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

Sondland admits quid pro quo

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

  • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    Mueller catalogued his crimes for posterity. Not enough Americans care to read the evidence. It will make a good movie but it might not have a satisfying ending; the crook walks free.
    The Washington Post is doing a comic book version.

    The report is not worth the paper it's printed on, let alone the $30 M investigation.

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      The Washington Post is doing a comic book version.

      The report is not worth the paper it's printed on, let alone the $30 M investigation.
      MAD Magazine published a coloring book version of the Oliver North hearings, so is the Washington Post also trying its hand at satire?
      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
        MAD Magazine published a coloring book version of the Oliver North hearings ...
        Is it possible to get more 20th century than that? rhetorical question

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          MAD Magazine published a coloring book version of the Oliver North hearings, so is the Washington Post also trying its hand at satire?
          Hard to tell - they want more people to read the compelling second half of the report. It's getting hard to distinguish satire from stupidity.



          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            So, the Senate is only 'scrupulous' if they convict? Can we see the testimony under oath, subject to cross-examination first, please?
            To convict Trump on impeachment charges, 20 GOP senators will need to break ranks. And that’s not going to happen whilst there is a risk of alienating those in the electorate that put Trump into power. Sadly, political survival rather than justice and integrity rule the day, regardless of the damning evidence of abuse of power against Trump.

            But, yes, you're pretty much admitting this is all political, like I stated before - it's a "show trial",
            No. It's Congress fulfilling its duty as a co-equal branch of power to maintain oversight over the Executive Branch. Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch is a critical part of the US federal government's system of checks and balances
            “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


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              To convict Trump on impeachment charges, 20 GOP senators will need to break ranks. And that’s not going to happen whilst there is a risk of alienating those in the electorate that put Trump into power. Sadly, political survival rather than justice and integrity rule the day, regardless of the damning evidence of abuse of power against Trump.



              No. It's Congress fulfilling its duty as a co-equal branch of power to maintain oversight over the Executive Branch. Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch is a critical part of the US federal government's system of checks and balances
              Why can't you see that you're making the case that this is political? The prosecution of it is entirely partisan except for two Democrats voting no, and it has no chance of removing Trump because it would be a partisan rejection in the Senate.

              No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it's still a political animal.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Why can't you see that you're making the case that this is political?
                What exactly do you mean? I mean, of course it's political in that it takes place in the political realm if you will, but I take you to mean something else by the term. Yes?

                The prosecution of it is entirely partisan except for two Democrats voting no, and it has no chance of removing Trump because it would be a partisan rejection in the Senate.
                Of course it is partisan, it's the nature of the two party system. The Nixon Impeachment proceedings were partisan as well, but does that mean that Nixon should not have been impeached?
                No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it's still a political animal.
                Of course it's political, but again I'll ask, what exactly are you insinuating by that? Unless you make clear what you mean by political, then it can only be assumed that you are suggesting it's illigit.
                Last edited by JimL; 11-09-2019, 09:23 AM.

                Comment


                • A non-political impeachment would have clear, undeniable evidence that a crime was committed, and both chambers of Congress would be able to move quickly and unanimously to impeach and remove from office. To put it another way, impeachment should only happen if the evidence is strong enough to overcome partisan considerations.

                  As one analyst put it, an impeachment that passes narrowly along party lines should be regarded as a failure of the process.
                  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
                    A non-political impeachment would have clear, undeniable evidence that a crime was committed, and both chambers of Congress would be able to move quickly and unanimously to impeach and remove from office. To put it another way, impeachment should only happen if the evidence is strong enough to overcome partisan considerations.

                    As one analyst put it, an impeachment that passes narrowly along party lines should be regarded as a failure of the process.
                    So, Nixon should never have been impeached, Right?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      What exactly do you mean? I mean, of course it's political in that it takes place in the political realm if you will, but I take you to mean something else by the term. Yes?


                      Of course it is partisan, it's the nature of the two party system. The Nixon Impeachment proceedings were partisan as well, but does that mean that Nixon should not have been impeached?

                      Of course it's political, but again I'll ask, what exactly are you insinuating by that? Unless you make clear what you mean by political, then it can only be assumed that you are suggesting it's illigit.
                      Let's start with the "illigit" issue first. Impeachment in and of itself is obviously not "illigit", as it is the constitutional remedy for removal of certain federal office holders, including POTUS. That the entire process is managed and voted upon by politicians, however, makes it a 'political' process as opposed to a judicial one. If it is used by one party pretty much unilaterally to toss out the other party's guy, realizing there is little to no chance of actually attaining the goal of removal -- that makes it "political", and, in my opinion, challenges the legitimacy of the process - an abuse of power.

                      Next, let's move to the Nixon example. First, technically, Nixon was not fully impeached, in that, though the articles of impeachment were drafted and voted upon, he resigned before the process concluded, and it was never handed off to the full House for the impeachment vote, and obviously never reached the Senate for conviction/removal. Of the 5 articles of impeachment voted on in committee, two of them (Articles IV and V) were rejected with 12 Democrats voting yes, and 9 voting no, and 17 Republicans voting no (none voting yes).

                      During the process, both parties were doing their vote counts - in the House and in the Senate. One of the reasons it was prosecuted was the fact that elements of both parties realized there was a legitimate chance that there would actually be articles of impeachment adopted, the full House was likely to vote for impeachment, and there was a good chance that the Senate would, indeed, convict. (It was estimated there would be 300 votes in the House (more than the 218 required) and as many as 60 votes in the Senate (just shy of the 2/3 required), but the situation was deteriorating rapidly)

                      It wasn't a "show trial" - there was a very real likelihood that Nixon would be impeached AND removed.

                      During the process, SCOTUS ruled in United States vs Nixon that the actual tapes (not just the transcripts, as had been surrendered to date) must be turned over, and there was a "smoking gun tape" in which Nixon and Haldeman are plotting the coverup of the actual crime of B&E into the Democrat National Committee HQ.

                      It wasn't just a whole bunch of "he said / she said" - there were actual crimes and actual proof of a coverup, and Nixon was clearly implicated. In the tapes, he pretty much convicted himself, making a Senate trial totally unnecessary.

                      This is nothing like what's happening today.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        So, Nixon should never have been impeached, Right?
                        He absolutely should, because, as MM referenced, there was a clear crime (Watergate) and apparent coverup, and the situation was moving rapidly to show actual undeniable wrongdoing, and the need for Nixon's removal from office.

                        The very fact that it was so obvious that Nixon resigned before the full House voted for impeachment shows the process was on the right track.
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          He absolutely should, because, as MM referenced, there was a clear crime (Watergate) and apparent coverup, and the situation was moving rapidly to show actual undeniable wrongdoing, and the need for Nixon's removal from office.

                          The very fact that it was so obvious that Nixon resigned before the full House voted for impeachment shows the process was on the right track.
                          Yeah, I'm not sure what Jimmy is getting at with that remark.
                          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
                            Let's start with the "illigit" issue first. Impeachment in and of itself is obviously not "illigit", as it is the constitutional remedy for removal of certain federal office holders, including POTUS. That the entire process is managed and voted upon by politicians, however, makes it a 'political' process as opposed to a judicial one. If it is used by one party pretty much unilaterally to toss out the other party's guy, realizing there is little to no chance of actually attaining the goal of removal -- that makes it "political", and, in my opinion, challenges the legitimacy of the process - an abuse of power.
                            Like I said, of course it's political, impeachment is a political process because that is the manner in which an accusation against a President is adjudicated according to the constitution. And that it's being used by one party for the purpose of ousting the other party's guy, is your opinion, but, in order to come to that opinion you are obviously either ignoring, or for some reason not seeing the existing evidence. As to the possibility of actually attaining the goal of removal, for one, is irrelevant, and secondly is not something you can know until the actual hearings are concluded. Republicans didn't come around, and Nixon didn't resign until the very end of the process when they both realized that his innocence could no longer be defended.
                            Next, let's move to the Nixon example. First, technically, Nixon was not fully impeached, in that, though the articles of impeachment were drafted and voted upon, he resigned before the process concluded, and it was never handed off to the full House for the impeachment vote, and obviously never reached the Senate for conviction/removal. Of the 5 articles of impeachment voted on in committee, two of them (Articles IV and V) were rejected with 12 Democrats voting yes, and 9 voting no, and 17 Republicans voting no (none voting yes)
                            .
                            He wasn't fully impeached because he knew the jig was up, and would have been had he not resigned. That 2 of the 5 articles were rejected is irrelevant as well. He was going to be impeached/convicted.
                            During the process, both parties were doing their vote counts - in the House and in the Senate. One of the reasons it was prosecuted was the fact that elements of both parties realized there was a legitimate chance that there would actually be articles of impeachment adopted, the full House was likely to vote for impeachment, and there was a good chance that the Senate would, indeed, convict. (It was estimated there would be 300 votes in the House (more than the 218 required) and as many as 60 votes in the Senate (just shy of the 2/3 required), but the situation was deteriorating rapidly)
                            That's all conjecture and irrelevant. Partisanship has nothing to do with it, the partisanship exists regardless, it's inherent in the two party system. Had this been Obama, no offense, but you'd be recognizing the evidence and no doubt all your heads would be exploding.
                            It wasn't a "show trial" - there was a very real likelihood that Nixon would be impeached AND removed.
                            When you call it a "show trial" you are admitting to your own biased/partisan state of mind. And again, as far as the likelyhood of either Nixon or Trump being removed, for one thing is irrelevant, and for another, we had and have no idea as to that.
                            During the process, SCOTUS ruled in United States vs Nixon that the actual tapes (not just the transcripts, as had been surrendered to date) must be turned over, and there was a "smoking gun tape" in which Nixon and Haldeman are plotting the coverup of the actual crime of B&E into the Democrat National Committee HQ.
                            Which never would have happened had not the impeachment inquiry taken place.
                            It wasn't just a whole bunch of "he said / she said" - there were actual crimes and actual proof of a coverup, and Nixon was clearly implicated. In the tapes, he pretty much convicted himself, making a Senate trial totally unnecessary.

                            This is nothing like what's happening today.
                            Yes, CP, it is exactly like what is happening today.
                            Last edited by JimL; 11-09-2019, 06:53 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Yeah, I'm not sure what Jimmy is getting at with that remark.
                              What I'm getting at is that there is clear crimes here as well, more so, and worse crimes and coverups than even Watergate.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                He wasn't fully impeached because he knew the jig was up, and would have been had he not resigned. That 2 of the 5 articles were rejected is irrelevant as well. He was going to be impeached/convicted.
                                Actually, it showed that it was a bipartisan process, and 3 of the 5 articles stood.

                                That's all conjecture and irrelevant.
                                It is actually fact and totally relevant - both sides did their counts because they knew that this had to be something that was not seen as entirely one-sided. They knew there was the likelihood that Nixon would be both impeached, and removed, because the situation was that clearly deteriorating to both sides.

                                An actual crime had been committed - that was established fact. The tapes were the "smoking gun" that showed there was absolutely a reason to proceed with impeachment and attempt at removal.

                                Partisanship has nothing to do with it, the partisanship exists regardless, it's inherent in the two party system.
                                You're going to believe what you want to believe, Jim, but in the Nixon example, both sides knew it had to look like it was an absolutely necessary thing.

                                Had this been Obama, no offense, but you'd be recognizing the evidence and no doubt all your heads would be exploding.
                                You appear to have been discussing this as an adult, and we really don't need to get into this "exploding heads" nonsense.

                                When you call it a "show trial" you are admitting to your own biased/partisan state of mind.
                                Perhaps it's your biased/partisan state of mind that can't see this is all "show" -- all the leaks, all the false allegations, all the public charades...

                                And again, as far as the likelyhood of either Nixon or Trump being removed, for one thing is irrelevant, and for another, we had and have no idea as to that.
                                No, the whole point of doing the counts - on both sides - was that they realized this was a serious enough thing that it didn't need to happen if it wasn't actually going to work.

                                Yes, CP, it is exactly like what is happening today.
                                No, Jim, it's not even close.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Today, 01:42 PM
                                4 responses
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by Ronson, Today, 11:16 AM
                                0 responses
                                21 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Juvenal, Today, 04:13 AM
                                8 responses
                                28 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:20 PM
                                22 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:10 PM
                                5 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X