The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[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.

 

[IDBillzFan]

It boggles the mind how many Democrats are repeating the lie that there were no witnesses and no evidence.

 

Anyone who repeats this is either lying or brain-dead stupid.

 

Embarrassing days to be a Democrat. Brutally embarrassing.

[Foxx]

30 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

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. 

being bored Bob, i did the work i asked you to do...

 

i went back through the different iterations of congress under the current amount of Reps, which is 435. a bit to my surprise, there were 8 different congresses that held a 2/3rd's majority.

 

House Majorities that surpass 2/3rd's majority (292 seats in a 435 seat House):

 

95th Congress ('77 to '79)- 292 D's to 143 R's

94th Congress ('75 to '77)- 291 D's to 144 R's

89th Congress ('65 to '67)- 295 D's to 140 R's

75th Congress ('37 to '39)- 334 D's to 88 R's and 9 Progressives and 5  Farmer-Labor

74th Congress ('35 to '37)- 322 D's to 103 R's and 7 Progressives and 3 Farmer-Labor

73th Congress ('33 to '35)- 313 D's to 117R's and 5 Farmer-Labor

67th Congress ('21 to '23)- 302 R's to 131 D's and 1Independent Republican and 1 Socialist

63th Congress ('13 to '15)- 291 D's to 134 R's and 9 Progressives and 1 Independent.

 

of note is that here was only one House where the R's held the 2/3rd's majority.

 

as i said above, i was a bit surprised that this was the case so i do apologize for my assertion that your premise was faulty. while i do know that there were certain historical events surrounding some of these majorities, the fact remains that there were these super majorities. so with the assertion that your premise is valid, i can move on to the rest of your assertion. again apologies, i have no problem admitting when i am wrong.

 

on to the rest of your assertion. ..."The just under 2/3s In the House might want to impeach but in a super partisan environment, perhaps those Dems in the House will never vote to convict.  Couldn't that allow a vast minority too much control by allowing them to block even charges of wrongdoing, the impeachment?" 

 

how is this different than the threshold to remove a president? if your argument held true, under the current rules it could still be a partisan endeavor.  my premise is to raise the level to a level that prevents what we are seeing today, a partisan impeachment borne out of purely partisan politics. it works against and for both sides. it raises the bar for all. and just to be clear, i don't know if this is the ultimate solution that would correct what the Democrats have just made of the constitutional impeachment process it is just an idea. it may be that nothing needs to be done but with the mockery the Dems have made of the whole process, it might be wise to possibly look at some possible solutions.

[snafu]

Schiff's theory at this point:  he knows he's not going to get the President removed, so he excoriates the Senate.

Same for Val Demmings.  At the outset, she was good, but as the proceedings went along and she knew that fate of the President wasn't going to be removed, her tone became more angry every time she got to the podium.

 

[Bob in Mich]

11 minutes ago, Foxx said:

being bored Bob, i did the work i asked you to do...

 

i went back through the different iterations of congress under the current amount of Reps, which is 435. a bit to my surprise, there were 8 different congresses that held a 2/3rd's majority.

 

House Majorities that surpass 2/3rd's majority (292 seats in a 435 seat House):

 

95th Congress ('77 to '79)- 292 D's to 143 R's

94th Congress ('75 to '77)- 291 D's to 144 R's

89th Congress ('65 to '67)- 295 D's to 140 R's

75th Congress ('37 to '39)- 334 D's to 88 R's and 9 Progressives and 5  Farmer-Labor

74th Congress ('35 to '37)- 322 D's to 103 R's and 7 Progressives and 3 Farmer-Labor

73th Congress ('33 to '35)- 313 D's to 117R's and 5 Farmer-Labor

67th Congress ('21 to '23)- 302 R's to 131 D's and 1Independent Republican and 1 Socialist

63th Congress ('13 to '15)- 291 D's to 134 R's and 9 Progressives and 1 Independent.

 

of note is that here was only one House where the R's held the 2/3rd's majority.

 

as i said above, i was a bit surprised that this was the case so i do apologize for my assertion that your premise was faulty. while i do know that there were certain historical events surrounding some of these majorities, the fact remains that there were these super majorities. so with the assertion that your premise is valid, i can move on to the rest of your assertion. again apologies, i have no problem admitting when i am wrong.

 

on to the rest of your assertion. ..."The just under 2/3s In the House might want to impeach but in a super partisan environment, perhaps those Dems in the House will never vote to convict.  Couldn't that allow a vast minority too much control by allowing them to block even charges of wrongdoing, the impeachment?" 

 

how is this different than the threshold to remove a president? if your argument held true, under the current rules it could still be a partisan endeavor.  my premise is to raise the level to a level that prevents what we are seeing today, a partisan impeachment borne out of purely partisan politics. it works against and for both sides. it raises the bar for all. and just to be clear, i don't know if this is the ultimate solution that would correct what the Democrats have just made of the constitutional impeachment process it is just an idea. it may be that nothing needs to be done but with the mockery the Dems have made of the whole process, it might be wise to possibly look at some possible solutions.

 

Foxx, I appreciate the reply. Apology accepted but I think we each view the other as pretty much out of any more second chances.  If you have problems with my post, point out the flaws specifically.  By all means.  Doing so without belligerence will lead to a better idea exchange...with me and with most people.  

 

I thought it was interesting to try to think of ways to improve the current impeachment setup given what we just witnessed.  I was trying to point out that minority 'rule' could happen with respect to even charging a president.  Has that been considered?  Is it OK with you?   In the spirit of a discussion, I was throwing that out there 

 

[RoyBatty is alive]

FYI all you politicos, Rush Limmbaugh has advanced lung cancer

[Bob in Mich]

22 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

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?

 

 

Len, top lies in what sense?  Lies that affected my life personally, lies that seemed to be the most egregious to the country generally, lies that I see as most troublesome to all of us, or what?  And, while I am looking for more clarity, where are you going with this.....what point is out there in the distance?

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Good Lord...........

 

 

 

 

.

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Foxx, I appreciate the reply. Apology accepted but I think we each view the other as pretty much out of any more second chances.  If you have problems with my post, point out the flaws specifically.  By all means.  Doing so without belligerence will lead to a better idea exchange...with me and with most people.  

 

I thought it was interesting to try to think of ways to improve the current impeachment setup given what we just witnessed.  I was trying to point out that minority 'rule' could happen with respect to even charging a president.  Has that been considered?  Is it OK with you?   In the spirit of a discussion, I was throwing that out there 

 

i don't think it rises to minority rule. rather it makes the bar high, to be not an item of novelty and one to not be used lightly. this is the standard in the Senate, does that mean that there is minority rule there?

 

even with the Clinton impeachment, the vote of which was 258–176 in favor of beginning an inquiry it would have failed, under my suggestion. on a personal note, i don't think Clinton should have been impeached for what he was originally investigated for and he ultimately wasn't. he was impeached for the process crime of perjury, of which had there been no witch hunt he would not have committed.

 

again, i don't know that my suggestion would be the answer. but what the Democrats have done should never be done again, i don't care which party is doing it. the founders expressed their greatest fear was a partisan impeachment and we just witnessed one.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Foxx

[B-Man]

 

 

 

WATCH THEM CHANGE THEIR TUNE WHEN THE BARR/DURHAM PROSECUTIONS BEGIN:

 

 

House Democrat's Closing Argument: Only Guilty People Assert Their Rights And Insist On Judicial Review, Or Something.

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

.

[Nanker]

1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

FYI all you politicos, Rush Limmbaugh has advanced lung cancer

I think he smokes cigars. Too bad for him. Hope he can get it cured.

 

Can't wait to hear the good wishes piling in from the Left. 

[RoyBatty is alive]

Just now, Nanker said:

I think he smokes cigars. Too bad for him. Hope he can get it cured.

 

Can't wait to hear the good wishes piling in from the Left. 

 

Yeah big cigar guy, I thought you dont enhale Cigar or am I wrong.  Maybe stil get lung cancer.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

FYI all you politicos, Rush Limmbaugh has advanced lung cancer

 

This is genuinely too bad, regardless of who you are.

 

On the other hand, I'll be curious to see the number of leftists on social media celebrating this. I'm sure they're out in big numbers.