Originally posted by JimLamebrain
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Take This Impeachment And Shove It...
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostYes, 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.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostAlan 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.
--SamSome 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 PostThe 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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostPretend 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.
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 PostPretend 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.
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 PostAlan 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
Comment
-
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 PostYou 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.
"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-n2559739Some 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 PostFor 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostAs 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."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 PostAnd 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostExcept 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?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 PostSo you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostSo you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 03:45 PM
|
14 responses
50 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 10:11 PM
|
||
Started by Sparko, Today, 03:19 PM
|
21 responses
73 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 10:04 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Today, 07:58 AM
|
26 responses
134 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 06:24 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 07-01-2024, 01:20 PM
|
45 responses
236 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 09:29 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 07-01-2024, 09:42 AM
|
169 responses
875 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 06:19 AM
|
Comment