Originally posted by Double Edge
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The 2019-2020 Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostI think this is a valid point. There is a difference between the British standard for 'treason' and the US standard. Guy Fawkes, who tried to blow up James l and Parliament, was done for treason in England but in the US you have to in a state of war legally and then betray your country to the enemy to be legally charged with treason.
In what way has he committed treason according to you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostOk, that's great and all, but we're talking about the President of the United States and the United States Constitution. So instead of using a dictionary, how about we check the Constitution.
Article II, Section 4 provides:
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.
Any official convicted by the Senate is immediately removed from office, and the Senate may also order, by a simple majority, that the removed official be forever disqualified from holding any federal office.
But it is expected this will not happen. Why ?
Should not the evidence that got house to impeach be enough.
How can the House find him guilty and the senate not.
Because of numbers. Not evidence.
This is what happens in 'practice' as opposed to theory : )
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View Postok, and the next bit that matters is
If the evidence presented is so overwhelming then the senators are duty bound to impeach as well.
But it is expected this will not happen. Why ?
Should not the evidence that got house to impeach be enough.
How can the House find him guilty and the senate not.
Because of numbers. Not evidence.
This is what happens in 'practice' as opposed to theory : )
Senate: OK, let’s hear the evidence, testimony, and reasons for conviction or acquittal, rather than the evidence, testimony, and reasons for making a recomendation to consider removing this wart from office.Trust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostAnd there we go. Perhaps you could point out where Trump is on trial or has been convicted of treason. Not hyperbole, not dissemination, not he said she said. In which court, when and where.
Lots of people claim to be conservative when convenient, but very few actually live up to it when asked to defend truth and evidence in an unpopular cause. So answer me the question above, otherwise every claim you make, especially being a conservative, is just pure trolling bullshit.Originally posted by snapper View PostLook I have asked you to explain the Parnas payments blah blah blah orange man bad snipped for the sake of brevity
So riddle me this before try to show your imagined 'superiority' by telling me 'get a tissue' and then accusing me of 'trolling b*llsh*t." But that is all you would be apologists can do.... since the facts are undeniable you have to resort to calling people names. Shame.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostIf the evidence presented is so overwhelming then the senators are duty bound to impeach as well.
But it is expected this will not happen. Why ?
And to think Parihaka was "taking the piss" when he poked me about my formatting important information in large bold font, as it it wasn't neccessary. Thank you for proving him wrong.
So, to answer your question, you could click here or just look below:
This is a public pronouncement of the Senate Majority Leader, who will effectively act as Foreman of the Jury:
“Everything I do during this I'm coordinating with the White House counsel...There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can.” ~ Senate Leader Mitch McConnell
This is public pronouncement of a prominent Republican Senator, who will likewise serve as a member of the jury:
“I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here...I don't need witnesses" ~ Senator Lindsay Graham.
This could possibly be at odds with the Constitutionally-required Oath that all Senators will take before the trial of Donald Trump where they vow, according to Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials:
”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of Donald Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Schumer coordinated with the Clinton White House, thus setting a president.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...-tri-n2558618/
Comment
-
Originally posted by surfgun View PostSchumer coordinated with the Clinton White House, thus setting a president.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...-tri-n2558618/
Schumer should've fried for that, trying to figure out why the GOP didn't make it happen.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Parihaka View PostAnd there we go, no answer was forthcoming.Last edited by snapper; 01 Jan 20,, 22:19.
Comment
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostIt was me asking you questions. Presumably in your 'superiority' (akin to a 'stable genius' perhaps) you have forgotten how to read.Originally posted by Parihaka View PostOriginally posted by Parihaka View PostAnd there we go. Perhaps you could point out where Trump is on trial or has been convicted of treason. Not hyperbole, not dissemination, not he said she said. In which court, when and where.
Lots of people claim to be conservative when convenient, but very few actually live up to it when asked to defend truth and evidence in an unpopular cause. So answer me the question above, otherwise every claim you make, especially being a conservative, is just pure trolling bullshit.Originally posted by snapper View PostLook I have asked you to explain the Parnas payments blah blah blah orange man bad snipped for the sake of brevity
So riddle me this before try to show your imagined 'superiority' by telling me 'get a tissue' and then accusing me of 'trolling b*llsh*t." But that is all you would be apologists can do.... since the facts are undeniable you have to resort to calling people names. Shame.In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by surfgun View PostYou must have no idea how the law works? Presidents are considered case law.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatter View PostYou're not actually reading anything on this thread, are you. Or paying the slightest attention to the news from the last several months, are you.
And to think Parihaka was "taking the piss" when he poked me about my formatting important information in large bold font, as it it wasn't neccessary. Thank you for proving him wrong.
My preference to do what Pari did few pages back to you, point for point counters, Z would do this all the time. Typical WAB style.
But i don't have the ammo because of my previous reply
So, to answer your question, you could click here or just look below:
This is a public pronouncement of the Senate Majority Leader, who will effectively act as Foreman of the Jury:
“Everything I do during this I'm coordinating with the White House counsel...There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can.” ~ Senate Leader Mitch McConnell
This is public pronouncement of a prominent Republican Senator, who will likewise serve as a member of the jury:
“I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here...I don't need witnesses" ~ Senator Lindsay Graham.
This could possibly be at odds with the Constitutionally-required Oath that all Senators will take before the trial of Donald Trump where they vow, according to Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials:
”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of Donald Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
[ATTACH]48198[/ATTACH]
You're saying these senators are failing the constitution
Does the constitution oblige them to follow what the house says ? No
I'm thinking they should but these are two independent houses.
Which means they are free to come up with whatever conclusion they see fit.
The upper house typically acts as a check on the lower house.
In this case if the guy being charged happens to be their guy the upper house will let him off.
This is a loop hole that got exploited and i don't know how you solve it.
Same thing happened with Billy. My reaction to that is no different to this.
Did the founding fathers design it this way ?
A partisan house should not be able to unseat the president.
The evidence has to be so overwhelming for the senate to comply or be seen by the people as failing their job.
What happens in that case is also an interesting question. Uncharted territory.
I realise my questions might require a constitutional expert to respond to.
Anyway those are my thoughts.Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Jan 20,, 22:57.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostExactly ...
yep, partisan positions are entrenched in western countries which is why you see close runs and no thumping wins.
As for the rest while it may be the case in the US that results are becoming closer we have had a couple of examples this year (the UK, Spain and Ireland) of significant shifts in the voting patterns. Meanwhile Australia with compulsory voting has, I think some measure of insulation against such problems because highly politically motivated individuals on either end of the spectrum get 'drowned' to a degree by those in the (somewhat demoralized) center who probably wouldn't vote if they didn't have to.
The result is neither side of politics can pander only to the needs/interests of their welded on supporters without eventually alienating that all important middle part of the bell curve. This means to some degree at least they have to align their political platforms with the middle in mind - albeit usually with clenched teeth. So I guess on in this regards we lucked out.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Comment
Comment