The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Oh Foxx,  I was just about to compliment you on your previous point about impeachable vs 25th amendment.....and then you come up with this reasoning.  Do you see that just you thinking it unlikely is not sufficient reason to say it could not happen?  You want to point out bad logic elsewhere.  Do you think it faulty here?

What if the president didn't drink alcohol at all but smoked pot every morning? 25th Amendment worthy?

[Foxx]

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Oh Foxx,  I was just about to compliment you on your previous point about impeachable vs 25th amendment.....and then you come up with this reasoning.  Do you see that just you thinking it unlikely is not sufficient reason to say it could not happen?  You want to point out bad logic elsewhere.  Do you think it faulty here?

the only guide we have to go by is past history. using that as our guide, please go back through the past iterations of congress and tell me when was the last time there was a makeup of 2/3rd's of one party. 

 

i'll wait.

but you won't, your lazy....

[Gavin in Va Beach]

46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

"Democrats—they are downtrodden. They are frustrated by this entire process."

 

Translation: "Before Trump, we could always count on the Republicans caving and doing whatever we wanted. If any of them even dared to disagree, our allies in the media, which let's be honest, is pretty much all the media, would hound them until they dropped sniveling into the fetal position. Now since Trump has been elected these Republicans actually have a spine and never do what we say anymore. And the power of the media doesn't seem to matter anymore. Some Republicans even have the audacity to call them Liberal Hacks. What the hell is going on? Nothing makes sense anymore! Don't people know we are their betters!?!?!"

[Bob in Mich]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

What if the president didn't drink alcohol at all but smoked pot every morning? 25th Amendment worthy?

I don't think I have a problem with either if the guy keeps to moderation and can do the job.  Certainly can't be nodding off or be unable to do a reasonable job. 

 

Safety related jobs, like pilots, should not allow either.  Does that relate to starting wars....hmmm, perhaps.

Additionally some jobs are client facing.  If, even a spectacular performer, damages the reputation of the company, they must be moved or released.

[Bob in Mich]

13 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the only guide we have to go by is past history. using that as our guide, please go back through the past iterations of congress and tell me when was the last time there was a makeup of 2/3rd's of one party. 

 

i'll wait.

but you won't, your lazy....

 

Of course I won't because, as I see from you, you like to miss the point.  Whether it has happened is not really important.  What is important when designing rules is whether it could happen.  It is that way because once it actually happens, changing the rules at that point may appear unfair to one party or the other.  if the rule has been in place, no one has a quarrel.

 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1223003113327644678

 

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Of course I won't because, as I see from you, you like to miss the point.  Whether it has happened is not really important.  What is important when designing rules is whether it could happen.  It is that way because once it actually happens, changing the rules at that point may appear unfair to one party or the other.  if the rule has been in place, no one has a quarrel.

 

of course you won't because if you did, you'd find that it completely destroys your premise. and yes, it is important when one is looking to understand how improbable your premise is.  

 

please explain how raising a bar that would practically eliminate partisanship on either side be unfair to any one party, you can't because it isn't.

 

actually, don't bother. we're done. your circular logic is defeating. there is no discussing anything with you. you are not going to drag me down to your level just so you can beat me to death with your stupidity stick.

[B-Man]

 

 

HOW THE HOUSE LOST THE WITNESSES ALONG WITH THE IMPEACHMENT:

 

Prof. Jonathan Turley writes, “the case against the president could only have become stronger” if the House had taken more time to develop a stronger record, and complains that “none of the explanations offered by House Democrats [for not doing this] make any logical sense.”

 

 

.

[Bob in Mich]

59 minutes ago, Gavin in Va Beach said:

 

"Democrats—they are downtrodden. They are frustrated by this entire process."

 

Translation: "Before Trump, we could always count on the Republicans caving and doing whatever we wanted. If any of them even dared to disagree, our allies in the media, which let's be honest, is pretty much all the media, would hound them until they dropped sniveling into the fetal position. Now since Trump has been elected these Republicans actually have a spine and never do what we say anymore. And the power of the media doesn't seem to matter anymore. Some Republicans even have the audacity to call them Liberal Hacks. What the hell is going on? Nothing makes sense anymore! Don't people know we are their betters!?!?!"

 

I think Congressional Republicans have demonstrated less spine than I recall them having, Lindsey for example.   They are thumbing their noses at Dems but no one will stand up to Trump.   I have posted before that if Repubs would push back if/when Trump strays, there would have been no need to take it to the level of impeachment. I am not aware of all the options  but if the Repubs won't check the guy, the impeachment hopefully shone enough light that it won't recur - to check him.

 

From the Dem perspective it appears that no one will check the guy's actions, proper or not.  Every action is explained away by Repubs.  From the Dem point, election interference can't be ignored.  If impeachment or even oversight can not be used to check him, then the election needs to be fair.  His abuse of power scheme was designed to tilt the election, not just to get him more money or to get Ivanka more contacts.

 

No response expected

Edited February 3, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[1B4IDye]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is that Pierre Delecto?

[Rob's House]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Well, I thought you would see that point with what I wrote but I can spell it out further. 

 

Your point about most everyone knowing the accused whistle blower's name is agreed to.   Good point.  To say NOT ONE MORE unstable person could be notified by you and others shouting on the internet is incorrect, right.  That number is admittedly small but it is non zero.  The more shouting, the more tiny increments in the possible number of attackers to the whistle blower.  Maybe some fool has been plotting his attack on the Mosque for the last 6 months and your shouting caught his ill informed, deranged ears.  While certainly  unlikely, I view it as possible.  To a small degree you have increased threat odds for reasons that are questionable.

 

Don't know Sandman.   I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past.  Why?  Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching.  What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

 

Thank you for clarifying. I think if you're being honest with yourself you'll realize that you've formed & maintained this position because people you perceive as allies pushed and continue to push this, rather than because it makes sense to you.

 

I'm not judging. I've done it too. It's part of the reason I try to keep politics at arm's length. 

 

The reality is that there is no concern for this guy's safety. The point I was making is not just that anyone motivated enough to kill this guy already knows his name, but moreover, they could learn his identity with no problem. 

 

The idea that we need to take all precautions out of fear of the 1 in a billion shot that there's some guy out there who is so enraged at Eric Ciaramella that he's willing to trade his life for a kill, but has lacked the motivation to follow the story at all, or even done a cursory Google search, and will suddenly learn this guy's identity while perusing PPP, set his plan in motion, circumvent Ciaramella's security detail, and score the kill, is just too much.

 

By that logic no one's name should ever be disclosed in association with anything because God only knows what might trigger some unhinged lunatic out there.

 

It makes about as much sense as living in a bunker for fear of a Russian invasion. Or wearing a helmet in case a meteor falls from the sky.

 

The selective nature of protecting this guy exposes the insincerity of the media as well. We've never seen such a concerted media effort to conceal anyone's identity like this before. In fact, the media usually goes out of its way to identify people who could be put in a lot more danger by exposure than this guy.

 

And why would this guy be a bigger target than any number of political figures? No one knows.

 

A much more realistic threat for Ciaramella is the prospect of an Epstein style elimination in order to keep him from ever exposing the plot. Only instead of a staged suicide it would be pinned on a right-wing wacko - labeling conservatives as crazed killers by association would just be a bonus.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Rob's House

[snafu]

This Philbin guy has been impressive throughout the entire proceeding.

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

10 minutes ago, Foxx said:

of course you won't because if you did, you'd find that it completely destroys your premise. and yes, it is important when one is looking to understand how improbable your premise is.  

 

please explain how raising a bar that would practically eliminate partisanship on either side be unfair to any one party, you can't because it isn't.

 

actually, don't bother. we're done. your circular logic is defeating. there is no discussing anything with you. you are not going to drag me down to your level just so you can beat me to death with your stupidity stick.

 

We are done but I did explain the reasoning - it could happen so plan for possibilities.  A minority could hold the vast majority hostage.

 

Your reasoning sucks pal...and your constant insults are surely signs of a personality defect.  Look into it.  Do some online searches.  Perhaps it is correctable.

 

Generally speaking, and no need to reply but, what is the purpose of berating anyone that holds a different opinion?  If you are not in favor of discussions, why be on a discussion board?  Your posting style surely drives away potential posters and ideas.  You are way too quickly obnoxious and insulting to those that will not see it your way.  Would you be that way to a guy a few seats away at the bar that you just met?

 

And before Henry pipes up, You folks should ask yourself, should people that don't know everything be allowed to post on a topic?  Should questions be allowed?  Can posters be partisan?  Can posters be less intelligent than you?  Can a poster state something that has been mentioned on the web prior to them stating it here?  If a poster makes an error should they be banned?

 

What do you want out of this place, discussion or only agreement?  As before, not looking for replies as much as to ask yourself.  If you like this setup and like to push to drive away disagreement, then nothing to consider I guess. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Bob in Mich]

23 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

Thank you for clarifying. I think if you're being honest with yourself you'll realize that you've formed & maintained this position because people you perceive as allies pushed and continue to push this, rather than because it makes sense to you.

 

I'm not judging. I've done it too. It's part of the reason I try to keep politics at arm's length. 

 

The reality is that there is no concern for this guy's safety. The point I was making is not just that anyone motivated enough to kill this guy already knows his name, but moreover, they could is learn his identity with no problem. 

 

The idea that we need to take all precautions out of fear of the 1 in a billion shot that there's some guy out there who is so enraged at Eric Ciaramella that he's willing to trade his life for a kill, but has lacked the motivation to follow the story at all, or even done a cursory Google search, and will suddenly learn this guy's identity while perusing PPP, set his plan in motion, circumvent Ciaramella's security detail, and score the kill, is just too much.

 

By that logic no one's name should ever be disclosed in association with anything because God only knows what might trigger some unhinged lunatic out there.

 

It makes about as much sense as living in a bunker for fear of a Russian invasion. Or wearing a helmet in case a meteor falls from the sky.

 

The selective nature of protecting this guy exposes the insincerity of the media as well. We've never seen such a concerted media effort to conceal anyone's identity like this before. In fact, the media usually goes out of its way to identify people who could be put in a lot more danger by exposure than this guy.

 

And why this guy would be a bigger target than any number of political figures? No one knows.

 

A much more realistic threat for this guy is the prospect of an Epstein style elimination in order to keep him from ever exposing the plot. Only instead of a staged suicide it would be pinned on a right-wing wacko, - labeling conservatives as crazed killers by association would just be a bonus.

 

Thanks for the reply.  I am basically restating what I said however.  I think the shouting and trying to get the name out there is irresponsible.  I view it as irresponsible to endanger the guy/family physically for whistle blowing in the first place.  I too oppose increasing that danger by ANY AMOUNT.  Doing so for kicks at annoying libs is surely not worth increasing it by ANY AMOUNT.

 

You keep implying probable devious motives by the politicians and media for not wanting to publicize it initially or publicize further, now.  What is your opinion of why both are doing that?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

 

Thanks for the reply.  I am basically restating what I said however.  I think the shouting and trying to get the name out there is irresponsible.  I view it as irresponsible to endanger the guy/family physically for whistle blowing in the first place.  I too oppose increasing that danger by ANY AMOUNT.  Doing so for kicks at annoying libs is surely not worth increasing it by ANY AMOUNT.

 

You keep implying probable devious motives by the politicians and media for not wanting to publicize it initially or publicize further, now.  What is your opinion of why both are doing that?

 

And yet you didn't express any of those concerns for Nunes, a true whistleblower. In fact, you piled on. 

 

Your logic stops at partisan lines. Which is why you're a fraud and easy to expose as such. 

 

*******************

 

[Azalin]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Some of this was discussed by now I guess but a few points.....

Abuse of Power is a super valid reason to impeach, as far as I know.  It has been used before, if I recall.  There is no requirement that says impeachment must contain a judicial law crime.

 

Regarding the' face the accuser' question, there are two different 'trials'.  One in the senate and if impeached and removed, possibly followed by the judicial trial if criminal offense was involved.   My point about possibly using the other House witnesses was that there are now a lot of accusers.  Is there any requirement that the FIRST accuser be involved?  I don't know.  Maybe someone does.

 

Your point about no criminal charges being The proof of political House proceedings does not really follow.  That logic seems flawed to me.  There are reasons to impeach that involve behavior we can not tolerate in the President that is not strictly criminal.  Say he starts downing a quart of vodka with breakfast every day and cannot be counted on to be sober or conscious, ever.  IDK, just off the top of the head but that seems intolerable and non criminal.

 

 

 

We've probably come about as far as we can on the subject, since we both seem to be to the point where we're stating opinion more than anything else. Still, it's nice to have a cordial back & forth for a change. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's Dirty Sanchez!

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

Democrats have utterly failed in their impeachment sham & they’re pivoting to 2 BIG LIES:

 

BIG LIE 1: “No witnesses, no documents.”

 

There were 18 witnesses & 28,578 documents!

 

 

BIG LIE 2: “Acquittal doesn’t mean Trump is exonerated.”

 

Verdict of NOT GUILTY legally is exoneration!

 

 

 

 

To convict an accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the [Senators] present" for at least one article is required. If there is no single charge commanding a "guilty" vote from two-thirds of the senators present, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.