Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2019-2020 Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

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

  • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Reason i have trouble with this word

    [ATTACH]48190[/ATTACH]

    To me it sounds much more serious than the Americans take it

    2020 just happened, happy new year guys

    Just searched the thread and not a single person here construes this impeachment as Trump having committed treason. However Trump has accused others of it.

    snapper thinks it means just that, so do you and me as well.

    Misconduct

    Not Treason
    I 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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by snapper View Post
      I 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.
      Then why do you call Trump a 'Class A' traitor ?

      In what way has he committed treason according to you.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
        Ok, 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.
        ok, and the next bit that matters is

        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.
        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 : )

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
          ok, 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 : )
          House: There is good reason for the Senate to consider removing this wart from office.

          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 Post
            And 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 Post
            Look 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.
            And there we go, no answer was forthcoming.
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
              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 ?
              You'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.

              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.”

              Click image for larger version

Name:	IDpEfDC.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	39.5 KB
ID:	1478553
              “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 Post
                  Schumer coordinated with the Clinton White House, thus setting a president.
                  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronso...-tri-n2558618/
                  So two wrongs make a right? Is that how this works now?

                  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 Post
                    And there we go, no answer was forthcoming.
                    It was me asking you questions. Presumably in your 'superiority' (akin to a 'stable genius' perhaps) you have forgotten how to read. You said I was 'trolling' by saying that Trump was a Putin sock puppet so I asked you to explain the Muscovite funding of Guiliani's sham 'investigation' into the alleged Crowdstrike server being in Ukraine and Biden. Third time you have failed to answer basic questions but instead blathered nonsense.
                    Last edited by snapper; 01 Jan 20,, 22:19.

                    Comment


                    • You must have no idea how the law works? Precedents are considered case law.
                      Last edited by surfgun; 01 Jan 20,, 23:36.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                        It 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 Post
                        Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                        And 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 Post
                        Look 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.
                        And there we go, no answer was forthcoming.
                        See how easy that was my little synaptically challenged libtard?
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                          You must have no idea how the law works? Presidents are considered case law.
                          Presidents eh? Do they have to bid farewell to their families and jump into the law books head first or do they get weekends off?
                          “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 Post
                            You'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.
                            Guilty as charged. Reason i have to give up the rest of the board otherwise.

                            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.
                            I have never taken the piss out of any one here nor do i intend to start because it would be counter productive.

                            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]
                            We are in agreement but for different reasons and i'm struggling how to articulate this

                            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 Post
                              Exactly ...

                              yep, partisan positions are entrenched in western countries which is why you see close runs and no thumping wins.
                              Not sure the research (for example the charts I posted recently from the Pew Research Center supports this contention. There seems to be clear evidence of a gradual but marked trend towards intransigent political positions (on both sides) and a corresponding unwillingness to compromise (hence my fears about the current impeachment hearings).

                              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


                              • For tops, and my phone, precedent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X