Home

What's Your Red Line?
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9, 10, 11  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 11:25 pm
Jeanette wrote:
1. Impeachment is a constitutional process.

2. Winning an election in 2016 does not give him unfettered powers to do whatever he wants. He still has to follow the constitution and uphold his oath of office. Only Congress has the power to hold him accountable.

3. The Democrats won the House in 2018. By resisting Congressional oversight, isn't he trying to overturn the 2018 election?


Hatred of Trump and inability to accept the results of 2016 are NOT grounds for impeachment.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 11:26 pm
roses wrote:
Are you angry about the question? Or the discussion? And how does your anger at the discussion fall in line with your stated support of free speech?

And comparing whatever flaws you saw in Obama or Hilary to what's currently happening- I just don't see the connection. There is an actual impeachment inquiry going on, with Trump, with credible and documented evidence of collusion with a foreign government to influence an election. So asking questions regarding individuals choices to support the impeachment inquiry- or not- is a very legitimate topic of discussion. Im not seeing the badgering at all. Unless discussing and asking questions is badgering and needs to be shut down?


I don’t see any anger in Fox’s post. It’s interesting that you’d accuse her of it.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 11:34 pm
wiki wrote:
Defenders of the president: Does the president have a right to decide whether or not the House's impeachment efforts are legitimate and whether or not he wants to participate?

(Because if he does, then how are checks and balances supposed to operate, exactly? Doesn't that just mean that the President has the authority to decide not to be impeached? And that he is entirely above the law?)

Can anyone accused with a crime or civil offense ever refuse to participate in *being charged* because they think it's unfair?

Asking in good faith. I really don't get how this is supposed to work in the minds of Trump's defenders here.


He is not the one who decided the house’s phony impeachment inquiry is illegitimate. Every honest person knows it including lawyers. Dems have gone against precedent by refusing to take a vote, refusing to allow the president and the public to be in on the case, to have lawyers represent his side, question witnesses, etc.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 11:37 pm
Jeanette wrote:
Quote:

You are correct. All of these things are evidence that nothing impeachable occurred. Only if you insist on overturning decades of presidential precedents can any of this evidence be stretched into malfeasance of any sort, let alone "high crimes and misdeameanors." 

But if anyone alludes to those precedents, it's "Whataboutism." I am surprised SCOTUS hasn't been accused of "whataboutism" in rendering legal opinions. Let's just live in the present!


Is that your expert legal opinion? The only lawyers I've ever seen you quote are Dershowitz and Giuliani, never mind their glaring conflicts of interest.

Please quote the legal sources you're relying on to say that nothing impeachable occurred. I'll be happy to refer you to the legal scholars I'm relying on.


Rachel Maddox and Don Lemon?
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 11:40 pm
roses wrote:
[quote="Fox"

But I'm curious what it would take for anti-Trumpers to say, "I don't like this President, but I'm going to respect the 2016 election and I'm going to stop making excuses for throwing tantrums because someone I disapprove of won the election."

"I don't recall starting threads like this during Obama's administration, though by his second term, it was obvious to me that he was every bit as dangerous or more so than you claim Trump is. Yet I don't recall badgering people who supported him endlessly or repeatedly demanding that they justify their support. "

"Do you honestly think I'd be starting threads demanding Clinton's impeachment had she won the election? "

"So I find your question just one more example of the arrogance and disdain for fellow citizens that led to Trump's election in the first place" .


The above quoted comments look like anger and outrage to me- or maybe just general reprimands for us being so naughty as to talk about Trump in a way that makes you uncomfortable? And telling us off for asking these questions and opening this discussion?[/quote]

Your categorization of Fox’s posts as anger and outrage, are in line with and as accurate as your categorizations Of Trump’s every word and act as immoral, dangerous, signs of mental illness.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:01 am
Jeanette wrote:
Quote:

None -- I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't intend the statements to be reflections of legal analysis. As I've said, I wouldn't trust such analysis at this stage, anyway, so it wouldn't occur to me to seek it out.


Um, ok. Leaving aside that you referred to my well-founded opinion as a "rant," what is your basis for saying the Mueller report is evidence that the president didn't commit any impeachable offenses?

Why won't you trust any legal analysis of impeachment? At what stage would you consider it trustworthy? And if we can't trust legal analysis, what type of analysis should we trust?

