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 JimLamebrain View Post
    ...you're pretending the proofs don't exist...
    Pretend nothing. The Democrats have flatly admitted that the case cobbled together in the House is insufficient in and of itself and they need additional witnesses and evidence to actually prove the accusations.
    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 NorrinRadd View Post
      Yes, a definite blow to Fox News, since they'll be losing several of their major expert contributors for the duration of the trial. And in the event that the Senate decides to allow witnesses, that could be several months by the time the Court evaluates and rules on all the Executive Privilege claims.
      Alan Dersowitz tried to argue yesterday that the founding fathers did not intend for abuse of power to be impeachable. There's a video of Starr during Clinton's impeachment talking about withholding of documents and witnesses as impeachable acts. Contributors, sure, but there's some argument to be had about their expertise at this late hour of their lives.

      --Sam
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
        Alan Dersowitz tried to argue yesterday that the founding fathers did not intend for abuse of power to be impeachable. There's a video of Starr during Clinton's impeachment talking about withholding of documents and witnesses as impeachable acts. Contributors, sure, but there's some argument to be had about their expertise at this late hour of their lives.

        --Sam
        The difference, of course, is that in this current matter, unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House never established a legally sufficient reason to bypass executive privilege. They can't even name the specific crime they're investigating. They just have a vague impression that Trump did something, and they want a license to keep digging until they can find something to pin on him. Anybody who values due process should be very concerned about what's happening, because if they can do it to the President of the United States, then what's to stop them from doing it to you?
        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 Mountain Man View Post
          The difference, of course, is that in this current matter, unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House never established a legally sufficient reason to bypass executive privilege. They can't even name the specific crime they're investigating. They just have a vague impression that Trump did something, and they want a license to keep digging until they can find something to pin on him. Anybody who values due process should be very concerned about what's happening, because if they can do it to the President of the United States, then what's to stop them from doing it to you?
          For the umpteenth time, it’s bribery.
          “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
            Pretend nothing. The Democrats have flatly admitted that the case cobbled together in the House is insufficient in and of itself and they need additional witnesses and evidence to actually prove the accusations.
            Yes, they have admitted that their case is not sufficient enough for republican Senators, most of them just simply aren't going to convict no matter what, and the few who could possibley vote to convict are weighing which decision would be in their best political interests.
            But you're desparately afraid of relative witnesses and documentary evidence being heard and seen, aren't you, MM? It's all going to come out eventually anyway, wouldn't you rather see it now, than possibly learn later what a fool you've been. Or is it that you already know he's guilty, are complicit in his defense, and just don't care what you look like when the proverbial smoking guns are unleashed from their obstructed places. Is it just a win that you want, or the truth? If you don't want all the relevant evidence to be admissable, then it's not the truth that you're seeking.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Pretend nothing. The Democrats have flatly admitted that the case cobbled together in the House is insufficient in and of itself and they need additional witnesses and evidence to actually prove the accusations.
              You make it up as you go along.

              In Trump's legal team's letter today they admit he withheld the money and that he asked them to investigate Biden's son as part of the cost of regaining access to those funds. They admit the evidence fully establishes he did those things.

              They simply claim his goal was to root out corruption in ukraine.
              In that one response, nearly every argument made on these web pages by you against these articles is shown to be bankrupt, empty. The entire case rests on the motives for doing what he did. But that he did it is fully admitted.


              And since the case hinges on the motive, let us then hear from all those with access to information about that motive. Indeed. With the info from lev parnas and others, he'd better have somebody close and credible that can swear under oath his motive was NOT personal gain, because right now nearly everything points to this being 100% about personal gain.
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-18-2020, 05:38 PM.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Alan Dersowitz tried to argue yesterday that the founding fathers did not intend for abuse of power to be impeachable. There's a video of Starr during Clinton's impeachment talking about withholding of documents and witnesses as impeachable acts. Contributors, sure, but there's some argument to be had about their expertise at this late hour of their lives.

                --Sam
                The GOP is the party of hypocrisy, Dershowitz and Starr fit right in with Trump, Moscow Mitch and Lindsey Graham. There is also the question about Dershowitz. He's claiming to not be part of the defense team, that he'll just be there in the capacity of a Constituional scholar or some such nonsense. But if he, as he claims, is not a part of the defense team, what exactly is he? A witness for the defense perhaps!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
                  For the umpteenth time, it’s bribery.
                  For the umpteenth time, nothing Trump did fits neither the legal nor the common definition of bribery, and "bribery" isn't specified in the articles which only name the the non-crimes of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress". The fact that the Democrats weren't even confident enough in their case to go before a judge and argue for the suspension of executive privilege tells you all you need to know.
                  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 oxmixmudd View Post
                    You make it up as you go along.

                    In Trump's legal team's letter today they admit he withheld the money and that he asked them to investigate Biden's son as part of the cost of regaining access to those funds. They admit the evidence fully establishes he did those things.

                    They simply claim his goal was to root out corruption in ukraine.
                    In that one response, nearly every argument made on these web pages by you against these articles is shown to be bankrupt, empty. The entire case rests on the motives for doing what he did. But that he did it is fully admitted.


                    And since the case hinges on the motive, let us then hear from all those with access to information about that motive. Indeed. With the info from lev parnas and others, he'd better have somebody close and credible that can swear under oath his motive was NOT personal gain, because right now nearly everything points to this being 100% about personal gain.
                    Well, that's certainly an optimistic interpretation.

                    "The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president," the formal answer reads. "This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away. This highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the president began even before his election and continues to this day."

                    Trump's lawyers argued the impeachment articles are "constitutionally invalid on their face" and are the result of a "lawless" House inquiry that violated basic principles of fairness and due process.

                    "The Articles of Impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the Constitution of the United States, our democratic institutions, and the American people. The Articles themselves -- and the rigged process that brought them here -- are a transparent political act by House Democrats. They debase the grave power of impeachment and the solemn responsibility that power entails. They must be rejected."

                    In his answer, the president "categorically and unequivocally" denies "each and every" accusation leveled against him in both impeachment articles. Trump's attorneys then lay out a series of arguments as to why both articles of impeachment against the president must be rejected.

                    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...hment-n2559739
                    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 Mountain Man View Post
                      For the umpteenth time, nothing Trump did fits neither the legal nor the common definition of bribery, and "bribery" isn't specified in the articles which only name the the non-crimes of "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress". The fact that the Democrats weren't even confident enough in their case to go before a judge and argue for the suspension of executive privilege tells you all you need to know.
                      As has been explained to you before, for the umpteenth time, this is not a normal court, the president isn't going to be sentenced to prison for committing a crime such as bribery, he will simply, if convicted, be fired from his job and the reason for the firing would be "abuse of his power."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                        As has been explained to you before, for the umpteenth time, this is not a normal court, the president isn't going to be sentenced to prison for committing a crime such as bribery, he will simply, if convicted, be fired from his job and the reason for the firing would be "abuse of his power."
                        And attitudes like yours are precisely why Trump's legal team is arguing that the impeachment inquiry was a sham, because Democrats are trying to deny the President his right to due process and lower the burden of proof because, in their minds, it's "just" impeachment and not a traditional court of law.
                        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 Mountain Man View Post
                          And attitudes like yours are precisely why Trump's legal team is arguing that the impeachment inquiry was a sham, because Democrats are trying to deny the President his right to due process and lower the burden of proof because, in their minds, it's "just" impeachment and not a traditional court of law.
                          Except for the fact that he isn't being denied due process. Besides, the prosecution just wants to meet "your high burden of proof" by admitting all relevant evidence at trial. You simply want to keep that from happening. The no evidence, sham trial crowd, aren't fooling anyone. Did you know that?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                            Except for the fact that he isn't being denied due process. Besides, the prosecution just wants to meet "your high burden of proof" by admitting all relevant evidence at trial. You simply want to keep that from happening. The no evidence, sham trial crowd, aren't fooling anyone. Did you know that?
                            So you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.
                            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 Mountain Man View Post
                              So you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.
                              No, if you didn't have such problems with reading comprehension you would have understood that what I admitted to throughout discussion is that there is probably not enough evidence to meet Senate republicans, or your, high burden of proof, because that, as we have already seen, is almost an impossible burden to achieve. But as you know, the president has blocked every single witness and every single document requested of by the House from being seen. So, if republicans, if you, aren't convinced by the already, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence in the Articles so far put forth, why don't they, why don't you, want to see all that previously blocked evidence in the Senate trial in order that you are able reach an honest conclusion one way or the other? But then again, we, you and I, already know why you don't want see it, don't we.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                So you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.
                                They have already shown themselves to be more than sufficient to show that Trump abused his power by withholding Ukraine aid in return for a favor. The House voted as such. But there's clearly even more evidence emerging plus witnesses Trump is blocking, which could reinforce Trump's guilt.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                184 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                88 responses
                                399 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X