Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 220

Thread: Impeachment of Trump would be an unconstitutional attainder

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It's obvious you either don't know the meaning of impeachment or that you're like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass -- you're imposing your own meaning on the word and turning it into something that it isn't in order to claim that it's forbidden by the Constitution. Nice try, but no cigar.
    That is what the Demoncrats are doing.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is what the Demoncrats are doing.
    Does all that spinning make you dizzy or just ditsy?

    Never let facts get in the way of a good spin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  4. #123
    As the U.S. House of Representatives hurtles toward impeachment ahead of the holidays, it is appropriate to consider, in as dispassionate a way as possible, what really is at issue for the country to decide. One must begin with the words of the Constitution. The removal of the President from office necessarily proceeds only with a determination, through House impeachment and upon conviction by a two-thirds majority in the Senate following trial, that “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” have been proved. What constitutes a “high” crime? Alexander Hamilton provided the answer in the Federalist papers: only those offenses within Congress’s appropriate jurisdiction that constitute “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

    So while it is fashionable at the moment for some to argue that President Trump is removable from office simply if it is proved that he abused the power of his office during his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, the Constitution requires more. To ignore the requirement of proving that a crime was committed is to sidestep the constitutional design as well as the lessons of history. A well-founded article of impeachment therefore must allege both that a crime has been committed and that such crime constitutes an abuse of the President’s office.
    The problem for those pushing impeachment is that there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime. Half the country at present does seem prepared to conclude, on the basis of the summary of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House on Sept. 25, that Trump at least raised the prospect of an unlawful quid pro quo. The theory seems to be that Trump proposed an exchange of something of personal benefit to himself in return for an official act by the U.S. government. On one side of that alleged quid pro quo would be the public announcement of an investigation by Ukraine into a rival presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a member of Biden’s family. On the other: the release of temporarily withheld foreign aid, including military assistance.
    The problem with this legal theory is that an unlawful quid pro quo is limited to those arrangements that are “corrupt”–that is to say, only those that are clearly and unmistakably improper and therefore illegal. But in the eyes of the law, the specific, measurable benefit that an investigation against the Bidens might bring Trump is nebulous. There is a serious question as to whether it could ever constitute a criminally illegal foreign campaign contribution of personal benefit to President Trump. Indeed, the Office of Legal Counsel and the Criminal Division at the Justice Department apparently have already concluded it couldn’t. Just as important, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have struggled since at least the early 1990s with application of the federal anticorruption laws to situations like this, where an “in kind” benefit in the form of campaign interference or assistance is alleged to be illegal.


    In my view, a fair and better legal argument can be made in this context that only an explicit, as opposed to an implied, quid pro quo would be sufficient to find criminal illegality as the result of President Trump’s words on the call with President Zelensky. What’s the difference? Instead of President Trump saying to his counterpart in Ukraine in words or substance, “Do me a favor …” he would have to have said, “Here’s the deal …” and followed up by explicitly linking an investigation of the Bidens to the provision of U.S. military assistance. None of that, of course, is what was said.
    Importantly, we have also learned in a little-noted aside to the widely reported Oct. 17 press conference by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney that the Administration recognized that it had no authority through the Office of Management and Budget to permanently withhold congressional appropriation of aid to Ukraine beyond the 2019 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30.
    Taken together, these facts mean that whatever your view of whether the President’s call was, in his words, “perfect” or not, the race to impeachment is moving forward on an arguably flawed legal theory of an implied quid pro quo of temporarily withholding foreign aid. It doesn’t help those arguing that the implied and temporary attempt at a quid quo pro necessitates impeachment that the aid was eventually released and disbursed on Sept. 11. Nor does it help them that Ukraine never publicly announced an investigation of the Bidens.
    An investigation into the origins of the probe into Russia’s 2016 election meddling, including any Ukrainian matters relating to it, is under way. It is being handled through appropriate channels and with built-in independence by a career prosecutor, John Durham, the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, and presumably outside of political interference at Main Justice in Washington. If Durham finds actual evidence warranting investigation of the Bidens, that would be entirely appropriate, unless one is prepared to argue, speciously, that a presidential candidate enjoys absolute immunity from investigation during the course of a campaign. So things are finally in the right hands.

    At this point nothing appears to stand in the way of the House’s intemperate and unreasonable vote to impeach. In Hamilton’s words, events are proceeding “more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” It will be left instead to the U.S. Senate sitting as a court of impeachment with the “requisite neutrality” and the nation’s best interests in mind to render judgment and put a stop to what is an undeniably, and all but exclusively, partisan effort to remove this President from office.

    More at: https://news.yahoo.com/shouldnt-impe...110621848.html
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #124
    I'm not a lawyer or great expert. I'm just your average guy on the street. So... what do I know?

    But this doesn't look to me as being an impeachment or an attainder.

    Looks to me like an attempted coup. I'd think that any House member voting for articles of impeachment (or rather this attempted coup) would be committing treason.

    I'd be interested in reading everyone's take on that.

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You appear to know very little about the Tax Court. First of all, if you dispute the IRS's determination of a tax deficiency you can file suit in the Tax Court; if you do, all collection efforts stop. Got that? You don't have to pay the deficiency before the court determines the issue. That's why most people who contest deficiencies go to the Tax Court.

    Second, the Supreme Court has held that due process is satisfied so long as someone against whom the IRS has determined a tax deficiency can go to court to contest it, even if the tax is collected first and the taxpayer has to file for a refund. See Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247 (1935).

    Third, if the Tax Court really were as bad as you claim the government would never lose a case; but it does. Here's just one example, in which the IRS sought over $500,000 in back taxes and over $100,000 in penalties. But the petitioner won. Guess the judge didn't get the memo that the government was supposed to win. https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/....aspx?ID=12035
    You seem to know very little about real life. The IRS can subvert your rights so that you lose before you ever get to tax court.

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester Copperpot View Post
    You seem to know very little about real life. The IRS can subvert your rights so that you lose before you ever get to tax court.
    I've dealt with the IRS on behalf of clients for over 45 years. I know how tax disputes are handled in real life. You don't.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I've dealt with the IRS on behalf of clients for over 45 years. I know how tax disputes are handled in real life. You don't.
    I know how the IRS rolls over people, Ive had it happen to me. If youve dealt with clients for 45 years you should be aware of this too.

  9. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester Copperpot View Post
    You seem to know very little about real life. The IRS can subvert your rights so that you lose before you ever get to tax court.
    Sonny Tufts is the resident tax and IRS apologist on RPF. Pay it no mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dary View Post
    I'm not a lawyer or great expert. I'm just your average guy on the street. So... what do I know?

    But this doesn't look to me as being an impeachment or an attainder.

    Looks to me like an attempted coup. I'd think that any House member voting for articles of impeachment (or rather this attempted coup) would be committing treason.

    I'd be interested in reading everyone's take on that.
    Treason has a particular definition and it doesn't apply to any of the Congress/Trump circus. I don't know what to call it when the government is trying to oust the government but it's not treason. Sounds more like extreme electoral politics.
    Last edited by devil21; 11-08-2019 at 10:42 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester Copperpot View Post
    I know how the IRS rolls over people, Ive had it happen to me. If youve dealt with clients for 45 years you should be aware of this too.
    People who benefit off the crushing weight of the system (police, lawyers, etc.) are oblivious to the drain that court cases are to regular people in terms of legal bills, years of a court case hanging over your head, and on and on.

  12. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post

    Treason has a particular definition and it doesn't apply to any of the Congress/Trump circus. I don't know what to call it when the government is trying to oust the government but it's not treason. Sounds more like extreme electoral politics.
    Clinton's "treason" was lying under oath about having sex. That was all the Republican controlled House could find him guilty of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  13. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    There are good reasons to be suspicious of Biden's actions, there are not any to be suspicious of Trump's.
    You would need to come up with a reason to be suspicious of Trump's.
    That is self evident, I already gave the reason, and you already acknowledged it. The investigation could be politically motivated. The fact that there is a possibility of evidence where Trump acknowledged political motivation, even if that evidence has not yet been found, is enough for reasonable suspicion. Remember the Lois Lerner IRS scandal? She was investigated because there was concern that she was targeting conservative groups for political purposes. Just the idea that the target might have been politically motivated was enough for an investigation into her investigations regardless of whether or not she had reasonable suspicion that those groups might have been engaged in wrongdoing. And again, since this is still at the investigation stage, your claim that this is an unconstitutional bill of attainder is itself an incompetent claim. It could only possibly be a bill of attainder if he was removed without a trial. There is pretty much a 100% guarantee that he will be tried but not removed. You're barking up the wrong tree.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  14. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Biden and many European leaders complained about the prosecutor not being tough on corruption and wanted him removed. If Biden's son was in a corrupt business, having a tougher on corruption investigator could have been harmful- not helpful- to Hunter Biden.
    That is the cover story and the democratic talking points....and it's an easily dis-proven lie. Biden and these so called "European leaders" are corrupt themselves. The simple facts are that after the prosecutor was fired 1) the case settled out of court and 2) Burisma was forced to pay millions in fines. The fact that they had to pay a fine shows they were probably guilty. The fact that they settled out of court shows that they were saved the embarrassment of a trial and the risk of any criminal prosecution.

    A Bill of Attainder is when Congress passes a law declaring somebody guilty of a crime without a trial. Congress has not passed any laws declaring anybody guilty of a crime. There is no Bill of Attainder. He is just trying to keep things confused even though he knows he is wrong. It is in his playbook to stir up confusion and conflict.
    Uhhh...yeah. That's what I just said. Trump will be tried but not removed. He will be found not guilty after getting a trial rather than being found guilty without a trial. And he'll probably be re-elected thanks to this phony impeachment charade.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 11-11-2019 at 04:43 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by RJB View Post
    People who benefit off the crushing weight of the system (police, lawyers, etc.) are oblivious to the drain that court cases are to regular people in terms of legal bills, years of a court case hanging over your head, and on and on.
    Funny how that works. A lot of that going around.
    "The Patriarch"

  16. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Treason has a particular definition and it doesn't apply to any of the Congress/Trump circus. I don't know what to call it when the government is trying to oust the government but it's not treason. Sounds more like extreme electoral politics.
    When they do it illegally and in conjunction with foreign actors it is treason.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    That is self evident, I already gave the reason, and you already acknowledged it. The investigation could be politically motivated. The fact that there is a possibility of evidence where Trump acknowledged political motivation, even if that evidence has not yet been found, is enough for reasonable suspicion.
    No, it is not, you could be cheating on your income taxes but that possibility is not enough for reasonable suspicion, you might speed every day on the way to work but that possibility is not enough for reasonable suspicion, I could go on and on, there is no reasonable suspicion regarding Trump, he was even required by law to do what he did.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Remember the Lois Lerner IRS scandal? She was investigated because there was concern that she was targeting conservative groups for political purposes. Just the idea that the target might have been politically motivated was enough for an investigation into her investigations regardless of whether or not she had reasonable suspicion that those groups might have been engaged in wrongdoing.
    There was plenty of evidence to create a reasonable suspicion in her case, there is not with Trump.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    And again, since this is still at the investigation stage, your claim that this is an unconstitutional bill of attainder is itself an incompetent claim. It could only possibly be a bill of attainder if he was removed without a trial. There is pretty much a 100% guarantee that he will be tried but not removed. You're barking up the wrong tree.
    Since this isn't being handled like a real impeachment then it is an attainder because it harms Trump without a trial or any kind of due process.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Clinton's "treason" was lying under oath about having sex. That was all the Republican controlled House could find him guilty of.
    He wasn't charged with treason and the Swampublicans could and should have proven much worse crimes but they were in on the charade.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Sonny Tufts is the resident tax and IRS apologist on RPF. Pay it no mind.




    Treason has a particular definition and it doesn't apply to any of the Congress/Trump circus. I don't know what to call it when the government is trying to oust the government but it's not treason. Sounds more like extreme electoral politics.
    Oh I wasnt aware of that.. Thanks for the notice.

  21. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Treason has a particular definition and it doesn't apply to any of the Congress/Trump circus. I don't know what to call it when the government is trying to oust the government but it's not treason. Sounds more like extreme electoral politics.
    Again, no expert so I had to look it up.

    If not guilty of treason then how about guilty of 18 U.S. Code ß 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government ?

    Would not attempting to overthrow a sitting president be considered overthrowing government or a coup?

    (Which sounds like treason to me so I guess that's why I used the word.)
    Last edited by Dary; 11-09-2019 at 09:38 AM.

  22. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Dary View Post
    Again, no expert so I had to look it up.
    Narrator: "He didn't actually look it up."
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  23. #140
    Any comment on the subject matter?

    Like maybe if any House Member who votes for Articles of Impeachment based on this preconceived, prefabricated coup attempt would be guilty of violating the code?

    And if so how could they / would they be charged? Would there be a trial...

    Anything?

  24. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by Dary View Post
    Any comment on the subject matter?

    Like maybe if any House Member who votes for Articles of Impeachment based on this preconceived, prefabricated coup attempt would be guilty of violating the code?

    And if so how could they / would they be charged? Would there be a trial...

    Anything?
    Problem 1: You didn't read the thing that you said that you read.
    Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government


    Problem 2: Words have meanings.
    It's not overthrowing the government to use a 100% constitutional impeachment process to replace the executive.




    Problem 3: Swordsmyth is never right.
    Trump is not the government.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

  25. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by Dary View Post
    Again, no expert so I had to look it up.

    If not guilty of treason then how about guilty of 18 U.S. Code ß 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government ?

    Would not attempting to overthrow a sitting president be considered overthrowing government or a coup?

    (Which sounds like treason to me so I guess that's why I used the word.)
    This is assuming that this whole soap opera isn't a performance art production put on as a reality show distraction by the usual suspects in DC. That is what I think it is so my thoughts on the topic are academic. Any way, I think the only appropriate term would be coup, since it's one branch of the government seeking to remove the head of a different branch of the government. Treason requires a declaration of war on the collective government (corporation) and I don't see how a government (corporation) can declare war on itself and/or collusion with foreign interests to destabilize the government (corporation). That it is such a bizarre scenario, that doesn't have a defined legal term that can be applied to it, is one of the reasons I think it's a contrived production for the masses. If impeachment proceedings can be twisted into a declaration of treason or coup or sedition or whatever word you want to use, then electoral politics as a whole probably falls under that umbrella also. In the bigger picture, I'm sure there are some authoritarian types here (ahem) that would love to see electoral politics dissolved entirely using this kind of cover story, where politics = treason.
    Last edited by devil21; 11-09-2019 at 12:18 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks NC Fishing Boat Rentals

  26. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Problem 1: You didn't read the thing that you said that you read.




    Problem 2: Words have meanings.
    It's not overthrowing the government to use a 100% constitutional impeachment process to replace the executive.




    Problem 3: Swordsmyth is never right.
    Trump is not the government.
    It is the use of force, government force under the color of law.
    This impeachment is not Constitutional in the least.
    It is treason because they worked with foreigners.

    TheCount is never right about anything.
    Trump is the head of the executive branch of Government.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #144
    As Rep. Adam Schiff’s “sentence first, trial later” show trial of President Donald J. Trump reaches a so-called public hearing phase, we find the weaver of fables dictating what witnesses the GOP will be permitted to call based on a set of three qualifying question they must answer in advance. These questions ask, essentially, if the witnesses believe President Trump is guilty of pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Bidens in exchange for military aid. The GOP, it seems, will not be allowed to call witnesses who have testimony or evidence to the contrary, that there was no pressure and no quid pro quo. Nor will the GOP be allowed to present witnesses or evidence that confirms that the “dirt” is accurate, that the crime of threatening to withhold aid for a personal and political favor, a crime Biden has already confessed to, was committed by Biden, not Trump, on behalf of Biden’s son Hunter. Nor will the GOP be allowed to make the case that any Trump inquiry of the Ukrainians was mandated by a treaty signed by President Bill Clinton. This is, dare I use the term Democrats used during the impeachment of Bill Clinton for a real crime, a phrase used by Joe Biden himself, a political lynching. As reported by the New York Post:

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Thursday released a tightened set of guidelines over what potential witnesses can be called in the impeachment hearings, saying Republicans must justify their relevance according to a three-point criteria…

    The narrowed-scope of the questions, first obtained by Politico, are:
    • Did the president request that a foreign leader and government initiate investigations to benefit the president’s personal political interests in the United States, including an investigation related to the president’s political rival and potential opponent in the 2020 US presidential election?
    • Did the president -- directly or through agents -- seek to use the power of the Office of the President and other instruments of the federal government in other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and government of Ukraine to advance the president’s personal political interests, including by leveraging an Oval Office meeting desired by the president of Ukraine or by withholding US military assistance to Ukraine?
    • Did the president and his administration seek to obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal from the Congress and the American people evidence about the president’s actions and conduct?
    Republicans must justify the relevance of their witnesses in an impeachment hearing triggered by a so-called whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge of the phone call. The whistleblower’s relevance was never justified. This is a whistleblower coached by Adam Schiff and who colluded with Schiff, a deep-state CIA agent whom we are told might wet his pants out of fear if his identity was publicly acknowledged. The statute says a whistleblower’s job, if they are a genuine whistleblower, must be protected but there’s no requirement for anonymity. Ironically, in a major goof-up, Schiff forget to redact the name of the whistleblower -- Eric Ciaramella -- as noted by Gateway Pundit -- in a posted PDF of the transcript of Amb. Bill Taylor’s testimony. Duh.
    Does Schiff intend to allow testimony concerning the fact that when President Trump inquired of Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky about Ukraine’s investigations into the Bidens, Burisma, and possible corruption he was actually required to do so by treaty:
    Yes, there is an actual treaty between the U.S. and Ukraine which obligates the leaders of both countries to cooperate fully and together on investigations of corruption, particularly criminal matters and corruption that involves both the United States and the Ukraine. The phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy, and it’s[sic] content, were not only legal, but the discussion and requests are actually mandated.
    So now it is grounds for impeachment by Congress to enforce a treaty ratified by Congress? The signpost up ahead says we have entered the Schiff Zone, a parallel universe where you are guilty until judge, jury, and executioner Schiff says you are innocent. As BPR Business and Politics notes:
    A 1999 treaty with Ukraine, signed by Bill Clinton, provides a rock-solid basis for President Trump’s request for Ukrainian President Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden for alleged corruption.
    The Bidens are in up to their armpits with regard to a potential renewed Burisma Holdings natural gas probe… an overdue investigation that was in fact initially stopped by VP Biden while he was in office… a fact that he subsequently bragged about.
    So, there is a firm legal underpinning to the request, the commander-in-chief to a country, an ally who we have a treaty with about criminal procedure to say, ‘Hey, can you look into some potential corruption allegations involving a U.S. Citizen?'” he added.
    It is not obstruction of Congress, justice, or anything else for a President to exercise his legal and constitutional authority. The facts and the lack of an actual crime will not stop Schiff, just as it did not stop former Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Schiff, like Mueller, is following in the proud tradition of Stalin’s chief of the secret police, Lavrentiy Beria. Just show him the man, and he will show you the crime.
    We may be thankful to Alan Dershowitz for reminding us of the delicious irony of Schiff and his investigations and so-called impeachment inquiries, one which began with a whistleblower who is not a whistleblower and another which started with fake “reports” of collusion with the Russians by Team Trump and charges of Russian hacking of our elections, now reverting to the tactics of Russia’s most murderous tyrant, Josef Stalin. As Dershowitz writes in the Washington Examiner:
    Federal prosecutors generally begin by identifying specific crimes that may have been committed -- in this case, violation of federal statutes. But no one has yet identified the specific statute or statutes that constrain Mueller's investigation of the Russian matter. It is not a violation of any federal law for a campaign to have collaborated with a foreign government to help elect their candidate…
    From McCarthyism to the failed prosecutions of Sen. Ted Stevens, Rep. Thomas DeLay, Gov. Rick Perry and others, we have seen vague criminal statutes stretched in an effort to criminalize political differences.

    Now it seems you don’t even need real crimes defined by statute. You can invent them, as Dershowitz charged Democrats with doing in an appearance with former U.S. Atty Guy Lewis on the November 7 edition of “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News.
    One of the proposed Schiff articles of impeachment is something called “Obstruction of Congress.” As Dershowitz asks, just where is the statute defining this? Congress and the President are co-equal branches of government. If a Trump administration official refuses to comply with a subpoena based on executive privilege of other grounds, you take them to court. You don’t impeach the President and charge him with an invented crime.

    Somewhere Josef Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria are smiling.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ll_stalin.html
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #145
    As Rep. Adam Schiff’s “sentence first, trial later” show trial of President Donald J. Trump
    What sentence has been imposed?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, that is the new tactic from all the trolls.
    They just assert lies over and over no matter how often they are exposed.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  30. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Spare me the backhands.

    I did read the code.

    I'm interested in reading what people hear think. Including you.

    Does everything have to be a conflict around here?

  31. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Dary View Post
    Spare me the backhands.

    I did read the code.

    I'm interested in reading what people hear think. Including you.

    Does everything have to be a conflict around here?
    The poster you are replying to desires to cause trouble and confusion.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  32. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    If impeachment proceedings can be twisted into a declaration of treason or coup or sedition or whatever word you want to use, then electoral politics as a whole probably falls under that umbrella also.
    I see your point.

    But if the impeachment proceedings were actually legitimate, fair and open, (which I don't believe that they are in this case) that "twisting" would be less likely especially if the punishment for the overthrow code were enforced.

  33. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Dary View Post
    I see your point.

    But if the impeachment proceedings were actually legitimate, fair and open, (which I don't believe that they are in this case) that "twisting" would be less likely especially if the punishment for the overthrow code were enforced.
    The issue at hand is that these aren't actual impeachment proceedings and they can be directly tied to a conspiracy with foreigners to overthrow the duly elected President using many illegal means.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  34. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Problem 3: Swordsmyth is never right.
    Everything he's posted in this thread seems dead-on to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The issue at hand is that these aren't actual impeachment proceedings and they can be directly tied to a conspiracy with foreigners to overthrow the duly elected President using many illegal means.
    Agreed.

    This is a prefabricated attempted coup.

    I hope that any House member who votes for Articles know full well what consequences they might face if it is determined that this is what it is.

    Would it be the Chief Justice presiding over the trial in the Senate that would make that determination?

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Live Vote Impeachment Inquiry: "Do Us A Favor, Though"
    By enhanced_deficit in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 11-04-2019, 12:51 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-01-2019, 09:58 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-31-2019, 08:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •