Looks like another liberal narrative just went swirling down the toilet.
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
Coronavirus Outbreak...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI just said I found it after you mentioned you found nothing. It talks about the same thing as the other article, about how the virus is causing the hemoglobin to stop functioning and releasing the iron into the body which antioxidents like vitamin C could help remove. And how the hydroxychloroquine works by binding to the hemoglobin so that the virus can't. It sounds a lot more scientific than the Vox article, that's for sure. Neither you nor I have enough medical knowledge to evaluate it fully.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI don't have an opinion at this time, but it sounds plausible as an explanation of what is really going on with this disease and why it is killing people.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWhat trial did you watch? Democrats were allowed to present witness testimony and documentation.
When a grand jury hands down an indictment, it is on the basis of preliminary information and investigations. The subsequent trial is never limited to "only what the grand jury heard." The prosecution and defense both have the freedom to investigate, bring additional information, and make their case. All of that was barred in the Senate trial. Only Collins and Romney voted for witnesses and documentation. The vote ended up 51 to 49 against.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedmprig View PostUmm...no, MM.
Originally posted by carpedmprig View Post...there is a vast body of information that was never secured, and many people we never heard from.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 PostUmm...yes, carpe. The Democrats presented video of testimony that was given during the House hearings. They presented documents they had gathered during their investigation. All they had to do was clear the low hurdle of convincing a simple majority of Senators that there was sufficient reason to continue the trial, and they failed.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostBecause the House apparently didn't think that information was worth securing, or those people worth hearing from, before voting to impeach. If they had bothered to be more diligent during the investigation then they could have presented all of it during opening arguments, but it's not a good look when the prosecution's opening argument is essentially, "We'd have a really great case if only we had more evidence."
As I noted in the previous post (which you also cut out), the House procedure is the equivalent of such a grand jury indictment. The trial happens in the Senate. So the message actually was "we would have a really good case if you would actually permit evidence beyond what was shown to the grand jury." The grand jury only needs enough evidence to determine that a trial is warranted. A trial needs enough evidence to convict. Two different standards. The Senate limited the evidence to the former and refused the admission of any further evidence. That's a show trial.
What happened was the equivalent of a judge telling the prosecutor and defense, "we're going to have a trial here - but you can only show the jury the evidence that was presented to the grand jury." That's a travesty of justice by any measure.Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-07-2020, 04:31 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThat was in the part of my post you cut out - the Senate was limited to what the House provided. And you and I BOTH know that there was no "bar" they could have cleared. MANY senators on both sides had already declared their minds made up before the trial even started, including the Majority and minority leaders. If that happened in a court of law, the people doing it would never be seated on the jury.
No - The House tried to secure those documents, and were blocked at every turn. The decision had to be made to move forward on the basis of the evidence provided or be tied up in the courts right through the election cycle. They chose the former because they had enough evidence to hand down the equivalent of an indictment.
As I noted in the previous post (which you also cut out), the House procedure is the equivalent of such a grand jury indictment. The trial happens in the Senate. So the message actually was "we would have a really good case if you would actually permit evidence beyond what was shown to the grand jury." The grand jury only needs enough evidence to determine that a trial is warranted. A trial needs enough evidence to convict. Two different standards. The Senate limited the evidence to the former and refused the admission of any further evidence. That's a show trial.
What happened was the equivalent of a judge telling the prosecutor and defense, "we're going to have a trial here - but you can only show the jury the evidence that was presented to the grand jury." That's a travesty of justice by any measure.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post...the Senate was limited to what the House provided.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 PostExactly. And if the House wanted to provide more, then they should have gathered more when they had the opportunity instead of rushing to impeach and then going to the Senate with a half-baked indictment that forced them to concede in their opening argument that they didn't actually have sufficient evidence to push for a conviction. If a prosecutor took a case like that into any court in the US, the judge would immediately throw it out.
But I agree with Jim: there is essentially no way you are oblivious to this - and further exchanges will be largely pointless. It is also a sidetrack to the purpose of this thread.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedmprig View PostThe DA is not required to provide the Grand Jury with enough information to convict - only enough information to justify a trial. Likewise, the House is not required to have enough evidence to convict, but only enough evidence to warrant crafting articles of impeachment and sending the matter to trial. You are trying to hold the House to a requirement to actually pre-run the trial and have enough evidence to convict. That is not their job - as explicit defined in the constitution. Add to that the statements made before the trial even began that senators had already made up their minds - and the result is a show trial.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 carpedm9587 View PostWe have 19,100 new cases so far today, but 1,371 deaths already...
We also now have more cases than the next three countries combined. Those are now Spain, Italy, and France. The France situation is getting ugly. Fortunately, our deaths are nowhere the total of theirs.
Comment
-
Worldometer has a pretty effective tracking for this virus (thanks LM!) and some of the statistics are pretty telling. It lists 212 "countries/other" that are being tracked, so most of the world's countries are on the list plus places like the Faukland Islands, the Caribbean Netherlands, and the Faeroe Islands. I was curious how the U.S. stacks up against what is happening in these countries/other places. It looks like this:
- Total infections - we are 1st on this list.
- Total deaths - we are 3rd on this list (behind Italy and Spain in that order).
- Total recovered - we are 6th on this list (behind China, Spain Germany, Iran, and Italy in that order).
- Total active cases - we are 1st on this list.
- Total serious/critical cases - we are 1st on this list.
- Total cases per 1M pop - we are 21st on this list.
- Total deaths per 1M pop - we are 17th on this list.
- Total tests - we are 1st on this list.
- Total tests per 1M pop - we are 41st on this list.
Interesting distribution....The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostUpdating today's numbers:27,583 new cases and 1,877 new deaths. We're fast approaching 2,000 new deaths/day. Indeed big jump for France. The country to watch is India as the virus has hit the biggest slum in Mumbai.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYou're treating it like a civil matter when there are marked differences. When the House votes to impeach, it is not the equivalent of a civil indictment which marks the beginning of a case. Rather, per the Constitution, they are saying, "We have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office." But then when the House managers present their case to the Senate and admit in their opening arguments, "Actually, guys, we don't have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office," then what choice does the Senate have other than to vote "not guilty"?
- The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5)
- The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7)
- 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. (Article II, Section 4)
The only other place in the Constitution that Impeachment is mentioned is to note that the president cannot pardon someone that Congress has Impeached and Convicted (Article II, Section 2).
Only the Senate can declare that there is enough evidence to warrant remove from office, per the Constitution. The House can do no more than Impeach, which is to pass articles to the Senate for the purpose of trial. The trial cannot do more than remove from office - if an illegal action has occurred, a separate indictment and trial is required to convict and punish. That is ALL the constitution says about impeachment. You are adding the rest. The parallel to civil law is inappropriate since no grand jury is involved in civil matters, AFAIK.
The reference you made to civil law is inappropriate; the parallel is to criminal law and the roles are almost perfectly aligned. The Judiciary Committee functions as the DA, determining if articles of impeachment are to be recommended to the house. The House functions as the grand jury determining if there is adequate cause to pass the case over for trial and what the charges will be. The Senate is the courtroom complete with judge, jury, and (presumably) witnesses, investigations, and documentation. The House is not required to provide adequate evidence to convict, only to enough to warrant a trial. If they were required to have adequate evidence to convict, there would be no need for a trial in the Senate. The FFs specifically separated these two functions.
While impeachment is often politically driven, it is still a legal proceeding and should be conducted as such. What the Senate did was a travesty of justice. Hopefully it will outrage the left and moderates enough to sweep Trump out of office in a landslide. It clearly will have no impact on Trump's base. Neither will Trump's parade of abuses of power and missteps in dealing with the current pandemic.Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-07-2020, 06:40 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAs useless as this is, it is important, I believe, to note that the constitution says no such thing. There are three relevant parts:
- The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5)
- The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7)
- 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. (Article II, Section 4)
The only other place in the Constitution that Impeachment is mentioned is to note that the president cannot pardon someone that Congress has Impeached and Convicted (Article II, Section 2).
Only the Senate can declare that there is enough evidence to warrant remove from office, per the Constitution. The House can do no more than Impeach, which is to pass articles to the Senate for the purpose of trial. The trial cannot do more than remove from office - if an illegal action has occurred, a separate indictment and trial is required to convict and punish. That is ALL the constitution says about impeachment. You are adding the rest. The parallel to civil law is inappropriate since no grand jury is involved in civil matters, AFAIK. The parallel is to criminal law and the roles are almost perfectly parallel. The Judiciary Committee functions as the DA, determining if articles of impeachment are to be recommended to the house. The House functions as the grand jury. The Senate is the courtroom complete with judge, jury, and (presumably) witnesses, investigations, and documentation. The House is not required to provide adequate evidence to convict. If that were true, there would be no need for a trial in the Senate.
While impeachment is often politically driven, it is still a legal proceeding and should be conducted as such. What the Senate did was a travesty of justice. Hopefully it will outrage the left and moderates enough to sweep Trump out of office in a landslide. It clearly will have no impact on Trump's base. Neither will Trump's parade of abuses of power and missteps in dealing with the current pandemic."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYou're treating it like a civil matter when there are marked differences. When the House votes to impeach, it is not the equivalent of a civil indictment which marks the beginning of a case. Rather, per the Constitution, they are saying, "We have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office." But then when the House managers present their case to the Senate and admit in their opening arguments, "Actually, guys, we don't have enough here to warrant the president's removal from office," then what choice does the Senate have other than to vote "not guilty"?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 11:43 AM
|
15 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 01:58 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 05:54 PM
|
30 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 01:57 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-14-2024, 09:50 PM
|
104 responses
423 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 02:07 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-14-2024, 04:03 AM
|
25 responses
127 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 11:21 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 05-13-2024, 12:51 PM
|
141 responses
898 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 10:22 AM
|
Comment