Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    So they proved that Caesar was unrightfully killed by killing thousands of others who were not involved? Clearly in some ways the killing of Caesar was an 'assassination'; a murder and murder, being illegal killing, must be contrary to the law. This is so by analytic definition in the same way as triangle having three sides. But in some cases it can be morally right to break the law and the law often recognises this itself; going through a red light to get a dying person to hospital is the right thing to do though it is contrary to the rules. Ambulances are allowed to in most places. Likewise there was good reason for some to believe that Caesar aspired to the Kingship - Mark Anthony had offered him a diadem in the "Lupercalia Incident" and he treated Tribunes with disdain. If he was planning such a move - and they believed it was his goal - then the whole legal and moral basis of the Republic run by the Senate would have been over turned. The liberties of the people that the Senate theoretically guaranteed - the two Consuls, the Tribunes, all was at risk. It certainly was not what the Gracchi had fought (and died) for though in many way Caesar was a reforming populist in their tradition. Those Senators who killed Caesar clearly felt they were doing so to protect the law and their legal jurisdiction. In my view they were almost certainly right but we cannot know what Caesar may have done. In their place I would have acted as they did - I would have killed Sulla too but we can debate the decline of the Roman Republic elsewhere if you wish.

    Was the execution of Charles l legal? Was it justified is another question and that is my point. We can debate whether it was legal till the cows come home and make cases for and against. Same with the justification. I believe that Bashir Assad is guilty of the same crime as Charles Stuart; making war on his own people against the law. You do not unleash chemical weapons on those civilians who's rights under the law a President (or a Monarch) is supposed to protect. Caesar did the same when he crossed the Rubicon under arms against the Republic contrary to law. Their lives were forfeit and I hope Assad, Putin and all their ilk will see justice soon.

    When Trump is proven to have conspired with a foreign power to interfere with the lawful democratic process - and I have no doubt the case will be proved if the investigation is allowed to proceed - then he is similarly guilty and cannot claim to be above the law or pardon himself. Should he revoke some rule - which I am told he can do - and find a legal way to fire Mueller himself without going through the Deputy AG in order to stop them proving his guilt he would be proven by his own actions - along with his conversations with and firing of Comey and all the lies that he has told that now apparent to all - it is literally impossible to find a single statement he has made about Muscovy that is true.

    Traitors and wannabe despots I have no time for. Give me a pop at Putin and I'd take it even if were certain to perish in the process - sadly there would be a long queue as there was with Caesar. You say it "none of my business" but right and wrong, good and evil are transnational concepts - one only has to be a human to understand them. Trump is not in my jurisdiction - neither is Putin but their effects bear on me and billions of others. Hell I have a different passport, job, a husband and a daughter coming thanks to Putin's illegality and murder. Yes I do claim the right to speak against a traitor in the US and a murderous Chekist kleptocrat in Moscow and to reaffirm the laws and rights of those who suffer and have died from the illegalities of these monstrous gangsters. Nor can I morally blame any who uses any opportunity they may have to snuff out such a monster when given the opportunity I would do the same. It may be contrary to law and certainly I prefer such people are tried - as in Saddam but these people live by the sword and the daggers of the Roman Senate were entirely justified in their own defence.
    A whole bunch of mumble jumble about nothing.

    Again, you are NOT THE AUTHORITY to declare Trump a crminal and whether you like it or not, your question about Caeser was answered. Just because you don't like the answer DOES NOT MEAN you can interject whatever myth you want.

    And one last thing. THE ONLY ONE STOPPING YOU FROM TAKING A SHOT A PUTIN IS YOU! So get off your high horse. We both know you lacked the one thing to go after Putin - conviction.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by astralis View Post
      snapper,

      part of the reason why we're hitting a wall now is because we're in an environment the Founding Fathers never envisioned. and i don't mean Trump; he IS essentially the little d democratic nightmare they envisioned, but the defenses against it are all predicated on assumptions that do not hold true today.
      The VOX article is well written and contains many interesting tidbits of constitutional history. Other than that the author is in a daze. His case is largely based on what Trump as president might do, not on what he has done. Fear is not grounds for impeachment. Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office, not to settle political arguments or to save voters from their choices. And the fact that Trump's staff and cabinet have difficulty reining him isn't unique for a president, and it certainly isn't grounds for impeachment. If the author had just said he wants Trump gone and can't wait for his term to end, I might agree with him.
      Last edited by JAD_333; 21 Dec 17,, 05:36.
      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

      Comment


      • #93
        JAD,

        His case is largely based on what Trump as president might do, not on what he has done. Fear is not grounds for impeachment. Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office, not to settle political arguments or to save voters from their choices.
        i think to be more accurate, Ezra Klein is using both what Trump might do and what he has done. Klein went into pretty broad length to explain why he thinks "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be defined more broadly than that of being "traitors and oathbreakers". it goes beyond just being a partisan disagreement (although that surely exists) because Klein uses Obama and Bush as the comparisons to demonstrate how Trump's breaking of norms has reached what he considers impeachment territory.

        in any case, the primary reason why i used that article is not to dice up the legal definition of impeachment, but to look at the process. Klein does a pretty good job in describing how the process is breaking down under high partisan pressure-- a pressure which the Founding Fathers were only vaguely aware of and certainly did not think would break the firewall of being part of the elite, for one.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          in any case, the primary reason why i used that article is not to dice up the legal definition of impeachment, but to look at the process. Klein does a pretty good job in describing how the process is breaking down under high partisan pressure-- a pressure which the Founding Fathers were only vaguely aware of and certainly did not think would break the firewall of being part of the elite, for one.
          No matter how you want to dress it up, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck.

          Klein is describing a coup no matter how you want to look at it. Trump may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office. You may think he's doing a bad job but there many who thinks not. You need more than a political elite to carry this out. You need the Army and no way in hell are you going to get that.
          Chimo

          Comment


          • #95
            Trump may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office.
            this statement could fit Nixon in 1975 as well. hell, Watergate break-in was in Jun 1972; Nixon was Prez until Aug 1974.

            high crimes and misdemeanors is not well defined. i acknowledge that ultimately this judgement of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" will be political in nature. in that sense, ANY impeachment would constitute a coup.

            Klein is arguing that the procedure of impeachment in today's society is something that will almost certainly never be used, regardless of the circumstances, because there are significant political blocks to it that the Founders did not envision.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              JAD,



              i think to be more accurate, Ezra Klein is using both what Trump might do and what he has done. Klein went into pretty broad length to explain why he thinks "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be defined more broadly than that of being "traitors and oathbreakers". it goes beyond just being a partisan disagreement (although that surely exists) because Klein uses Obama and Bush as the comparisons to demonstrate how Trump's breaking of norms has reached what he considers impeachment territory.

              in any case, the primary reason why i used that article is not to dice up the legal definition of impeachment, but to look at the process. Klein does a pretty good job in describing how the process is breaking down under high partisan pressure-- a pressure which the Founding Fathers were only vaguely aware of and certainly did not think would break the firewall of being part of the elite, for one.
              Does the American political system have a remedy if we elect the wrong person to be president? There are clear answers if we elect a criminal, or if the president falls into a coma. But what if we just make a hiring mistake, as companies do all the time?

              the opening of the article is a tell all for the authors agenda.

              I didn't vote for him, I don't like him, and I can tell everyone that did vote for him that they were wrong.

              You want 'mechanism's' for removing a president you just don't like, who's policy you just don't like, who conducts himself in a way you just don't like.

              you really need to think the entire premise of that article, and that attitude, through, because at that point, why bother having elections if the opposing party can just remove the elected president because he isn't 'their guy' (or girl).

              the fact that the author goes on to say 'When does a tweetstorm rise to the level of “egregious violation of the public trust”?'....... what's the difference whether its a tweet, a memo, a speech etc etc etc, and define the public. the democratic public, or the republican public?

              because like everything else in this country, that's all it boils down to.

              as an example, Obama's clear disregard of immigration law and his blatant encouragement of illegals to enter this country (while possibly an actual legal violation) was certainly a clear violation of the public trust..... just depends which half of the public you are a part of.

              Comment


              • #97
                bfng,

                the opening of the article is a tell all for the authors agenda.
                it's no surprise that klein and vox tilts left, lol.

                you really need to think the entire premise of that article, and that attitude, through, because at that point, why bother having elections if the opposing party can just remove the elected president because he isn't 'their guy' (or girl).

                the fact that the author goes on to say 'When does a tweetstorm rise to the level of “egregious violation of the public trust”?'....... what's the difference whether its a tweet, a memo, a speech etc etc etc, and define the public. the democratic public, or the republican public?

                because like everything else in this country, that's all it boils down to.

                as an example, Obama's clear disregard of immigration law and his blatant encouragement of illegals to enter this country (while possibly an actual legal violation) was certainly a clear violation of the public trust..... just depends which half of the public you are a part of.
                as impeachment is a political act, why is this surprising to you?

                let's say we use OoE's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"-- "XXX may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office", or JAD's definition, "Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office,"...allow me to ask you, did Bill Clinton's actions fit either definition?

                yet guess what, the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton. say the Senate had a supermajority of Republicans back then, what do you think the result would have been?

                Klein's essential argument is that with partisanship the way it is, impeachment is only a tool that can be used IF Congress is dominated by another party. any reform that would change this would by definition go both ways.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • #98
                  But Klein's premis is that Trump should be removed from office without a chargable crime for nothing else than what he might do. Both Nixon and Clinton had chargeable crimes for the Houses to stick the letter of the law to. Presently, there is no such crime attached to Trump.

                  What happens if the POTUS disagrees with this premis, that he should be removed without a chargeable crime? He should be removed simply because people don't like his style of governing?
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    bfng,



                    it's no surprise that klein and vox tilts left, lol.



                    as impeachment is a political act, why is this surprising to you?

                    let's say we use OoE's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"-- "XXX may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office", or JAD's definition, "Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office,"...allow me to ask you, did Bill Clinton's actions fit either definition?

                    yet guess what, the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton. say the Senate had a supermajority of Republicans back then, what do you think the result would have been?

                    Klein's essential argument is that with partisanship the way it is, impeachment is only a tool that can be used IF Congress is dominated by another party. any reform that would change this would by definition go both ways.

                    Clinton, by lying under oath to the grand jury re the Lewinsky scandal, back in the 1990s, did violate his oath of office. Though the subject was hardly a matter of national security, lying under oath is a relatively serious offense. There was never much chance that he would be convicted by the Senate. Five GOP senators voted to acquit. And BTW several dems in the House voted to impeach.

                    Going back to your earlier post, you said:

                    Klein does a pretty good job in describing how the process is breaking down under high partisan pressure-- a pressure which the Founding Fathers were only vaguely aware of and certainly did not think would break the firewall of being part of the elite, for one.
                    Klein is wrong. He suggests that because the founding fathers lived in a different era, they could not have anticipated today's tumultuous political atmosphere. On the contrary, they fully understood how politics could distort the impeachment process. Yet they know there had to be a way whereby a corrupt, tyrannical, law breaking person could be removed from office. After all, they had just freed themselves from one.

                    But at the same time, they were wise enough to realize that the nation needed a process well insulated from politics, lynch mob rule, and vindictiveness, which is why they built hurdles into the impeachment clause: They gave one house of Congress the power to impeach and the other to sit in judgement. They required a 2/3 majority to convict. They excluded the judiciary from any involvement in the process. The threat of impeachment hangs over every president's head. They knew what they were doing.
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      bfng,



                      it's no surprise that klein and vox tilts left, lol.



                      as impeachment is a political act, why is this surprising to you?

                      let's say we use OoE's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"-- "XXX may be a bad POTUS but he has yet to threaten the survival of the United States nor is he failing to carry out the duties of his Office", or JAD's definition, "Impeachment exists to remove traitors and oath breakers from office,"...allow me to ask you, did Bill Clinton's actions fit either definition?

                      yet guess what, the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton. say the Senate had a supermajority of Republicans back then, what do you think the result would have been?

                      Klein's essential argument is that with partisanship the way it is, impeachment is only a tool that can be used IF Congress is dominated by another party. any reform that would change this would by definition go both ways.

                      You have no point here.

                      If Trump lies under oath to congress, the resulting crap storm would result in impeachment, and probably removal from office. (Ask your self why, and try to be honest)

                      Clinton got impeached for lying under oath to congress, but not removed.

                      Why? Because it was about a BJ.

                      Do you really think if trump lied under oath to congress about the color of his boxers and got impeach4d that the left would stop at nothing but his removal from office?

                      Clinton lied under oath to congress.

                      The left today is trying to claim trump has dementia and is mentally unstable and have tried to impeach him how many times now?

                      Go back to obama circumventing federal immigration law and explain how thats just fine in comparison the move to impeach Trump nas3d on the lefts claim that he's 'unfit' to be president.

                      Comment


                      • Mechanically, if you'd allow the use of the word, does not the congress have the final say on what constitutes an impeachable offense?
                        All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                        -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                          You have no point here.

                          If Trump lies under oath to congress, the resulting crap storm would result in impeachment, and probably removal from office. (Ask your self why, and try to be honest)

                          Clinton got impeached for lying under oath to congress, but not removed.

                          Why? Because it was about a BJ.

                          Do you really think if trump lied under oath to congress about the color of his boxers and got impeach4d that the left would stop at nothing but his removal from office?

                          Clinton lied under oath to congress.

                          The left today is trying to claim trump has dementia and is mentally unstable and have tried to impeach him how many times now?

                          Go back to obama circumventing federal immigration law and explain how thats just fine in comparison the move to impeach Trump nas3d on the lefts claim that he's 'unfit' to be president.
                          Obama's creativity with immigration laws seems to have run counter to his oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, but he had plenty of lawyers covering him. Besides, Congress could have at any time undercut him, but chose not to. So, it would have been virtually impossible to craft a legitimate charge on that account to mount an impeachment effort.

                          Impeachment for "treason and high crimes...etc" does not refer to actions that can be undone or changed by Congress or the courts.

                          Just for the record, Clinton did lie under oath, but to Fed Grand Jury, not Congress.
                          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                            Mechanically, if you'd allow the use of the word, does not the congress have the final say on what constitutes an impeachable offense?
                            Assuming you're asking a rhetorical question, I would say you're right. However, having the last word means ruling on whether an offense meets the parameters laid out in the Constitution.
                            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              A whole bunch of mumble jumble about nothing.
                              If you believe unleashing chemical weapons on the people who's rights under the law is legal or justifiable fine; I beg to differ.

                              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              Again, you are NOT THE AUTHORITY to declare Trump a crminal and whether you like it or not, your question about Caeser was answered. Just because you don't like the answer DOES NOT MEAN you can interject whatever myth you want.
                              I never claimed to have any legal authority over Trump - I said it was outside my jurisdiction and power to act against that traitor. I do have the right of free speech though or perhaps you are with Trumpets and Brexiteers who seem to think anyone who voices a view they do not share is some sort of criminal - a 'fascist' or whatever.
                              No my question regarding Caesar was not answered; who can kill more people does not make any side right, Caesar attacked the Republic when he unlawfully crossed the Rubicon. Might does not equal right. Read some Plato.

                              Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                              And one last thing. THE ONLY ONE STOPPING YOU FROM TAKING A SHOT A PUTIN IS YOU! So get off your high horse. We both know you lacked the one thing to go after Putin - conviction.
                              If I took a plane to Moscow tomorrow I would be arrested getting off it. I have and do fight as best I can in the ways open to me. There is no lack of conviction on my part to win this war - I have seen and collected the bodies and their pieces. Unlike you I have not sat an ocean and half a continent claiming I know everything and have tried to avoid criticising you but sticking to the point under discussion. You know absolutely nothing about me so it is laughable for you to misjudge my conviction.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                high crimes and misdemeanors is not well defined. i acknowledge that ultimately this judgement of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" will be political in nature.
                                My interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors is any crime committed by a person in high (public) office, abusing the power of that office with corrupt intent. I personally think a credible case can be made for obstruction of justice with regards to the Trump-Comey-Russia investigation matter.

                                Let's say, hypothetically, Mueller finds evidence of tax evasion or financial crimes committed by Trump before he became President. Those wouldn't constitute, in my opinion, high crimes or misdemeanors. They would simply be ordinary crimes, committed by a private citizen prior to his taking high office. I believe they would be indictable, but not impeachable offenses.
                                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X