Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 228

Thread: Sondland admits quid pro quo

  1. #171
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,513
    Amen (Given)
    12280
    Amen (Received)
    26274
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    To convict Trump on impeachment charges, 20 GOP senators will need to break ranks. And thatís not going to happen whilst there is a risk of alienating those in the electorate that put Trump into power. Sadly, political survival rather than justice and integrity rule the day, regardless of the damning evidence of abuse of power against Trump.



    No. It's Congress fulfilling its duty as a co-equal branch of power to maintain oversight over the Executive Branch. Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch is a critical part of the US federal government's system of checks and balances
    Why can't you see that you're making the case that this is political? The prosecution of it is entirely partisan except for two Democrats voting no, and it has no chance of removing Trump because it would be a partisan rejection in the Senate.

    No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it's still a political animal.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  2. #172
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,092
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Why can't you see that you're making the case that this is political?
    What exactly do you mean? I mean, of course it's political in that it takes place in the political realm if you will, but I take you to mean something else by the term. Yes?

    The prosecution of it is entirely partisan except for two Democrats voting no, and it has no chance of removing Trump because it would be a partisan rejection in the Senate.
    Of course it is partisan, it's the nature of the two party system. The Nixon Impeachment proceedings were partisan as well, but does that mean that Nixon should not have been impeached?
    No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it's still a political animal.
    Of course it's political, but again I'll ask, what exactly are you insinuating by that? Unless you make clear what you mean by political, then it can only be assumed that you are suggesting it's illigit.
    Last edited by JimL; 11-09-2019 at 07:23 AM.

  3. #173
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,973
    Amen (Given)
    5844
    Amen (Received)
    6474
    A non-political impeachment would have clear, undeniable evidence that a crime was committed, and both chambers of Congress would be able to move quickly and unanimously to impeach and remove from office. To put it another way, impeachment should only happen if the evidence is strong enough to overcome partisan considerations.

    As one analyst put it, an impeachment that passes narrowly along party lines should be regarded as a failure of the process.
    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, Teallaura amen'd this post.
  5. #174
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,092
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    A non-political impeachment would have clear, undeniable evidence that a crime was committed, and both chambers of Congress would be able to move quickly and unanimously to impeach and remove from office. To put it another way, impeachment should only happen if the evidence is strong enough to overcome partisan considerations.

    As one analyst put it, an impeachment that passes narrowly along party lines should be regarded as a failure of the process.
    So, Nixon should never have been impeached, Right?

  6. #175
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,513
    Amen (Given)
    12280
    Amen (Received)
    26274
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    What exactly do you mean? I mean, of course it's political in that it takes place in the political realm if you will, but I take you to mean something else by the term. Yes?


    Of course it is partisan, it's the nature of the two party system. The Nixon Impeachment proceedings were partisan as well, but does that mean that Nixon should not have been impeached?

    Of course it's political, but again I'll ask, what exactly are you insinuating by that? Unless you make clear what you mean by political, then it can only be assumed that you are suggesting it's illigit.
    Let's start with the "illigit" issue first. Impeachment in and of itself is obviously not "illigit", as it is the constitutional remedy for removal of certain federal office holders, including POTUS. That the entire process is managed and voted upon by politicians, however, makes it a 'political' process as opposed to a judicial one. If it is used by one party pretty much unilaterally to toss out the other party's guy, realizing there is little to no chance of actually attaining the goal of removal -- that makes it "political", and, in my opinion, challenges the legitimacy of the process - an abuse of power.

    Next, let's move to the Nixon example. First, technically, Nixon was not fully impeached, in that, though the articles of impeachment were drafted and voted upon, he resigned before the process concluded, and it was never handed off to the full House for the impeachment vote, and obviously never reached the Senate for conviction/removal. Of the 5 articles of impeachment voted on in committee, two of them (Articles IV and V) were rejected with 12 Democrats voting yes, and 9 voting no, and 17 Republicans voting no (none voting yes).

    During the process, both parties were doing their vote counts - in the House and in the Senate. One of the reasons it was prosecuted was the fact that elements of both parties realized there was a legitimate chance that there would actually be articles of impeachment adopted, the full House was likely to vote for impeachment, and there was a good chance that the Senate would, indeed, convict. (It was estimated there would be 300 votes in the House (more than the 218 required) and as many as 60 votes in the Senate (just shy of the 2/3 required), but the situation was deteriorating rapidly)

    It wasn't a "show trial" - there was a very real likelihood that Nixon would be impeached AND removed.

    During the process, SCOTUS ruled in United States vs Nixon that the actual tapes (not just the transcripts, as had been surrendered to date) must be turned over, and there was a "smoking gun tape" in which Nixon and Haldeman are plotting the coverup of the actual crime of B&E into the Democrat National Committee HQ.

    It wasn't just a whole bunch of "he said / she said" - there were actual crimes and actual proof of a coverup, and Nixon was clearly implicated. In the tapes, he pretty much convicted himself, making a Senate trial totally unnecessary.

    This is nothing like what's happening today.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  7. Amen Mountain Man, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  8. #176
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,513
    Amen (Given)
    12280
    Amen (Received)
    26274
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    So, Nixon should never have been impeached, Right?
    He absolutely should, because, as MM referenced, there was a clear crime (Watergate) and apparent coverup, and the situation was moving rapidly to show actual undeniable wrongdoing, and the need for Nixon's removal from office.

    The very fact that it was so obvious that Nixon resigned before the full House voted for impeachment shows the process was on the right track.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  9. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  10. #177
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,973
    Amen (Given)
    5844
    Amen (Received)
    6474
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    He absolutely should, because, as MM referenced, there was a clear crime (Watergate) and apparent coverup, and the situation was moving rapidly to show actual undeniable wrongdoing, and the need for Nixon's removal from office.

    The very fact that it was so obvious that Nixon resigned before the full House voted for impeachment shows the process was on the right track.
    Yeah, I'm not sure what Jimmy is getting at with that remark.
    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

  11. #178
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,092
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Let's start with the "illigit" issue first. Impeachment in and of itself is obviously not "illigit", as it is the constitutional remedy for removal of certain federal office holders, including POTUS. That the entire process is managed and voted upon by politicians, however, makes it a 'political' process as opposed to a judicial one. If it is used by one party pretty much unilaterally to toss out the other party's guy, realizing there is little to no chance of actually attaining the goal of removal -- that makes it "political", and, in my opinion, challenges the legitimacy of the process - an abuse of power.
    Like I said, of course it's political, impeachment is a political process because that is the manner in which an accusation against a President is adjudicated according to the constitution. And that it's being used by one party for the purpose of ousting the other party's guy, is your opinion, but, in order to come to that opinion you are obviously either ignoring, or for some reason not seeing the existing evidence. As to the possibility of actually attaining the goal of removal, for one, is irrelevant, and secondly is not something you can know until the actual hearings are concluded. Republicans didn't come around, and Nixon didn't resign until the very end of the process when they both realized that his innocence could no longer be defended.
    Next, let's move to the Nixon example. First, technically, Nixon was not fully impeached, in that, though the articles of impeachment were drafted and voted upon, he resigned before the process concluded, and it was never handed off to the full House for the impeachment vote, and obviously never reached the Senate for conviction/removal. Of the 5 articles of impeachment voted on in committee, two of them (Articles IV and V) were rejected with 12 Democrats voting yes, and 9 voting no, and 17 Republicans voting no (none voting yes)
    .
    He wasn't fully impeached because he knew the jig was up, and would have been had he not resigned. That 2 of the 5 articles were rejected is irrelevant as well. He was going to be impeached/convicted.
    During the process, both parties were doing their vote counts - in the House and in the Senate. One of the reasons it was prosecuted was the fact that elements of both parties realized there was a legitimate chance that there would actually be articles of impeachment adopted, the full House was likely to vote for impeachment, and there was a good chance that the Senate would, indeed, convict. (It was estimated there would be 300 votes in the House (more than the 218 required) and as many as 60 votes in the Senate (just shy of the 2/3 required), but the situation was deteriorating rapidly)
    That's all conjecture and irrelevant. Partisanship has nothing to do with it, the partisanship exists regardless, it's inherent in the two party system. Had this been Obama, no offense, but you'd be recognizing the evidence and no doubt all your heads would be exploding.
    It wasn't a "show trial" - there was a very real likelihood that Nixon would be impeached AND removed.
    When you call it a "show trial" you are admitting to your own biased/partisan state of mind. And again, as far as the likelyhood of either Nixon or Trump being removed, for one thing is irrelevant, and for another, we had and have no idea as to that.
    During the process, SCOTUS ruled in United States vs Nixon that the actual tapes (not just the transcripts, as had been surrendered to date) must be turned over, and there was a "smoking gun tape" in which Nixon and Haldeman are plotting the coverup of the actual crime of B&E into the Democrat National Committee HQ.
    Which never would have happened had not the impeachment inquiry taken place.
    It wasn't just a whole bunch of "he said / she said" - there were actual crimes and actual proof of a coverup, and Nixon was clearly implicated. In the tapes, he pretty much convicted himself, making a Senate trial totally unnecessary.

    This is nothing like what's happening today.
    Yes, CP, it is exactly like what is happening today.
    Last edited by JimL; 11-09-2019 at 04:53 PM.

  12. #179
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,092
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Yeah, I'm not sure what Jimmy is getting at with that remark.
    What I'm getting at is that there is clear crimes here as well, more so, and worse crimes and coverups than even Watergate.

  13. #180
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,513
    Amen (Given)
    12280
    Amen (Received)
    26274
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    He wasn't fully impeached because he knew the jig was up, and would have been had he not resigned. That 2 of the 5 articles were rejected is irrelevant as well. He was going to be impeached/convicted.
    Actually, it showed that it was a bipartisan process, and 3 of the 5 articles stood.

    That's all conjecture and irrelevant.
    It is actually fact and totally relevant - both sides did their counts because they knew that this had to be something that was not seen as entirely one-sided. They knew there was the likelihood that Nixon would be both impeached, and removed, because the situation was that clearly deteriorating to both sides.

    An actual crime had been committed - that was established fact. The tapes were the "smoking gun" that showed there was absolutely a reason to proceed with impeachment and attempt at removal.

    Partisanship has nothing to do with it, the partisanship exists regardless, it's inherent in the two party system.
    You're going to believe what you want to believe, Jim, but in the Nixon example, both sides knew it had to look like it was an absolutely necessary thing.

    Had this been Obama, no offense, but you'd be recognizing the evidence and no doubt all your heads would be exploding.
    You appear to have been discussing this as an adult, and we really don't need to get into this "exploding heads" nonsense.

    When you call it a "show trial" you are admitting to your own biased/partisan state of mind.
    Perhaps it's your biased/partisan state of mind that can't see this is all "show" -- all the leaks, all the false allegations, all the public charades...

    And again, as far as the likelyhood of either Nixon or Trump being removed, for one thing is irrelevant, and for another, we had and have no idea as to that.
    No, the whole point of doing the counts - on both sides - was that they realized this was a serious enough thing that it didn't need to happen if it wasn't actually going to work.

    Yes, CP, it is exactly like what is happening today.
    No, Jim, it's not even close.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

Posting Permissions

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