B-Man Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 DOWN TO SEEDS AND STEMS AGAIN: Democrats reduced to claiming impeachment will be “Permanent Asterisk” for Trump.” Well, it’s an asterisk for somebody. .
CarpetCrawler Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 8 hours ago, ALF said: Whistleblower Laws Enforced by OSHA https://www.whistleblowers.gov/ Quote the employee who files the complaint is referred to as "the Complainant," So who exactly are we labeling the Complainant in this case?
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 what the Lib hath wrought. https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1224066320465002502 1 1 1 1
Azalin Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: I am not sure about your claim about the charges from the House being criminal charges. If convicted in the Senate, there is no criminal offense. He would just be removed for bribery for instance and then could be charged for the crime after out of office. Unsure of Senate rules, so I can't say if that 'face accuser' is a Senate trial rule. At this point in time, couldn't others actually accuse Trump at a Senate or criminal trial, if that was an actual requirement? I don't recall who would be the best, but wouldn't some of the House taped testimony accusing Trump of the scheme and of the obstruction of the document release (obstruction of congress) suffice? In your example you used bribery to make your point, which is fine - I get what you're saying. However, bribery is a crime. If Trump is actually charged with anything criminal, then not only is impeachment just, but his rights as an American citizen would afford him all the same rights that anyone else would have, one of which is his 6th amendment right to directly confront his accuser. The whistle-blower would be compelled to appear at the trial. Whether being tried in the senate or in criminal court, all American citizens are entitled to their constitutional rights, be they president, regular schmoe, and everything in between. The fact that there have been no criminal charges against Trump is proof that the impeachment vote in the House was 100% purely political. I'd wager that many, if not most right-leaning posters here will admit that the Clinton impeachment was BS ( in that it began with Whitewater and went on and on until they finally caught him lying to a grand jury under oath in a sexual harassment case ), but at least with Clinton they actually had him dead to rights on a legitimate criminal charge. Not so with Trump. I believe one mistake that's being made is the assumption on the part of anti-Trumpers that opposition to this impeachment is due to a cult-like devotion to this president. Speaking for myself ( and likely more than a few others ), my opposition to impeachment is like Harry Reid did when he did away with the filibuster, House democrats have lowered the bar for impeachment and have set a precedent for weaponizing the entire process. Who wins in a situation like that? Edited February 2, 2020 by Azalin 4 1
B-Man Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, Foxx said: what the Lib hath wrought. https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1224066320465002502 Great...........................Biden takes Hillary as Vice President...........................Biden falls on his impeachment sword......... and there she is. 1 1
Doc Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 10 minutes ago, Foxx said: what the Lib hath wrought. https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1224066320465002502 Good. I also heard that some House Reps are going to introduce a bill to prevent another completely partisan impeachment from happening ever again. It will be interesting to see if any Dems vote for it.
snafu Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, Azalin said: Great post. The person you’re responding to has had this explained to him several times in this thread. 2
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Doc said: Good. I also heard that some House Reps are going to introduce a bill to prevent another completely partisan impeachment from happening ever again. It will be interesting to see if any Dems vote for it. to my way of thinking, there is only one fix that would correct the problem. the problem is that it would require a constitutional convention to get it implemented. i think the only way you could remove partisanship from a impeachment inquiry like that that the Libs initiated, would be to require much the same that is required to remove a President. let's make it so that in order to even begin an inquiry, you need to have 2/3rd's of the House. that would put an end the baloney. Edited February 2, 2020 by Foxx 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 4 hours ago, B-Man said: DOWN TO SEEDS AND STEMS AGAIN: Democrats reduced to claiming impeachment will be “Permanent Asterisk” for Trump.” Well, it’s an asterisk for somebody. . ...perhaps a Democratic AZZ-terisk.........
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Azalin said: In your example you used bribery to make your point, which is fine - I get what you're saying. However, bribery is a crime. If Trump is actually charged with anything criminal, then not only is impeachment just, but his rights as an American citizen would afford him all the same rights that anyone else would have, one of which is his 6th amendment right to directly confront his accuser. The whistle-blower would be compelled to appear at the trial. Whether being tried in the senate or in criminal court, all American citizens are entitled to their constitutional rights, be they president, regular schmoe, and everything in between. The fact that there have been no criminal charges against Trump is proof that the impeachment vote in the House was 100% purely political. I'd wager that many, if not most right-leaning posters here will admit that the Clinton impeachment was BS ( in that it began with Whitewater and went on and on until they finally caught him lying to a grand jury under oath in a sexual harassment case ), but at least with Clinton they actually had him dead to rights on a legitimate criminal charge. Not so with Trump. I believe one mistake that's being made is the assumption on the part of anti-Trumpers that opposition to this impeachment is due to a cult-like devotion to this president. Speaking for myself ( and likely more than a few others ), my opposition to impeachment is like Harry Reid did when he did away with the filibuster, House democrats have lowered the bar for impeachment and have set a precedent for weaponizing the entire process. Who wins in a situation like that? while i mainly agree, i don't believe that there are any 'standards' in a political trial. the guidelines are what the Senate says they are. there is no guarantee to face your accuser, though i think you would be hard pressed to get any sitting Senate to reject that notion. i do agree that there should to be a crime as the statue reads, "bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors" . "high crimes" in it's context there would seem to indicate you need an actual crime because bribery, treason and misdemeanors are all criminal offenses. Edited February 2, 2020 by Foxx
Azalin Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Foxx said: while i mainly agree, i don't believe that there are any 'standards' in a political trial. the guidelines are what the Senate says they are. there is no guarantee to face your accuser, though i think you would be hard pressed to get any sitting Senate to reject that notion. i do agree that there should to be a crime as the statue reads, "briber, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors" . "high crimes" in it's context there would seem to indicate you need an actual crime because bribery, treason and misdemeanors are all criminal offenses. It would be interesting to see if any of our attorney-posters could elaborate. I read the 6th amendment and several references before posting, and not one made a differentiation for trials in the senate. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 8 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Len, on this board my reply was easily within acceptable standards. In the context of our interaction however, my reply was too harsh. You were right. I apologize for the tone of that reply. With that said and hopefully accepted and the slate hopefully cleared, I will attack you further. lol Keeping it real, I apologized for the delivery. Folks like you keep saying sure Trump lies, they all lie. That is a false equivalency. Just because you can point to where Obama or Schiff lied does not mean that we should accept a president that lies as much as Trump. I know times have changed since Pres Clinton but to discount honesty is the wrong direction. And seriously, how can Trump supporters even have the gall to claim someone else's lies are wrong? If lies are wrong they have to be wrong for everyone. If they are OK now, then please stop making a big deal out of the lies of others. Apology accepted though I am visually impaired—so callously suggesting I am blind would likely get you booted from the LiberalSingles.com for sight-shaming. Watch yourself, the internet is forever. If you see a false equivalency I can live with that. I don’t see it. I’m going to let you slide on your suggestion that “Trump supporters have gall to claim someone else’s lies are wrong”. Question for you. What are the top three lies from the Trump Admin as you see it, and the top three from the reign of Barrack O as you see it? 1
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 8 minutes ago, Azalin said: It would be interesting to see if any of our attorney-posters could elaborate. I read the 6th amendment and several references before posting, and not one made a differentiation for trials in the senate. agreed again. my reply was also my interpretation of what i believe the Constitution to say. as well as listening to what certain constitutional scholars have had to say in the preceding months. the Constitution also doesn't stipulate exactly how the House is to conduct an inquiry other than to say that it is, '...the House...' that will conduct it, not, 'the speaker'. there are hard and fast rules for criminal trials. as was stated often by the WHC during the Senate phase of the trial, the House Managers would have been thrown out, even laughed out of a criminal trial attempting some of the crap they did. all of which, again lends me to believe that there are no hard and fast rules for a political trial. 1
Azalin Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, Foxx said: agreed again. my reply was also my interpretation of what i believe the Constitution to say. as well as listening to what certain constitutional scholars have had to say in the preceding months. the Constitution also doesn't stipulate exactly how the House is to conduct an inquiry other than to say that it is, '...the House...' that will conduct it, not, 'the speaker'. there are hard and fast rules for criminal trials. as was stated often by the WHC during the Senate phase of the trial, the House Managers would have been thrown out, even laughed out of a criminal trial attempting some of the crap they did. all of which, again lends me to believe that there are no hard and fast rules for a political trial. Which seems to bring us full-circle. If the charges are political and not criminal, then the impeachment is toothless, right? 1
snafu Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 19 minutes ago, Azalin said: It would be interesting to see if any of our attorney-posters could elaborate. I read the 6th amendment and several references before posting, and not one made a differentiation for trials in the senate. I agree with your take. Individuals have constitutional rights, period. There’s no debate about it. 2
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, snafu said: I agree with your take. Individuals have constitutional rights, period. There’s no debate about it. but wouldn't this then assume that there are legal consequences to a conviction such as a fine and or imprisonment? in a political impeachment, there is only removal from office. 5 minutes ago, Azalin said: Which seems to bring us full-circle. If the charges are political and not criminal, then the impeachment is toothless, right? good debate. as you say, would like to hear from other perspectives. Edited February 2, 2020 by Foxx 1
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 where does civil trial law fit into this. are we afforded constitutional rights in civil law?
snafu Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 Just now, Foxx said: but wouldn't this then assume that there are legal consequences to a conviction such as a fine and or imprisonment? in a political impeachment, there is only removal from office. No. The remedy is only removal from office, but that shouldn’t prevent the Senate from allowing the President to have Counsel, or cross examine witnesses, etc. If there was a crime, then the removed President can be charged and tried later in a judicial proceeding. As for the political nature of it, that’s actually a check on the a House and Senate to keep within their lanes and not overreach. If they do, then the electorate can vote them out. 1 1
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, snafu said: No. The remedy is only removal from office, but that shouldn’t prevent the Senate from allowing the President to have Counsel, or cross examine witnesses, etc. If there was a crime, then the removed President can be charged and tried later in a judicial proceeding. As for the political nature of it, that’s actually a check on the a House and Senate to keep within their lanes and not overreach. If they do, then the electorate can vote them out. did the House violate the Presidents constitutional rights by not affording him the opportunity to cross examine the public testimony of 13 witnesses in the Intelligence Committee hearings?
Azalin Posted February 2, 2020 Posted February 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: did the House violate the Presidents constitutional rights by not affording him the opportunity to cross examine the public testimony of 13 witnesses in the Intelligence Committee hearings? I don't believe so. I liken the House's role as being akin to that of a grand jury - hearings to determine if a trial is warranted. I'm not certain about specifics, but the actual trial occurs in the Senate. That's where the president would defend himself against specific charges. 1 1
Recommended Posts