Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    She is serving Trump much better as an adversary. Hail Queen Nancy, may she reign forever (though, hopefully, as minority leader)!
    Trump has no limits to his bad behaviour, and his base enjoy his combativeness, and they root for him no matter who he attacks; but this is very far removed from what we ought to expect from someone holding this great office. The USA is in a deep hole and it is still digging. The solution is not in the direction of more Trump.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
      Trump has no limits to his bad behaviour, and his base enjoy his combativeness, and they root for him no matter who he attacks; but this is very far removed from what we ought to expect from someone holding this great office. The USA is in a deep hole and it is still digging. The solution is not in the direction of more Trump.
      Trump has been very good for the United States. More Trump is even better.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        No, it's actually not - it actually has a legal definition that involves lying under oath.



        Trump was not charged with "OOJ".



        N/A



        How does having a legal definition invalidate their relationship?

        Obstruction of congress!

        Are high crimes actual crimes?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
          How does having a legal definition invalidate their relationship?

          Obstruction of congress!

          Are high crimes actual crimes?
          There's no such thing as "obstruction of Congress". It's a charge the Democrats pulled out of the nearest bodily orifice.

          And, yes, per the Constitution, high crimes refers to actual crimes. The two examples given are treason and bribery.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
            Trump has no limits to his bad behaviour,
            So far, he hasn't killed anybody on 5th avenue in broad daylight.

            and his base enjoy his combativeness,
            It's about time somebody stood up to the MSM and their chosen party!

            and they root for him no matter who he attacks;
            I don't.

            but this is very far removed from what we ought to expect from someone holding this great office.
            It may well be what we need, though, for such a time as this.

            The USA is in a deep hole and it is still digging.
            The USA is doing just fine.

            The solution is not in the direction of more Trump.
            I'm afraid Pelosi has made that a problem - she is a Russian agent working for the reelection of Trump.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
              How does having a legal definition invalidate their relationship?
              Trump has not committed, nor been charged with, perjury. Not sure where you're going with this.

              Obstruction of congress!
              A - thats a FAR different animal than obstruction of justice
              2 - it wasn't obstruction of congress - it was obstruction of one very partisan faction of One committee of ONE half of Congress, which is ONE THIRD of the branches of government.

              Are high crimes actual crimes?
              The constitution leaves that fairly open, but you'd know it was a "high crime" if it was universally accepted as a crime - like burglary or perjury. Not just something a focus group makes up.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                There's no such thing as "obstruction of Congress". It's a charge the Democrats pulled out of the nearest bodily orifice.

                And, yes, per the Constitution, high crimes refers to actual crimes. The two examples given are treason and bribery.
                Yes, the actual wording is...

                "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."

                ...the phrase "or other" would indicate SIMILAR offenses, not just anything a focus group invents.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • And, remember --- this was not the FIRST impeachment sham aimed at Trump.

                  Formal efforts were initiated by representatives Al Green and Brad Sherman, both Democrats, in 2017, the first year of his presidency!
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Here's a shot of Nancy giving that "Don't you DARE cheer" glance to her subjects when she announced the passing of Article I...

                    nancy judge judy.jpg

                    She reminds me a lot of Judge Judy scolding a disorderly plaintiff/defendant.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Yes, the actual wording is...

                      "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."

                      ...the phrase "or other" would indicate SIMILAR offenses, not just anything a focus group invents.
                      ..... and the last word means what?
                      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                      “not all there” - you know who you are

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        It may not matter...

                        Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself). Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”

                        They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

                        Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment. They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.

                        All of that would be exposed as a lie.

                        If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

                        McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.

                        Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.

                        Case closed.

                        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-constitution/
                        In a fair trial the accussed doesn't get to block the testimony of witnesses and other evidence against them.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          In a fair trial the accussed doesn't get to block the testimony of witnesses and other evidence against them.
                          The remedy for that is SCOTUS, but the partisan hacks running the impeachment sham couldn't wait for that -- they had to rush headlong off the cliff into disaster.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Hmmm... it looks like the Democrats have more dirty tricks up their sleeves...

                            Seemingly overlooked by most, when the House voted on the ‘rules of impeachment’ they removed the traditional appointment of House Managers to a later date.

                            Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.

                            A cunning Lawfare ploy.

                            As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place. By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial authority is now working its way through the courts in various cases.

                            It appears the absence of appointing House impeachment managers; and the decision to withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate; is now a specific design.

                            As the process appears to be unfolding, the Lawfare contracted lawyers representing the House: chief legal counsel Douglas Letter, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen and Daniel Goldman will now argue before the courts that all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for a pending judicial proceeding, a trial in the Senate.

                            What the house crew have assembled is an interesting back-door attempt to position a valid claim for evidence against the accused without having first gained judicial authority for it. The Lawfare crew will argue to the lower courts, and to SCOTUS, the blocked evidentiary material is critical evidence in a soon-to-be-held Senate trial.

                            The material they have been seeking is: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records. Each of these issues is currently being argued in appellate courts (6e and McGahn) and the supreme court (financials/taxes).

                            The House impeachment of President Trump succeeds in applying the label “impeached president” that was their primary political purpose. President Trump is marred with the label of an ‘impeached president’.

                            Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment case sits in limbo.

                            The House essentially blocks any/all impeachment activity in the Senate by denying the transfer of the articles from the House to the Senate. Additionally, the House will now impede any other Senate legislative action because the House will hold the Senate captive. Meanwhile the Democrat presidential candidates can run against an impeached President.

                            https://theconservativetreehouse.com...s-from-senate/
                            The problem I see, is that they are arguing that the missing "evidence" is crucial to their case, yet they voted to impeach without this evidence. They are admitting that they didn't have enough evidence to impeach. You can't convict someone on missing evidence or wishful thinking. I think the Senate or SCOTUS can just invalidate the articles of impeachment if that is the case.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                              ..... and the last word means what?
                              Which last word? Misdemeanors?

                              In lower courts, they are crimes less serious than felonies, punishable by local courts, but crimes nonetheless. In government, they are considered more serious with regards to POTUS, because they would have been committed at a federal level by a federal employee.

                              n. a lesser crime punishable by a fine and/or county jail time for up to one year. Misdemeanors are distinguished from felonies which can be punished by a state prison term. They are tried in the lowest local court such as municipal, police or justice courts. Typical misdemeanors include: petty theft, disturbing the peace, simple assault and battery, drunk driving without injury to others, drunkenness in public, various traffic violations, public nuisances, and some crimes which can be charged either as a felony or misdemeanor depending on the circumstances and the discretion of the District Attorney. "High crimes and misdemeanors" referred to in the U. S. Constitution are felonies."

                              source
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                                It’s not goofy or made up. Obstruction of justice is perjury’s daddy. OOJ is more of an actual crime than perjury because perjury’s mother is lying who is not really a crime. Perjury is therefore, only half crime and half not really a crime.

                                OOJ is all crime and even rumoured to have founded the ‘interfering with administering justice’ family of crimes. If anything, OOJ has a better chance of being a high crime than perjury.

                                Focus groups were wise to summon him.
                                Is it OOJ when the investigation itself is rigged? How is fighting against an injust investigation an obstruction of justice. It would be more of an obstruction of injustice.

                                hanghim.jpg

                                Also, can you please cite the law it says that the President is not allowed to seek a ruling by the Supreme Court, you know the actual JUSTICE branch of the US Government?
                                Last edited by Sparko; 12-19-2019, 09:22 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                289 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X