Page 281 of 284 FirstFirst ... 181231271279280281282283 ... LastLast
Results 2,801 to 2,810 of 2840

Thread: Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

  1. #2801
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,988
    Amen (Given)
    6100
    Amen (Received)
    7456
    Quote Originally Posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    As has been explained to you before, for the umpteenth time, this is not a normal court, the president isn't going to be sentenced to prison for committing a crime such as bribery, he will simply, if convicted, be fired from his job and the reason for the firing would be "abuse of his power."
    And attitudes like yours are precisely why Trump's legal team is arguing that the impeachment inquiry was a sham, because Democrats are trying to deny the President his right to due process and lower the burden of proof because, in their minds, it's "just" impeachment and not a traditional court of law.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  2. #2802
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,886
    Amen (Given)
    1955
    Amen (Received)
    1602
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    And attitudes like yours are precisely why Trump's legal team is arguing that the impeachment inquiry was a sham, because Democrats are trying to deny the President his right to due process and lower the burden of proof because, in their minds, it's "just" impeachment and not a traditional court of law.
    Except for the fact that he isn't being denied due process. Besides, the prosecution just wants to meet "your high burden of proof" by admitting all relevant evidence at trial. You simply want to keep that from happening. The no evidence, sham trial crowd, aren't fooling anyone. Did you know that?

  3. #2803
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,988
    Amen (Given)
    6100
    Amen (Received)
    7456
    Quote Originally Posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    Except for the fact that he isn't being denied due process. Besides, the prosecution just wants to meet "your high burden of proof" by admitting all relevant evidence at trial. You simply want to keep that from happening. The no evidence, sham trial crowd, aren't fooling anyone. Did you know that?
    So you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  4. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  5. #2804
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,886
    Amen (Given)
    1955
    Amen (Received)
    1602
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    So you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.
    No, if you didn't have such problems with reading comprehension you would have understood that what I admitted to throughout discussion is that there is probably not enough evidence to meet Senate republicans, or your, high burden of proof, because that, as we have already seen, is almost an impossible burden to achieve. But as you know, the president has blocked every single witness and every single document requested of by the House from being seen. So, if republicans, if you, aren't convinced by the already, in my opinion, overwhelming evidence in the Articles so far put forth, why don't they, why don't you, want to see all that previously blocked evidence in the Senate trial in order that you are able reach an honest conclusion one way or the other? But then again, we, you and I, already know why you don't want see it, don't we.

  6. #2805
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,959
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1887
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    So you admit again that the articles of impeachment as passed by the House are insufficient in and of themselves to prove Trump guilty.
    They have already shown themselves to be more than sufficient to show that Trump abused his power by withholding Ukraine aid in return for a favor. The House voted as such. But there's clearly even more evidence emerging plus witnesses Trump is blocking, which could reinforce Trump's guilt.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. #2806
    tWebber firstfloor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    invalid value
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,756
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    449
    How do you deny allegations, if there are no allegations?

    Mr Trump and his legal team said the impeachment charges failed to allege "any crime or violation of law" and were "the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness".

    The lawyers said Mr Trump "categorically and unequivocally" denies all allegations.
    BBC news website
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell

  8. #2807
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    312
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by firstfloor View Post
    How do you deny allegations, if there are no allegations?

    BBC news website
    Failed to allege a crime apparently. Its still worrying that some people don’t consider abuse of power or obstruction of congress to be impeachable offences. Inappropriate use of power and obstructing attempts at oversight is how dictators are made. It’s ridiculous to think a constitution created to be free from tyranny could possibly allow the very two offences that would be necessary to make tyranny possible.

  9. #2808
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,988
    Amen (Given)
    6100
    Amen (Received)
    7456
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Failed to allege a crime apparently. Its still worrying that some people don’t consider abuse of power or obstruction of congress to be impeachable offences. Inappropriate use of power and obstructing attempts at oversight is how dictators are made. It’s ridiculous to think a constitution created to be free from tyranny could possibly allow the very two offences that would be necessary to make tyranny possible.
    Except "abuse of power" is not a crime in and of itself; it is, rather, a description of crimes. One could say, "The President committed crimes X, Y, and Z which together are an abuse of power," and that could be a viable argument, but "abuse of power" on its own without specifying actual crimes doesn't work.

    Trump's legal team touched on this point in a recent press conference:

    "With regard to the first article of impeachment, we are going to assert that they must be rejected because the — and it relates to the first article of impeachment — it fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It alleges no crimes at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, as required by the Constitution. In fact, it does not allege any violation of law whatsoever. We assert that the House Democrats’ abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

    "We then get into some very specific allegations, regarding the phone call itself, as it relates to this abuse of power claim. I will tell you this: We will address both the April 21st and July 25th phone calls. We will be making it very clear what President Zelensky said, as well as what the President of the United States said on those calls. We will again reiterate that the House record establishes that President Zelensky and his top aides have never said there was a quid pro quo situation, as that issue came up.

    "And remember: This case started — first it was going to be quid pro quo. Actually, first it would be extortion, then bribery, then quid pro quo, then it becomes abuse of power — with the word “quid pro quo” never showing up in the actual articles of impeachment."

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...house-counsel/
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  10. #2809
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,886
    Amen (Given)
    1955
    Amen (Received)
    1602
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Except "abuse of power" is not a crime in and of itself; it is, rather, a description of crimes. One could say, "The President committed crimes X, Y, and Z which together are an abuse of power," and that could be a viable argument, but "abuse of power" on its own without specifying actual crimes doesn't work.

    Trump's legal team touched on this point in a recent press conference:

    "With regard to the first article of impeachment, we are going to assert that they must be rejected because the — and it relates to the first article of impeachment — it fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It alleges no crimes at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, as required by the Constitution. In fact, it does not allege any violation of law whatsoever. We assert that the House Democrats’ abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

    "We then get into some very specific allegations, regarding the phone call itself, as it relates to this abuse of power claim. I will tell you this: We will address both the April 21st and July 25th phone calls. We will be making it very clear what President Zelensky said, as well as what the President of the United States said on those calls. We will again reiterate that the House record establishes that President Zelensky and his top aides have never said there was a quid pro quo situation, as that issue came up.

    "And remember: This case started — first it was going to be quid pro quo. Actually, first it would be extortion, then bribery, then quid pro quo, then it becomes abuse of power — with the word “quid pro quo” never showing up in the actual articles of impeachment."

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...house-counsel/
    Except that the charge is bribery, or extortion if you like, by use of withholding appropriated funds all relating to the main charge against the Constitution which is soliciting, for personal gain, a foriegn country to investigate an american citizen all to interfere into the 2020 elections. On top of that is the obstruction charge in Trumps effort to hide his abuse of power. That's called a violation of his oath, or an abuse of power in an impeachment trial, because in an impeachment trial that's all it comes down to. The President isn't going to prison for these crimes, because it's a different process that a normal trial, he would simply be fired from his job. The SDNY can can indict him for any his other crimes which are outside his presidential abuse of power.
    Last edited by JimL; 01-19-2020 at 10:51 AM.

  11. #2810
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    19,988
    Amen (Given)
    6100
    Amen (Received)
    7456
    Quote Originally Posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    Except that the charge is bribery, or extortion if you like...
    Neither of those charges are specified in the articles of impeachment, and there is certainly no evidence to support those charges anyway.

    As for "obstruction of Congress", that's not a crime, either. There is not a single law in the entire US code called "obstruction of Congress". The issue is whether or not the President properly invoked executive privilege, an action to which he is legally entitled and therefore cannot be construed as obstruction.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •