Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: As an employer myself, I’m concerned at the position that an employee could make a claim against me, and I wouldn’t be able to learn who it was so that I might be able to expose an alternative motive. PS: We just had that exact circumstance in our company. When the claim was debunked, the employee was fired! right. that is exactly why there should be no protection of immunity. the claim(s) as well as the motivations behind said claim(s) need to be scrutinized to ascertain whether or not the claim(s) have validity. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 ....at least there is ONE Joe who is a voice of reason............. Joe Lieberman, former Dem VP nominee, says Founding Fathers would have 'intended' Trump's acquittal By Sam Dorman | Fox News Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, who served as Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2000, reportedly claimed that America's Founding Fathers would have wanted an acquittal in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial. Lieberman made those comments during an interview with radio host Glenn Beck. He was specifically referring to what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison would have said if they were alive to see Trump's would-be acquittal. "This is what we intended," Lieberman said the founders would have remarked, according to The Blaze, which is owned by Beck. While Lieberman said that he would vote to allow witnesses, he would ultimately support acquitting the president. He told Beck that Trump shouldn't have conducted the now-infamous July 25 call with Ukraine's president in the way he did, "but did it reach the point where we can say nine months before an election [...] that, if we keep him in office, he represents a danger to the country? I don't think so." https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-lieberman-founders-trump-acquittal 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: You are starting to reason like DR. Be Careful! That road leads to madness and insufferable douche-iness.. I honestly answered your question of 'why not' several times. I think doing so is irresponsible because I think you are increasing the odds that a person could be attacked by a political zealot. I agree with your 'everybody knows' argument, but only to an extent. I mean realistically, not everyone knows. I am not 100% certain of the whistle blowers identity, to be truthful. I have seen who has been accused but I would not bet my life on it. To disagree with my opinion of increasing danger is fine, but to tell me it is dishonest, comes across as arrogant. It may be a talking point but any reasonable individual could easily arrive at that conclusion. People often criticize my thinking or reasoning skills HERE. Posters do it within broad criticisms, like the discussion I just had with Foxx. When I ask where my reasoning breaks down, for specifics, I seldom hear back. Also I don't get that from people when having an in-person conversation. Of course people don't always agree anywhere but disagreements aren't typically about reasoning or logic skills. And, yes, I do socialize with Trump supporters in person. Please be specific if you wish......If you have issues of faulty reasoning, where, what post? Certainly we all are capable of mistakes. Oh, and I do appreciate the answer. It pretty much confirms what I thought. The increased danger is recognized but dismissed. I actually did break down in detail why the "increased danger" argument is baseless. You haven't given any reason why you believe it, you just restated that you do. As far as honesty goes, were you nearly as concerned about protecting the identity of Nick Sandman? Have you ever given this much thought to concealing the identity of anyone prior to this story? If so, who? If not, why? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. cue the predictable lib tears in, 3... 2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. ...why not?....maybe counselor Koko78 can chime in......is a whistleblower guaranteed anonymity?....I thought their protection was from reprisals unless I'm sadly mistaken....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Lindsey Graham stated this morning that there will be Senate Intelligence Committee hearings presided over by Senator Richard Burr that will investigate the whistle blower and his motives. He will be getting a subpoena soon to show his bearded and bespectacled face in front of that committee. Are they trying to get him killed ? . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 Just now, B-Man said: Are they trying to get him killed ? . I want to apologize in advance for possibly lighting another fire under our very own Chief of the Waponis, Bob of the Michigan Chapter. Having E.C. as a witness is the equivalent of throwing him into the volcano. Hope for his sake he has floatable luggage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarpetCrawler Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share Posted February 2, 2020 what the Lib hath wrought. https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1224066320465002502 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 2, 2020 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts