• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
This.When it comes to impeachment, those terms are pretty much what the congress says they are.
Click to expand...

Any number of GOP senators campaigned with promises to bring back a more originalist and textual approach to the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. For once, I'm really hoping they stay true to their stated principles.
 
d4m10n said:
You are correct, but for the wrong reasons.

United States Code does not govern the meaning of constitutional terms such as treason, bribery, and high crimes. Indeed, the relevant constitutional passages predate any federal law you might care to name.

The relevant question here is whether one can commit the 18th c. common law offense of bribery merely by soliciting a bribe. IMO, yes.
Click to expand...

High crimes as a term was also mostly defined by the common law at the time of ratification. It is pretty broad and includes all manner of things that aren't crimes were they applied to people not holding office. .

Modern eyes want to erroneously view the "high" modifier as meaning that impeachment is limited to the most serious crimes. This is backward. The "high" modifier refers to crimes relating to the powers of the office. It is a term that broadens the scope to general malfeasance, rather than narrow it.
 
Suddenly said:
High crimes as a term was also mostly defined by the common law at the time of ratification. It is pretty broad and includes all manner of things that aren't crimes were they applied to people not holding office. .

Modern eyes want to erroneously view the "high" modifier as meaning that impeachment is limited to the most serious crimes. This is backward. The "high" modifier refers to crimes relating to the powers of the office. It is a term that broadens the scope to general malfeasance, rather than narrow it.
Click to expand...

The classic expression of that is the Congress could impeach and remove a president from office for eating a cheese sandwich.
 
Suddenly said:
High crimes as a term was also mostly defined by the common law at the time of ratification. It is pretty broad and includes all manner of things that aren't crimes were they applied to people not holding office. .

Modern eyes want to erroneously view the "high" modifier as meaning that impeachment is limited to the most serious crimes. This is backward. The "high" modifier refers to crimes relating to the powers of the office. It is a term that broadens the scope to general malfeasance, rather than narrow it.
Click to expand...

dudalb said:
The classic expression of that is the Congress could impeach and remove a president from office for eating a cheese sandwich.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that also wasn't the intention. Corruption, abuse of power and dereliction of duty was more of what the founders had in mind. It was never intended to be a remedy for frivolous offenses. The reason they used the term high crimes and misdemeanors was because it was broad. The word "crime" is just what you think it is. A criminal offense. "Misdemeanors" was used to suggest offenses that may not be "criminal" but nevertheless were serious.
 
Ken White on Twitter: It's amusing, in an apocalyptic sort of way, that people are still asking "what will the Republicans' defense be to this," when the defense is and always has been "**** you."
 
The Republican's really do sound like a bunch of Mob enforcers, 'The Don said he hoped Joey didn't have a horrible accident, so obviously he had nothing to do with Joey falling into a woodchipper.'
 
Garrison said:
The Republican's really do sound like a bunch of Mob enforcers, 'The Don said he hoped Joey didn't have a horrible accident, so obviously he had nothing to do with Joey falling into a woodchipper.'
Click to expand...

" I don't want to see that Paulie Gatto around here any more".
 
Rumor is Pompeo is going to resign soon because Trump is hurting his image and he has desires to run for a Senate seat. There's nothing concrete, which is why I'm not linking to anything, but if true that would be pretty tough to handle for Trump. It seems like everyone is bailing on him and it's exposing some cracks in the wall.
 
Armitage72 said:
Devin Nunes actually compared Trump's actions to George Washington.



"I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that our first president, George Washington, directed his own diplomatic channels to secure a treaty with Great Britain. If my Democratic colleagues were around in 1794, they’d probably want to impeach him, too."
Click to expand...
It's a little known fact that George Washington started a Real Estate Entrepreneur University and would boast about grabbing women by the ******.
 
Cain said:
Ken White on Twitter: It's amusing, in an apocalyptic sort of way, that people are still asking "what will the Republicans' defense be to this," when the defense is and always has been "**** you."
Click to expand...
That, in a nutshell, is exactly what is going on.
 
So, the major GOP talking point to prove there was no quid pro quo was that Trump never got the investigation he was asking for.

That's a terrible argument anyway. One can attempt a bribe and not be successful, for instance if you get interrupted by a whistleblower.

But now, here's an indictment which is claiming to implicate Hunter Biden:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...eveals-hunter-biden-group-made-165-million-mp
 
Ya gotta love how the republicans were phrasing their comments/questions in a way that would give them elbow room to throw Giuliani under the bus if/when the need arises in the not-so distant future.

And then how Schiff recognized their painfully obvious tactic as well, and got in front of it with his closing statement.

To paraphrase Schiff: "And as for you republicans, don't even think of trying to put all the blame on Rudy, because we know Donald Trump well enough to know he would never let anyone else bark out orders unless they were directed by him first."

Friggin' priceless.
 
Cavemonster said:
But now, here's an indictment which is claiming to implicate Hunter Biden:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...eveals-hunter-biden-group-made-165-million-mp
Click to expand...
First of all, keep in mind that that Zerohedge website is not reputable.

From: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/
Zero Hedge’s content has been classified as “alt-right” and has been criticized for presenting conspiracy theories...

Secondly, even if you think their site is legitimate, that particular article didn't really 'implicate' Hunter Biden. It said that he may have been paid from money raised through "criminal means" rather than from company profits. But it does not really offer any proof that Biden himself was involved in the criminal activity (or would even know the source of his pay).

So, bunk reference providing bunk information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom