowledge that he clearly did it and that it was clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

It's clearly a breach of fiduciary duty by the president. The real debate for Congress, which I assume we'll eventually get to, is if this rises to the intentionally vague "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution. "Bad, but not impeachable"
 
#21,793
#21,793
RockyTop85 said:
But surely you agree that it’s disappointing to see this much slack in the line that represents the right’s efforts to resist the left’s push to replace to replace morality and God with the law.
Click to expand...
Wait what? You’re making some kind of a religious appeal to me on Trump? Let be 100% clear. My party of choice needs to learn to mind its own business and get the hell out of people’s bedrooms. I want an effective chief executive as president. We’ve got one. The previous idiot was not effective in my opinion. The current president is a miserable human being and I’m sure probably I’d dislike him if I knew him. That however has zero impact on the job he petitioned for and won. And your “replace God and morality with the law” sales job falls on deaf ears too until you find clear convincing proof of “high crimes and misdemeanors” warranting removal which none of been presented to date.

Your doing the same cry wolf job here. You’re just trying to dress it up more convincingly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#21,794
#21,794
evillawyer said:
Shadow of a doubt is not a legal standard

Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt are the standards.

Note that impeachment is not criminal, so it's not clear that beyond a reasonable doubt would even be required.
Click to expand...
reasonable doubt. Words that lawyers get rich from.

'reasonable'

define that one 'counselor'.
 
#21,795
#21,795
evillawyer said:
Shadow of a doubt is not a legal standard

Preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt are the standards.

Note that impeachment is not criminal, so it's not clear that beyond a reasonable doubt would even be required.
Click to expand...

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, it's a duck. I don't care if it is criminal, civil, or government BS, it is not legit if you doesn't meet the above standards. Guilty. Innocent. The two outcomes. The integrity of those two decisions should never be compromised by personal feelings toward and individual, nor the impulse to move them one direction or another to meet the desired outcome, regardless of what court you are in.

"Impeachment" may not be criminal, but the process is the same, therefore should meet the same standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#21,796
#21,796
evillawyer said:
Seeking a bribe (a proposal that if you do something for my personal benefit, then I'll do some official act for you) is itself bribery.
Click to expand...

Play on words. QPQ and bribery are basically the same notion. Hey, if you can't nail him on one term, change the term. Now we got him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#21,797
#21,797
luthervol said:
What??
Trump said exactly that before he was even elected.
I can shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and my followers would still worship me.
It has little to do with the cry wolf narrative.
It has everything to do with gaslighting and division. The two pillars on which Trump's success is built.
Click to expand...
Show a police report that he did that and I’d say remove his ass. Continually screeching “he said he could do it!” just makes me tune out.

And thanks for proving my point Luth!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and 82_VOL_83
#21,798
#21,798
GVF said:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, it's a duck. I don't care if it is criminal, civil, or government BS, it is not legit if you doesn't meet the above standards. Guilty. Innocent. The two outcomes. The integrity of those two decisions should never be compromised by personal feelings toward and individual, nor the impulse to move them one direction or another to meet the desired outcome, regardless of what court you are in.

"Impeachment" may not be criminal, but the process is the same, therefore should meet the same standards.
Click to expand...

Was OJ guilty or innocent? Legally, he was both - different legal standards are a thing.
 
#21,799
#21,799
872 pages of our local left leaning lawyer wannabees making **** up. I doesn't get any better. Just thought I would check in. Glad to see EL, Velo, Bro, and their ilk are still swimming around in the swamp (more like a cesspool) of liberalism and are holding the fort down. It's still sickening that we even have these type of posters here but I guess they do make good cannon fodder. Had their messiah Barry Hussy OBama been hounded like this the amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth would have been unbearable.

Hey, are you guys actually going to vote for Butt gig?
 
#21,800
#21,800
RockyTop85 said:
I think the bribery statute, alone, is too broad to be applied to the office of the President because there are likely to be situations that meet the elements of that statute that should not lead to impeachment and, as the last three years have shown, we can no longer rely simply on the prosecutorial discretion of Congress because their judgment is clearly compromised across the board (even if I think the Democrats are correct, here, I’ve seen some batshit arguments from them the last few years).
Click to expand...

The Democrats are spending a lot of time trying to show bribery/quid quo pro at the expense of not uncovering whatever Trump had going on with Giuliani/the State Department. This "alternative channel arrangement" looks to me just as bad legally and also demonstrates the administration's incompetence.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top