• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Belz... said:
In a way it's unfortunate that impeachment don't set precedents for future impeachments, because the Republicans would never dare set a precedent that would benefit future Democratic presidents (I hope).
Click to expand...

There will only be occasional Trump type populists from now on. The presidents for the remainder of the century will be Democrats or independents.
 
smartcooky said:
The difference between 1974 and now are things Republicans had then that they don't have now... courage and integrity.
Click to expand...

You have that Right Trump isn't the Deases he is the noticable symptom of a one issue Right to life party that would Stoop to Murder to win.
That I figured out years ago, as long as they can Ban Abortion they don't care who has to suffer and die for a win Political that's what all this Bible Thumping Trumpism
Is all about. If your not with them your against them and working for Satin!
So they have the right to kill you because your a demon.
Many here think I am nuts for not calling the law, and for hiding but I know because I am related to people who were and are in Law enforcement that many in Law enforcement are as Courpt as the Senators you are seeing in the Senate.
There is no safety in the Law, or in our government not with Religious fanatics in charge!
You can call me crazy now don't worry I am used to it!
 
Belz... said:
In a way it's unfortunate that impeachment don't set precedents for future impeachments, because the Republicans would never dare set a precedent that would benefit future Democratic presidents (I hope).
Click to expand...

Democrats set this precedent. Clinton unambiguously broke the law.
 
In Trump's mind I am sure that he thinks abolishing Presidential term limits is in the public interest.

I cannot believe that any sane adult would open the door for that kind of logic with such high stakes.

This is very unsettling stuff.
 
dmaker said:
In Trump's mind I am sure that he thinks abolishing Presidential term limits is in the public interest.

I cannot believe that any sane adult would open the door for that kind of logic with such high stakes.

This is very unsettling stuff.
Click to expand...

Yah well the Right to life crowd has been saying Murder in the Name of God is perfectly fine with them for decades now because of the war with the devil Soros,
Where have you been hiding?
 
"Yeah Trump is fighting dirty but so does everyone and it's a small price to pay to keep dirty Killery and her illegal child sex pizza parlor dungeon and her illegal e-mail server and her pantsuits out of the White House" has been the open subtext from Trump's supporters since day 1, I'm not shocked to see it start being used in this context.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
No, he didn't.
But unless he is convictions, the precedent stands that what he did isn't qualitatively worse than what Clinton did.
Click to expand...

Bob is binary, he doesn't understand matters of degree.

Sadly that's also become the primary Republican excuse as well.
 
*Sighs* I'd call this a Bob-hole but sadly it's actually the argument being made in the highest possible legal level so... I don't even know anymore.

I can't wait to live in a world where "The President can do whatever he wants" is a valid legal precedent.
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Sighs* I'd call this a Bob-hole but sadly it's actually the argument being made in the highest possible legal level so... I don't even know anymore.

I can't wait to live in a world where "The President can do whatever he wants" is a valid legal precedent.
Click to expand...

Re-read what you are signing up for here. Zaganza is arguing convictions are stand ins for degrees of severity of the crime. I may be way off base here, but that sounds like a pretty unprecedented argument. The implication is that. Murderer and a fraudster, both violators of crimes, are equivalent because they were convicted.


I was not making an argument about what Trump did was okay. I don't think anyone is arguing this because zaganza's argument seems novel. My post was entirely about the weird use of conviction as a measure of severity.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I can't wait to live in a world where "The President can do whatever he wants" is a valid legal precedent.
Click to expand...

As far as the GOP is concerned, and as long as the President is Republican and as long as what he wants to do isn't incompatible with what they want - you're already there and have been for 3 years.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Re-read what you are signing up for here. Zaganza is arguing convictions are stand ins for degrees of severity of the crime. I may be way off base here, but that sounds like a pretty unprecedented argument. The implication is that. Murderer and a fraudster, both violators of crimes, are equivalent because they were convicted.
Click to expand...

No, he's not saying that. He's saying that an acquittal sets a precedent of making a crime OK. Clinton was acquitted, and that was a precedent. Trump is expected to be acquitted for a more serious crime and that will sent a precedent--Making those crimes "equivalent" because they were both acquitted.

In no place did he claim convictions make crimes equivalent.
 
BobTheCoward said:
This makes no sense. Both murderers and trespassers get convicted. That does not imply their crimes are qualitatively the same.
Click to expand...

One will get fired from their job - which is what an Impeachment Conviction is.
This is not a criminal trial, it has nothing to do with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom