Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[theprestige]

The part where you lose me is where you evidently think that it is therefore justified to elect the most corrupt candidate possible.

That doesn't follow.

Of course it doesn't follow. This should prompt you to reconsider your evidence and your conclusion. Your "therefore" doesn't actually reflect my reasoning on that point.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Ok, lets see a show of hands... who here is disappointed that the articles of impeachment did not include a charge of violating 18 U.S. Code 2074.

For those interested: That is the law that makes it illegal to give fake weather reports. This was the case when Trump warned Alabama about a hurricane that was not expected to affect it. (a.k.a. Sharpiegate.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-have-broken-law-by-altering-hurricane-dorian-map-2019-9

Is there a law where you can Impeach a president for being too dumb to understand how punch cards work?
Or for being an insane Conspiracy theorist?

 

[d4m10n]

The Senate was not required to remove Clinton from office for perjury. By the same token, the House was not required to impeach him for perjury. Even though perjury is a crime, and even though the Constitution gives them the authority.

You'd be fairly hard pressed to come up with a good argument that perjury is a high crime, i.e. the specific sort of abuse of official power which the remedy of impeachment is intended to address.

 

[Craig4]

Ok, lets see a show of hands... who here is disappointed that the articles of impeachment did not include a charge of violating 18 U.S. Code 2074.

For those interested: That is the law that makes it illegal to give fake weather reports. This was the case when Trump warned Alabama about a hurricane that was not expected to affect it. (a.k.a. Sharpiegate.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-have-broken-law-by-altering-hurricane-dorian-map-2019-9

I'm not though I do hope that when a special prosecutor looks at crimes Trump committed in office, they add that one.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I'm not though I do hope that when a special prosecutor looks at crimes Trump committed in office, they add that one.

There will Likely be many more as the Investigation continues, I can still not believe the Republicans Elected an Alex Jones Infowarior as president, Impeachment was just the natural flow from that. Been betting Trump would be Impeached since 2015 when I saw him on Infowars.
It is a Causical universe and Republicans caused this mess that's very easy to see and it's all documented here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You'd be fairly hard pressed to come up with a good argument that perjury is a high crime, i.e. the specific sort of abuse of official power which the remedy of impeachment is intended to address.

Lying about a blow job in a civil trial that was thrown out because the judge ruled even if all plaintifs claims were true it failed to rise tot he level of a tort, on a question that shouldn't have even been asked in the first place.

The details really matter.

 

[Distracted1]

That would be ideal.

But I think corrupt politicians are like money, and police: If we didn't have them, the first thing we'd do is invent them.

I guess if we did start fresh, with a baseline of ethical politics, it might buy us a hundred years or so, before things started to get intolerably bad again. But maybe not. Could be worth a try?

I might agree with you there. Break it down, divvy it up, and try again.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That would be ideal.

But I think corrupt politicians are like money, and police: If we didn't have them, the first thing we'd do is invent them. ...

What for?



With this attitude it's no wonder why you defend Republican bullies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

prestige, that's a horrible way to see it and I tell you why:
Impeachment is the closest thing Congress has to a trial, and if we only hold Trials when we feel like it, not when the conditions for Impeachment are met, we violate the principle of equality before the law. Impeachment creates precedent.
If Clinton got impeached for perjury, Trump needs to be Impeached if he committed perjury. If Nixon would have been Impeached for Obstruction, then Trump needs to be Impeached for Obstruction.
Otherwise you turn the Rule of Law into a popularity contest.

It's like the balance of powers the Constitution is so valuable because of, simply disappeared off the pages.

 

[a_unique_person]

Anyone else find two articles a bit underwhelming?

I think Pelosi genuinely fears blowback from this getting out of control. The GOP is determined to ratchet up a response of hysteria and chaos.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You'd be fairly hard pressed to come up with a good argument that perjury is a high crime, i.e. the specific sort of abuse of official power which the remedy of impeachment is intended to address.

Not in Trump's case because his perjury involves abuse of power. But the minute you bring a perjury charge you know full well the Trumper propagandists will bring out the Bill Clinton false equivalence.

 

[Cabbage]

Of course it doesn't follow. This should prompt you to reconsider your evidence and your conclusion. Your "therefore" doesn't actually reflect my reasoning on that point.

It certainly seems to reflect your reasoning when in the past you have presented your reasoning as:

6) Double standard. Incompetence can be excused when Obama does it? Okay, have an incompetent president. Dishonesty is okay when Hillary Clinton does it? Okay, have a dishonest president. Accusations of rape are meaningless when they're leveled against Bill? Okay, have Trump.

and

Me? I voted for Trump after eight years of "Bushitler", and eight years of handwaving about Obama. After coming to the table time and again, only to get spit on by the folks sitting across from me - regularly, on this forum - I saw a chance in 2016 to flip the table for once, and took it. Now I'm waiting to see if I should go ahead and flip the table again in 2020. I guess we'll see if the tone changes around here after December 4.

And also judges.

If you had something else (other than how I just described it) in mind, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This discussion now is meaningless because no one here knows about the big issues.
Your not going to Remove Trump unless you can make the GOP see that he is more of a danger to them than Impeachment.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the Articles of Impeachment should have included Bribery. But I understand why the Democrats didn't include it. They KNOW the Republicans are not going to impeach or remove Trump from the Oval office. They wanted to distill this to two easily understood questions.

1. Is it alright for the President (Any President) to withhold military aid to a foreign power to smear a political opponent?

2. Is it alright for the President to obstruct the legitimate business of Congress in performing its oversight duties?

Let each Senator decide in the face of history those questions.

Then let the American people.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I think the Articles of Impeachment should have included Bribery. But I understand why the Democrats didn't include it. They KNOW the Republicans are not going to impeach or remove Trump from the Oval office. They wanted to distill this to two easily understood questions.

1. Is it alright for the President (Any President) to withhold military aid to a foreign power to smear a political opponent?

2. Is it alright for the President to obstruct the legitimate business of Congress in performing its oversight duties?

Let each Senator decide in the face of history those questions.

Then let the American people.

Actually their is a way to Impeach Trump in the Senate and that way is to Embarrass Mitch McConnell in the Senate with the truth.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually their is a way to Impeach Trump in the Senate and that way is to Embarrass Mitch McConnell in the Senate with the truth.

Mitch has never seemed to care that much from what I can see.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Mitch has never seemed to care that much from what I can see.

Oh but Imagine if a conspiracy theory that Trump endorsed And Spread, a Conspiracy theory Originated By a 9/11No Planer, that Trump Partnered with. Put a Constituents of Mitch McConnell's life in danger. Imagine that Constituents who Knew Mitch McConnell, who was given a Card By one of Mitch McConnell aids and Told any Time he needed Mitch McConnell just call. Now Imagine an Internet hate group was targeting that Constituent, and he was cut by a Knife on the arm on Dixie Hwy, in Louisville KY. When a Birther Tried to stab him in the back, Then Imagine, that he called Mitch McConnell's office from a pay phone near Fort Knox Requesting The number to the FBI. Then Imagine when he told Mitch's office he was being targeted Because an idiot on cable was promoting a book, by a 9/11 no planer. Then Imagine Mitch's Office critizised him, and told him to go find a phone book, and Hung up the phone.
What would happen if that went public?

 

[acbytesla]

Oh but Imagine if a conspiracy theory that Trump endorsed And Spread, a Conspiracy theory Originated By a 9/11No Planer, that Trump Partnered with. Put a Constituents of Mitch McConnell's life in danger. Imagine that Constituents who Knew Mitch McConnell, who was given a Card By one of Mitch McConnell aids and Told any Time he needed Mitch McConnell just call. Now Imagine an Internet hate group was targeting that Constituent, and he was cut by a Knife on the arm on Dixie Hwy, in Louisville KY. When a Birther Tried to stab him in the back, Then Imagine, that he called Mitch McConnell's office from a pay phone near Fort Knox Requesting The number to the FBI. Then Imagine when he told Mitch's office he was being targeted Because an idiot on cable was promoting a book, by a 9/11 no planer. Then Imagine Mitch's Office critizised him, and told him to go find a phone book, and Hung up the phone.
What would happen if that went public?

Whatever all that is, you lost me.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Whatever all that is, you lost me.

It's the Greatest True Embarrassment Mitch McConnell ever had, he Allowed one of his Constituents to be targeted in his addopted city and did nothing about it!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump pundit is on France 24 now claiming the House didn't give Trump due process because the subpoenas needed to go through the courts.

#1) Trump has made it very clear, regardless of the court ruling, he still wouldn't follow the subpoenas.

#2) There is enough evidence without the subpoenas.

#3) If Trump had a case rebutting the evidence, he as the ability to present it.

#4) Add in the standard reply to the BS, the GOP was represented, Trump lawyers had an opportunity, the only witness they weren't allowed were ones they wanted to put on for show trial.

Sigh, but the person debating the Trump pundit has not used #1.