Originally posted by Juvenal
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
Wow, talk about conspiracy nutters!
And now we have Congresswoman Karen Bass (D-CA) talking about that if Trump is re-elected that the Democrats will probably try to impeach him yet again. Apparently, she thinks that once the Democrats get hold of Trump's tax records that they'll find evidence of massive payoffs and bribes from Russia.
TDS is indeed a sad thing.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIt starts at the top and works its way down. Remember, Schiff STILL insists that he has a mountain of evidence proving beyond a doubt that Trump colluded with Putin to rig the 2016 election.
And now we have Congresswoman Karen Bass (D-CA) talking about that if Trump is re-elected that the Democrats will probably try to impeach him yet again. Apparently, she thinks that once the Democrats get hold of Trump's tax records that they'll find evidence of massive payoffs and bribes from Russia.
TDS is indeed a sad thing.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostI supported Nixon (going so far as advocating burning those tapes on the White House lawn). I'm happy that he was pardoned, but glad we still have the tapes.
He was a deeply flawed president, but a highly accomplished statesman.
Trump is half of that.
I liked Trump as the brash buffoon from the Bronx, but have yet to hear any defense of that kind of behavior from a president, and it's that behavior which makes him unfit. He has never stepped up to the challenges of his oath, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and ... to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Glad I don't follow Twitter, though....
Buffoons, oaths.
In defense of liberal democracy, the presidency of the United States needs the authority to call out political purges by Xi in Hong Kong and the mullahs in Iran. Trump is openly targeting anyone who has ever supported his political opponents or refused to support him.
China is already the world's largest emitter, projections show they will have the largest economy within the next decade, and Erdogan has a free rein. Trump is withdrawing from the Paris agreement, has withdrawn from the TPP, and is inciting crowds against journalists covering his rallies.
In the wider picture, the details, no matter how compelling, are almost irrelevant.
Because America is the world's guarantor of liberal democracy, and our president is its speaker.
Individual actions can be countered. What can't be countered is the ongoing erosion of the authority of the presidency. Every world leader outside the liberal democracies will be pointing at him, from here forward, whenever it's convenient."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSo there IS "overwhelming evidence"!!!! Schiff just doesn't want to reveal it because.... OH NOES!!!! He's working for the RUSSIANS!!!!
Textbooks on mental and social disorders will need to be revised.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Postmalarkey
Moreover, it is bizarre to suggest that the media should not work with accused felons. Many major stories are based on accounts from not just indicted but convicted felons. That is particularly the case when you are covering possible unethical or criminal acts. The association with such individuals is a problem for people like Giuliani, not the media.
This is why the premise of this defamation lawsuit is so potentially damaging to the narrative supporting the president. You cannot allege that it is per se defamatory to associate you with two individuals who have only two degrees of separation from the president himself. Indeed, the president has associated directly with a number of proven felons including his former personal counsel Michael Cohen and his former campaign chair Paul Manafort. They both displayed the same ravenous corrupt appetites in mixing government and private interests.
Nunes has insisted that he will file the lawsuits against CNN and the Daily Beast after Thanksgiving and added “we hope they cooperate.” They may be more cooperative than he expects. With such a lawsuit will come depositions and discovery into Nunes’ travel, associations and efforts. That could prove a treasure trove for two organizations with diminishing access to Republican sources. Moreover, Nunes will have to satisfy the standard that Trump has repeatedly denounced: the New York Times Company v. Sullivan standard of “actual malice.”
That decision imposed a higher standard of proof for lawsuits by public officials based on the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and the free press. During the civil rights movement, various southern states were using their defamation laws to hit media companies with huge damage awards to coerce them into silence. The court mandated that officials like Nunes must show that the media was acting with either knowledge of the falsity of their reporting or reckless disregard for the truth.
That standard is designed to be difficult to prove and meant to give protection to the media in publishing allegations against high-ranking officials. What may be easier to prove is that these two individuals are not the types with whom any responsible and reputable official would associate. The problem is that a couple of notable figures did precisely that.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“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
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostYou might prefer Jonathan Turley.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOnly if you accept what he says about this impeachment sham.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThat would not apply to what was quoted. The segment was discussing the potential liability in reporting an accusation against Nunes. It is, in fact. Clear that Nunes likely has little chance.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOnly if you accept what he says about this impeachment sham.“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“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
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostFolks have been looking at what he said about Clinton’s impeachment and pointing out inconsistencies. On that issue, he comes over as a Republican hack.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOf course.“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“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
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostFolks have been looking at what he said about Clinton’s impeachment and pointing out inconsistencies. On that issue, he comes over as a Republican hack.
Mr. Turley in his own words:
...rather than address the specific concerns I raised over this incomplete record and process, critics have substituted a false attack to suggest that I had contradicted my earlier testimony during the Clinton impeachment. They reported breathlessly that I said in that hearing, “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.” What they left out is that, in my testimony then and again this week, I stressed that the certain act in question was perjury. The issue in the Clinton case was whether perjury was an impeachable offense. Most Democratic members of Congress, including Nadler, maintained back then that perjury did not meet the level of an impeachable offense if the subject was an affair with an intern.
I maintained in the Clinton testimony, and still maintain in my Trump testimony, that perjury on any subject by a sitting president is clearly impeachable. Indeed, as I stated Wednesday, that is the contrast between this inquiry and three prior impeachment controversies. In those earlier inquiries, the commission of criminal acts by Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton were clearly established. With Johnson, the House effectively created a trapdoor crime and he knowingly jumped through it. The problem was that the law, the Tenure of Office Act, was presumptively unconstitutional and the impeachment was narrowly built around that dubious criminal act. With Nixon, there were a host of alleged criminal acts, and dozens of officials would be convicted. With Clinton, there was an act of perjury that even his supporters acknowledged was a felony.
While obviously presented in a false context, the quotation of my Clinton testimony only highlights the glaring contrast of those who opposed the Clinton impeachment but now insist the case is made to impeach Trump. I have maintained that they both could be removed, one for a crime and one for a noncrime. The difference is that the Clinton crime was accepted by Democrats. Indeed, a judge reaffirmed that Clinton committed perjury, a crime for which thousands of other citizens have been jailed. Yet the calls for showing that “no one is above the law” went silent with Clinton.
As I stated Wednesday, I believe the Clinton case is relevant today and my position remains the same. I do not believe a crime has been proven over the Ukraine controversy, though I said such crimes might be proven with a more thorough investigation. Instead, Democrats have argued that they do not actually have to prove the elements of crimes such as bribery and extortion to use those in drafting articles of impeachment. In the Clinton impeachment, the crime was clearly established and widely recognized.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...mp-impeachmentLast edited by Mountain Man; 12-11-2019, 03:15 PM.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
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
411 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
391 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
454 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:52 AM |
Comment