Again, I think you've confused the inquiry, a vote to impeach, a trial in the Senate, and conviction/removal from office.

Congress has the right to open an inquiry and even to impeach the President. Most of what you're calling "legal analysis" is really just confirming those facts and speculating on whether the evidence available at the current time would create a strong or weak case in Congress.

But with a Democratic majority in the House, the case for impeachment doesn't have to be that airtight, so legal analysis is superfluous.

We would then have a trial in the Senate and possible conviction/removal from office. This would involve additional witnesses and evidence as well as information that is not publicly available now. Without knowing what is to come, no legal expert can accurately predict how things might go.

So we have two separate phases: the inquiry/impeachment, in which the standard of evidence is relatively low; and the trial/conviction, in which we don't have any of the information that would eventually be presented. Therefore, any responsible legal scholar will likely agree that the evidence meets the low standard for impeachment and will simultaneously acknowledge that predicting the success of the prosecution in a Senate trial is impossible at this juncture.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:21 am
Quote:
Again, I think you've confused the inquiry, a vote to impeach, a trial in the Senate, and conviction/removal from office.

Congress has the right to open an inquiry and even to impeach the President. Most of what you're calling "legal analysis" is really just confirming those facts and speculating on whether the evidence available at the current time would create a strong or weak case in Congress.

But with a Democratic majority in the House, the case for impeachment doesn't have to be that airtight, so legal analysis is superfluous.

We would then have a trial in the Senate and possible conviction/removal from office. This would involve additional witnesses and evidence as well as information that is not publicly available now. Without knowing what is to come, no legal expert can accurately predict how things might go.

So we have two separate phases: the inquiry/impeachment, in which the standard of evidence is relatively low; and the trial/conviction, in which we don't have any of the information that would eventually be presented. Therefore, any responsible legal scholar will likely agree that the evidence meets the low standard for impeachment and will simultaneously acknowledge that predicting the success of the prosecution in a Senate trial is impossible at this juncture.


Nope, I haven't confused anything.

You made a statement that the Mueller report provides evidence that Trump has not committed any impeachable offenses. I asked you on what basis you made that assertion.

Congress has a right to open an inquiry and even to impeach the president. I'm glad we agree on these basic facts!

I disagree that we don't have any of the information that will eventually be presented during a trial in the senate. We may not have all the information, but a lot of it is already publicly known and many more witnesses are set to testify. We don't know how Mitch McConnell will preside over the trial. We don't know if he will allow all the evidence to be presented or even hold a trial at all, even though he said he would. So it will be up to the House to build a case so compelling that 2/3 of the Senate will not be able to ignore it. But Trump seems quite determined to burn down the place on his way out the door so the Senate may soon be compelled to act.


Last edited by Jeanette on Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:23 am
wiki wrote:
Defenders of the president: Does the president have a right to decide whether or not the House's impeachment efforts are legitimate and whether or not he wants to participate?

(Because if he does, then how are checks and balances supposed to operate, exactly? Doesn't that just mean that the President has the authority to decide not to be impeached? And that he is entirely above the law?)

Can anyone accused with a crime or civil offense ever refuse to participate in *being charged* because they think it's unfair?

Asking in good faith. I really don't get how this is supposed to work in the minds of Trump's defenders here.

No, as a matter of fact, you're not obligated to help someone prove you committed a crime.

Although the analogy isn't perfect, think of a criminal investigation. Let's say you are asked by police to answer questions in connection to a crime. However, as part of their interview, you are asked to give permission to search your car or home.

Realizing that things are somewhat serious, you ask to speak with an attorney. The first thing your attorney will find out is whether you are being charged with a crime and/or whether the police have probable cause and/or a warrant to search your premises.

But at no point are you required to say, "Sure, come on in and have a look around!" In other words, simply the fact that the police are conducting an inquiry doesn't give them the right to search your premises. They must take an official legal step that demonstrates that they have good reason to do so.

In the case of impeachment, that legal step would be a vote for a formal inquiry. So far, House Speaker Pelosi has refused to take such a vote. That is akin to a police detective searching a vehicle, for example, without either establishing probable cause or possessing a warrant -- a conviction based on such a scenario will be quickly overturned.

There are lots of theories about why Speaker Pelosi has not put the inquiry before a House vote, but nothing is going to happen until that takes place.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:32 am
Quote:
No, as a matter of fact, you're not obligated to help someone prove you committed a crime.

Although the analogy isn't perfect, think of a criminal investigation. Let's say you are asked by police to answer questions in connection to a crime. However, as part of their interview, you are asked to give permission to search your car or home.

Realizing that things are somewhat serious, you ask to speak with an attorney. The first thing your attorney will find out is whether you are being charged with a crime and/or whether the police have probable cause and/or a warrant to search your premises.

But at no point are you required to say, "Sure, come on in and have a look around!" In other words, simply the fact that the police are conducting an inquiry doesn't give them the right to search your premises. They must take an official legal step that demonstrates that they have good reason to do so.

In the case of impeachment, that legal step would be a vote for a formal inquiry. So far, House Speaker Pelosi has refused to take such a vote. That is akin to a police detective searching a vehicle, for example, without either establishing probable cause or possessing a warrant -- a conviction based on such a scenario will be quickly overturned.

There are lots of theories about why Speaker Pelosi has not put the inquiry before a House vote, but nothing is going to happen until that takes place.


Actually, your analogy is faulty because being impeached and then convicted and removed from office is not the same as being found guilty in a criminal trial. The penalty is being removed from office, not being locked up, and nobody has the inherent right to be president. A president is supposed to be acting in the best interests of the American people, not in their own personal best interest.

Now, I can fully understand that the president may want to protect his finances from investigation because it may open him up to criminal liability, so he will fight tooth and nail to prevent those disclosures from coming out. (Derech agav the New York State subpoena for his financial records had nothing to do with impeachment and was issued by a grand jury, but the president is fighting it anyway because me president me powerful me can't be charged me can't be investigated.)

Anyway for someone who rejects any and all legal analysis of impeachment you sure have wrapped up a nice little legal theory for why the president can't be impeached! As I asked earlier, maybe you can cite the legal scholars you are relying on for this interpretation of the law.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:36 am
Jeanette wrote:
You made a statement that the Mueller report provides evidence that Trump has not committed any impeachable offenses. I asked you on what basis you made that assertion.

Using the standards set during Watergate and Clinton's impeachment as a guide, I can't see how anything in the Mueller report rises to those levels. We've seen nothing like the Saturday Night Massacre or demonstrable lying under oath.

Jeanette wrote:
I disagree that we don't have any of the information that will eventually be presented during a trial in the senate. We may not have all the information, but a lot of it is already publicly known and many more witnesses are set to testify. We don't know how Mitch McConnell will preside over the trial. We don't know if he will allow all the evidence to be presented. So it will be up to the House to build a case so compelling that 2/3 of the Senate will not be able to ignore it. But Trump seems quite determined to burn down the place on his way out the door so the Senate may soon be compelled to act.

So we're back to the fact that legal experts really have no way of predicting the outcome, but you're convinced that a failure to convict will be, ipso facto, an example of Senator McConnell's corruption and that Trump is "determined to burn down the place."

Please -- if you're ever called for jury duty, decline! Deciding in advance that corruption is the only explanation if the evidence doesn't cut the way you want is not exactly how American jurisprudence is supposed to work.

But all that said, you've been promising us for 3 1/2 years that Trump is imminently going to blow us all up; tank the economy; suspend civil rights; and/or be removed forcibly from office. I've stopped holding my breath.
Back to top

marina




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:36 am
I don’t think Mitch presides over the trial. the chief justice does.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:42 am
Jeanette wrote:
Actually, your analogy is faulty because being impeached and then convicted and removed from office is not the same as being found guilty in a criminal trial. The penalty is being removed from office, not being locked up, and nobody has the inherent right to be president. A president is supposed to be acting in the best interests of the American people, not in their own personal best interest.

Fox: This is an imperfect analogy.

Jeanette: Actually, your analogy is faulty.

Sigh. Yes, that's what I said. It's not a habeas corpus issue; nevertheless, I think the analogy explains the current state of affairs quite well.

Jeanette wrote:
Anyway for someone who rejects any and all legal analysis of impeachment you sure have wrapped up a nice little legal theory for why the president can't be impeached! As I asked earlier, maybe you can cite the legal scholars you are relying on for this interpretation of the law.

You clearly haven't read a thing I've written. I said that legal analysis is irrelevant.

And I've said repeatedly that the President can be impeached. In fact, I've even said that I think he'd be delighted to be impeached. I suspect he's looking forward to it.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:43 am
marina wrote:
I don’t think Mitch presides over the trial. the chief justice does.

Yes, thank you for that clarification.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:45 am
Quote:
But all that said, you've been promising us for 3 1/2 years that Trump is imminently going to blow us all up; tank the economy; suspend civil rights; and/or be removed forcibly from office. I've stopped holding my breath.


The Turks right now as we speak are blowing up the Kurds, our erstwhile allies who fought ISIS alongside us. But it's only Muslims killing Muslims, so I guess, yawn.

Quote:
I said that legal analysis is irrelevant.


You outlined a legal theory for why, without a formal vote in the house, an impeachment inquiry is meaningless and has no power under the law. I asked you to cite the legal scholars you are relying on for that analysis.
Back to top

gold21




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:51 am
If you hate Trump and specifically Trump, that's fine w me.

So what's w the social media outrage about Ellen DeGeneres spending time w George W Bush?

Because he's also a terrible unloveable person, apparently.

Or maybe it's just partisan politics.

From the perspective of some liberals, if someone is a republican, he's a full fledged creep and if he's a Democrat he can do no wrong.

And the reverse for some republicans.

Meanwhile our government representatives in Congress do nothing. I mean, sure they keep busy (sort of), but they actually do very little to help the country. Every ten minutes they're on a 2 week recess. When they're actually working, they're focused on partisan politics, not the country. Just a total bummer to have to pay these people's salaries.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 1:46 am
Jeanette wrote:
The Turks right now as we speak are blowing up the Kurds, our erstwhile allies who fought ISIS alongside us. But it's only Muslims killing Muslims, so I guess, yawn.

Actually, from what I read, the Turks are encroaching on Cyprus. But please answer the question posed by columnist Kurt Schlichter in between making unsupported accusations about antipathy toward Muslims :



Jeanette wrote:
You outlined a legal theory for why, without a formal vote in the house, an impeachment inquiry is meaningless and has no power under the law. I asked you to cite the legal scholars you are relying on for that analysis.

This explains the historical role of impeachment inquiry votes as well as ways the Democrats might seek to evade an official inquiry: Lawfare

Quote:
The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach” the president in question. In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House. First, the authorizing resolutions outlined procedures for issuing subpoenas. Second, the measures laid out a process for taking staff depositions.

WaPo also explains how the House might have a stronger case with an inquiry vote, though they seem to assume that Trump wants to avoid impeachment, and I'm unconvinced of that. WaPo

I have no idea where you're going with this -- if I say the sun will rise in the East, I don't necessarily have a legal expert nodding his/her head in the background.

Alas, I have been summoned rather sternly to my duties elsewhere on the Internet battlefield, so I'll leave you to blissfully uninterrupted Trump-trashing.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 7:37 am
Quote:

Actually, from what I read, the Turks are encroaching on Cyprus. But please answer the question posed by columnist Kurt Schlichter in between making unsupported accusations about antipathy toward Muslims
 

Very simple. America should uphold its promises and commitments to our allies and ensure their safety. America also has a national security interest in ensuring that ISIS fighters don't escape and reestablish themselves in the Middle East and Europe. (Remember Trump boasting that he eliminated ISIS? It was the Kurds that did that., with American support. And he's about to undo it. Good times.)

I don't usually agree with Marc Theissen but here he makes the point quite eloquently:

https://www.washingtonpost.com.....nard/

Quote:

This explains the historical role of impeachment inquiry votes as well as ways the Democrats might seek to evade an official inquiry: Lawfare 



Quote:

WaPo also explains how the House might have a stronger case with an inquiry vote, though they seem to assume that Trump wants to avoid impeachment, and I'm unconvinced of that. WaPo 

I have no idea where you're going with this -- if I say the sun will rise in the East, I don't necessarily have a legal expert nodding his/her head in the background. 


Neither of these sources support your assertion that a congressional inquiry without a formal impeachment vote is meaningless. Or do you think that simply by asserting it, that makes it true and as obvious as the sun rising in the east? You have also not provided any basis, legal or otherwise, for your assertion that the Mueller report provides evidence that Trump committed no impeachable offenses.
Back to top

gold21




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 11:48 am
Jeanette wrote:
Quote:

Actually, from what I read, the Turks are encroaching on Cyprus. But please answer the question posed by columnist Kurt Schlichter in between making unsupported accusations about antipathy toward Muslims
 

Very simple. America should uphold its promises and commitments to our allies and ensure their safety. America also has a national security interest in ensuring that ISIS fighters don't escape and reestablish themselves in the Middle East and Europe. (Remember Trump boasting that he eliminated ISIS? It was the Kurds that did that., with American support. And he's about to undo it. Good times.)

I don't usually agree with Marc Theissen but here he makes the point quite eloquently:

https://www.washingtonpost.com.....nard/

Quote:

This explains the historical role of impeachment inquiry votes as well as ways the Democrats might seek to evade an official inquiry: Lawfare 



Quote:

WaPo also explains how the House might have a stronger case with an inquiry vote, though they seem to assume that Trump wants to avoid impeachment, and I'm unconvinced of that. WaPo 

I have no idea where you're going with this -- if I say the sun will rise in the East, I don't necessarily have a legal expert nodding his/her head in the background. 


Neither of these sources support your assertion that a congressional inquiry without a formal impeachment vote is meaningless. Or do you think that simply by asserting it, that makes it true and as obvious as the sun rising in the east? You have also not provided any basis, legal or otherwise, for your assertion that the Mueller report provides evidence that Trump committed no impeachable offenses.


A congressional inquiry, with our without an impeachment vote, is regardless a bunch of priveleged bigmouths with power, focusing all their attention on a singular issue- fighting our president every step of the way. What has Congress done in the past year to actually benefit the country? How have we, as citizens, seen progress as the result of the "hard work" of our representatives?

Let the partisan games go over your head, fine w me.

Personally, I didn't mind Obama too much, other than his terrible Middle East policy, which ultimately made me lose respect for him, because yeah Israel is a central issue for me. And, as a side note, Michelle Obama's disastrous school lunch program. What a nightmare. Really ticked me off.

Overall, I agree w Trump's policy decisions.

The partisan hatred in this country (mostly coming from liberals, if you ask me) is getting in the way of progress and is hurting the people of this country.

But, whatever. Let Congress go on vacation. Oh, they already are on vacation. Excellent. How much of our taxpayer money do they make a year, by the way?
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:59 pm
Quote:
Actually, from what I read, the Turks are encroaching on Cyprus. But please answer the question posed by columnist Kurt Schlichter in between making unsupported accusations about antipathy toward Muslims


Please ask Kurt Schlichter to explain why the US is deploying thousands of troops to Saudi Arabia in the same week we abandoned our Kurdish allies.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 1:14 pm
gold21 wrote:
If you hate Trump and specifically Trump, that's fine w me.

So what's w the social media outrage about Ellen DeGeneres spending time w George W Bush?

Because he's also a terrible unloveable person, apparently.

Or maybe it's just partisan politics.

From the perspective of some liberals, if someone is a republican, he's a full fledged creep and if he's a Democrat he can do no wrong.

And the reverse for some republicans.

Meanwhile our government representatives in Congress do nothing. I mean, sure they keep busy (sort of), but they actually do very little to help the country. Every ten minutes they're on a 2 week recess. When they're actually working, they're focused on partisan politics, not the country. Just a total bummer to have to pay these people's salaries.


Sorry but you’re not seeing nearly an iota of the same disgusting behavior being perpetrated by republicans against liberals. Have you noticed how silent the fake news media has been about the liberals rioting last night at Trump’s rally?
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9, 10, 11  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 5 of 11 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Red (lentil?) soup from Fountain Ballroom (iso recipe)
by mamaleh
13 Yesterday at 11:01 pm View last post
Whats For Supper Tonight-Honest!
by mom!
1875 Yesterday at 8:57 pm View last post
Red Rash, but not a diaper rash. What is it? 11 Thu, Oct 31 2019, 4:44 pm View last post
RED CURRY GINGER SQUASH SOUP 0 Tue, Oct 29 2019, 2:45 pm View last post
Large angry red mark on baby's back
by amother
20 Mon, Oct 28 2019, 7:50 pm View last post

Jump to: