• 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.
JoeMorgue said:
- The whole idea that impeachment is "overturning" the election is insane. By that logic everything negative done toward or at a President is that.
Click to expand...

Well that is the view of the GOP - so long as the President is a Republican. Obviously if the President is a Democrat then supporting the President is treason and opposing the President is true patriotism :rolleyes:
 
JoeMorgue said:
More "It's not a crime if you try and fail to commit the crime" apologetics.
Click to expand...


It also ignores that the aid wasn't released until after the extortion had been reported.

August 12-Whitleblower complaint is filed.
September 9-House and Senate intelligence committees are informed of the complaint.
September 11-Aid is released.

"Damn, we got caught!! Do something, quick!!"
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
- The whole idea that impeachment is "overturning" the election is insane. By that logic everything negative done toward or at a President is that.
Click to expand...
My bad. Let me clarify my logic:

Opposing the president within the framework of checks and balances that comprises our system of government is not overturning an election. Removing an elected official from office is overturning an election. That's my logic. By this logic, removing the president from office is overturning the election. Most other negative things done towards the president are probably not (with some obvious exceptions like assassination).
 
theprestige said:
My bad. Let me clarify my logic:

Opposing the president within the framework of checks and balances that comprises our system of government is not overturning an election. Removing an elected official from office is overturning an election. That's my logic. By this logic, removing the president from office is overturning the election. Most other negative things done towards the president are probably not (with some obvious exceptions like assassination).
Click to expand...

"Overturning an election" would be doing a recount, or redoing the whole election, or changing the electoral tallies after the fact. Impeachment is no more overturning an election than a divorce is an annulment.
 
TragicMonkey said:
"Overturning an election" would be doing a recount, or redoing the whole election, or changing the electoral tallies after the fact. Impeachment is no more overturning an election than a divorce is an annulment.
Click to expand...

Your logic is not my logic. The logic Joe was critiquing was also not my logic. I just want to make sure we're clear on those two points.
 
- Again this is the "The police stopped them before the teller handed over the money, so how can you possibly charge them with bank robbery?" defense one that I can't even make a strawman out of that would be any worse then "Well I stopped trying shake them down for political hits in exchange for aid AFTER it came out that's what I was doing..."

- Donald Trump will still be President from his swearing in until.... whenever what finally happens happens. Nothing on the table is going to go back and retroactively make that not true.

Trump cheated in the last election, will cheat in the next one, and is committing crimes with the frequency most Americans brush their teeth while in office. That's what this is about.
 
theprestige said:
Your logic is not my logic. The logic Joe was critiquing was also not my logic. I just want to make sure we're clear on those two points.
Click to expand...

Do you hold the same logic to past instances of impeachment? I mean do you consider Nixon's "overturning an election"? Clinton's?
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I am sorry. I don't seem to remember any aid being withheld. In fact I seem to remember the aid being boosted.

Am I wrong? Did the Ukrainians get the aid they needed or not?
Click to expand...

You are wrong. The aid was held.
JULY 3: The hold
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a national security official working at the White House, becomes aware that the military aid has been held up. He testified that he received a notice from the State Department. “That’s when I was concretely made aware of the fact there was a hold placed,” he said in testimony to lawmakers.
Click to expand...
 
Theprestige's new argument only works if "overturning an election" is either a meaningless phrase, or used as a synonym for the impeachment process itself.

He has, in the past, hinted at the argument that impeachment, as a process, is inherently bad. Of course, he won't go right out and say it, because it would be incredibly foolish to argue that the highest official in the government cannot be held directly accountable for criminal conduct.
 
theprestige said:
My bad. Let me clarify my logic:

Opposing the president within the framework of checks and balances that comprises our system of government is not overturning an election. Removing an elected official from office is overturning an election. That's my logic. By this logic, removing the president from office is overturning the election. Most other negative things done towards the president are probably not (with some obvious exceptions like assassination).
Click to expand...

By your own logic, then, impeachment is not overturning an election, since the power of impeachment given to Congress is firmly within that "framework of checks and balances that comprises our system of government"- aka "the Constitution." Article I, from Sections 2 and 5-

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers, and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Click to expand...
 
I Am The Scum said:
Theprestige's new argument only works if "overturning an election" is either a meaningless phrase, or used as a synonym for the impeachment process itself.
Click to expand...
I think it works if "overturning an election" is used to describe any process that results in removing an elected official from office (before the end of their term). Impeachment, coup, assassination... These are all methods for overturning an election. Contra JoeMorgue, opposing an elected official within the system of checks and balances is not.

He has, in the past, hinted at the argument that impeachment, as a process, is inherently bad. Of course, he won't go right out and say it, because it would be incredibly foolish to argue that the highest official in the government cannot be held directly accountable for criminal conduct.
Click to expand...
What a weird thing for you to say. Here, let me make things explicit, so you don't have to imagine (wrongly) what I actually think: The impeachment process is inherently political, and this is exactly how it should be. It's also entirely necessary, and it's a good thing we have it.

There. Is that clear enough for you? Or are you still confused about my position on impeachment?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Well, at least you are consistent in your error.
Click to expand...

Consistent in reasoning from my axioms, you mean.

Do you disagree that removing an elected official from office overturns their election?

Is the problem that you're reading implied arguments into that idea - arguments you imagine I'm making or about to make? Is this some form of preemptive rebuttal?
 
theprestige said:
IImpeachment, coup, assassination... These are all methods for overturning an election. Contra JoeMorgue, opposing an elected official within the system of checks and balances is not.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that you lump those three together tells us everything we want to know about what level you are arguing on.

I'd love to know what level of insane troll logic it takes to consider "Impeachment" in the "Coup/Assassination" side of the Venn Diagram and not the "Checks and Balances Side."
 
theprestige said:
Consistent in reasoning from my axioms, you mean.

Do you disagree that removing an elected official from office overturns their election?

Is the problem that you're reading implied arguments into that idea - arguments you imagine I'm making or about to make? Is this some form of preemptive rebuttal?
Click to expand...

Yes, I disagree. Removal from office is the government equivalent of being fired, whereas overturning an election is the government equivalent of having a job offer rescinded. Even if you disregard all other factors the timing alone would distinguish the two. Trump's 3/4ths of the way through his term.
 
Trebuchet said:
My wife has it on all effing day. I go to the other room and visit ISF or just stretch out in the recliner and go to sleep. I can't stand it, and can't avoid being pretty well up to date anyhow.
Click to expand...

I have it on all day also, but I am getting a lot of other stuff done while listening. There were a few parts where I zoned out, but for the most part I'm glad to be able to hear almost everything. I can't imagine only being informed by the two-minute newsbites on the evening network broadcasts.

Belz... said:
If that's confirmed, then the American people is stupider than I gave them credit for.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we all is.
 
theprestige said:
I think it works if "overturning an election" is used to describe any process that results in removing an elected official from office (before the end of their term). Impeachment, coup, assassination... These are all methods for overturning an election. Contra JoeMorgue, opposing an elected official within the system of checks and balances is not.


What a weird thing for you to say. Here, let me make things explicit, so you don't have to imagine (wrongly) what I actually think: The impeachment process is inherently political, and this is exactly how it should be. It's also entirely necessary, and it's a good thing we have it.

There. Is that clear enough for you? Or are you still confused about my position on impeachment?
Click to expand...
Would removing Trump from office nullify anything he did while serving as POTUS?

If his election were "nullified", his time served as president would be illegitimate and anything signed by him during that time would no longer have the force of law. Is that what you are asserting would be achieved by an impeachment and removal?

If not, I think you would need to concede that referring to such an action as "nullifying the election" is nothing more than spin, and disingenuous spin at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom