|
That's some impressive dedication. I wonder what alts he may have though.
|
|
|
|
Can any of you explain the point of this thread?
Jerking your chain cause it's entertaining to watch you respond? It's a thought. The two of you should just get a room though. |
|
|
|
The reasonable reason to think that Flynn was "entrapped" is because
In what way did they entrap him? |
|
|
|
democratic socialism
"Democratic socialism" is just a red herring to make it acceptable to those that don't know anything about it or socialism. The end goal is exactly the same thing. Doing away with capitalism etc and becoming entirely socialist. It takes very little research to see that's the case and the more radical side of Bernie's supporters don't exactly hide that. Why people think capitalism is so bad is beyond me. The country wouldn't be the economic power house it is without it. China. Russia. They wouldn't embrace it if it wasn't the way to grow their economies and "in theory at least", build a better more prosperous future for their people. There wouldn't be the money there that they now want to spend. It's just ludicrous. It's wall street that's one of the primary issue with it's strangle hold on how companies run themselves and the shit they do. It's the the lack of rules, regulations and the like that allows those at the head of those companies to abuse the system. But it's not capitalism itself. Capitalism is not the cause of the problems. But whatever. People need to blame something and those seeking power will use it if they can get away with it. None of them seem to actually give a shit about the future of the country. The left was all over Trump, Banon etc for wanting to "tear it all down" or whatever that phrase was... but they're willing to embrace Bernie's message. Same message. Just from different sides.. Turn a blind eye to the issues as long as it's "your guy". Don't look beyond your nose and play out the potential scenarios and ramifications.. Sounds familiar. |
|
|
|
....So congrats to the right and Trump. Keep on attacking Biden as that will ensure Bernie gets the nomination. ....
Well, that's not EXACTLY accurate. The shutdown of the never-ending-parade this-time-around "Impeachment" does save Biden face, no dragging Hunter in etc. Leaves Biden in the running,doesn't it? Trump will continue and now Lindsey is saying they're going to do a bunch of stuff. But then again he's been saying that for awhile so who knows why he's saying it now. I find it hard to believe they (Trump, not Congress) haven't been putting some serious effort into investigating the Bidens and the DNC. It's possible they already have something and are saving it for later. Also possible they have nothing and it goes the way of all the other democrat investigations he got everyone all fired up about that just fizzled out. They don't need anything. All they need is the appearance of something and that's exactly what this has all been about. Besides getting paid a stupid amount every month, Hunter is also being accused of getting some huge amount of money. The "proof" however, despite having specifics on all transactions up until that point, has none for the payments that are supposed to have gone to Hunter. But anyone that believes in conspiracies will believe it was a big payment. They want to believe that.. So, they just need the appearance. There was a variety of things about the Shoken stuff that bothered me for a long time.. Then I finally realized what it was and other things seemed to come together. Why did they think Shoken was corrupt and yet why has there been no "proof". Even just some rough statement. Granted he apparently didn't do anything.. to anyone.. in all his time.. but we'll ignore that. He made the statement that he was told to use "white gloves" with the Burisma investigation. He stated he took that to mean he needed to be hands off. i.e. "protect" Biden and his son. I finally realized why that seemed off to me. It's because that phrase means the opposite of what he thought it did. He was told by the US guy to actually do a very thorough and competent job. That's what it means. Now maybe in their culture it's something different. Or it's a phrase uncommon to them and because he lives in a society where everyone is corrupt he assumed the Bidens were as well and that he was being told to look the other way. The end results is that he did nothing. So from that, it's stands to reason that the US would then think he was corrupt since he wasn't doing the investigation they had told him to do a thorough job of. When fired, he says he was told it was because Biden had told the President that they had proof he was corrupt. I suspect it's more that since Shoken had been told to do a thorough job yet did nothing, they assumed he was corrupt. The President may or may not have said that to Shoken but even if he did he could also have simply misinterpreted or, as many do, was casting blame elsewhere so it would not fall on him. Given that one misunderstanding, I can see how it all could have played out the way it did. Of course maybe there was evidence he was corrupt but I've never heard anything that indicates there is. Regardless, as it stands it makes for a good way to smear the Bidens. I doubt they really want it looked into as it could end up clearing them and that doesn't suit there purposes right now. Everything is currently nice and murky and perfect for the job they want done. |
|
|
|
....So congrats to the right and Trump. Keep on attacking Biden as that will ensure Bernie gets the nomination. ....
Well, that's not EXACTLY accurate. The shutdown of the never-ending-parade this-time-around "Impeachment" does save Biden face, no dragging Hunter in etc. Leaves Biden in the running,doesn't it? Trump will continue and now Lindsey is saying they're going to do a bunch of stuff. But then again he's been saying that for awhile so who knows why he's saying it now. |
|
|
|
I think there's something different happening among Trumps base and it's getting weirder and weirder. They aren't choosing which politician is least bad, they are choosing to worship Trump.
Some yes. But most are simply mad at Washington, both sides, and want someone to be their spokesperson and do what's right for them. It's a result of the increasing wealth disparity. There are studies for example that show clearly that as the gap widens, things like violence increases in a society. And Trump spoke to what the masses thought needed to change and promised them what they wanted even though he's really ineffective. He has the power to mobilize his supporters and instead he cries about how everyone attacks him and he attacks the media. He only cares about himself and having his base idolize him. Doesn't matter if it's the right thing to do or not, as long as it's what they want, he'll do it so he gets those cheers at the rallies and gets voted in again. Bernie is the Trump of the left and "he" scares me more than Trump does. Bernie isn't a bumbling buffoon. He knows he has power in his supporters, he knows how to use it and he knows he will need to. I think Bernie is milk toast though.. he's ideological.. Most of his supporters hear "socialist" and think social programs. But his far left supporters.. Well... They are mobilized and ready to make things happen. They are also of the sort that want "revolution", a portion of them are of the "force" type and another portion of doing it from within the system. And they are ready to do away with things like freedom of speech, the electoral college and more. And just as the Republicans are weak willed and bend to Trump because they're afraid of him and the base, the Democrats will do exactly the same thing. So congrats to the right and Trump. Keep on attacking Biden as that will ensure Bernie gets the nomination. Thank you for making it more and more likely that someone (through his base that's ready to exert power) even more dangerous IMO has a chance of becoming the next President. Am I crazy to think the trial might have opened a lot of peoples eyes who may have otherwise not paid attention to these things?
Maybe some small number but overall.. No I don't really think so.. The majority don't care as long as he gets them the judges and fights with the left (and the right to some extent) and the media, i.e. the "establishment". They're willing to look the other way over everything else as they think they're getting the greater good. Keep in mind that many of them are also of the mind set of "tear it all down". They want the "establishment" to destroy itself and fail to recognize that it will take the country with it. And the far left... Well.. They're just as bad but about other things. My grandparents left Germany prior to WWII because they could see how things were changing etc. I'm starting to feel like I know exactly what they were feeling and experiencing. |
|
|
|
Hearsay evidence of "B" may exist, but is not admissible in a court of law.
That is a common fallacy but is not true at all. There is a pretty long list of exceptions to it such as some of these which could be applied in this case: - The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify; - The declarant refuses to testify; Some other exceptions which may or may not apply: - It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness - It is offered to help prove a material fact - It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence - Its admission would forward the cause of justice - The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence That's just a handful. So yes, hearsay can be admissible. In this case much of it was corroborated between a variety of witnesses which gives it much more weight. Well, the Democrats have pursued all such theories, and here they are. Don't know what your point it. When one group is judge, jury and executioner they can choose to ignore what is appropriate and legal for whatever reason they can pull out of their asses. Either side. And the people end up just having to suck it up and complain in their beer but then turn around and keep voting them all in time and time again. These days it's always voting for who you think is the least bad because there is no other choice. |
|
|
|
Hearsay evidence of "B" may exist, but is not admissible in a court of law.
That is a common fallacy but is not true at all. There is a pretty long list of exceptions to it such as some of these which could be applied in this case: - The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify; - The declarant refuses to testify; Some other exceptions which may or may not apply: - It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness - It is offered to help prove a material fact - It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence - Its admission would forward the cause of justice - The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence That's just a handful. So yes, hearsay can be admissible. In this case much of it was corroborated between a variety of witnesses which gives it much more weight. |
|
|
|
What is quite interesting here is that you(and Viper
Do not take what I said and twist it to suit your agenda and then to twist it into some veiled personal attacks. I said he gave some good speeches, nothing more. I've made no comment on anything else regarding Schiff. If you want to have an actual discussion about the facts of this entire thing as opposed to conjecture and the like then fine. I'm perfectly willing to engage in that and a discussion of what this will probably all will mean to the country long term. But beyond that, the rest is just worthless. |
|
|
|
"Trump bad orange man" meme.
I'm curious. How is that any different than the years of "Obama, bad black man" that the right did for years (and many still do)? The right mocks the left for the whole orange man bad thing. But they had, and many still do, Clinton derangement syndrome. When it comes to climate change the amount of Gore derangement syndrome I see is staggering. And there was a whole lot of Obama derangement syndrome.. So how is the current climate any different.. it just flips back and forth now and has really become meaningless as some sort of attempt at mocking those people one deems of having that sort of syndrome. |
|
|
|
Sounds like you could have done a better job than Schiff et al, I thought they were unstructured and disorganized in their work in the House, weak and illogical in the 2 charges brought, poor in the wording, and impossibly weak in the defense of the charges in the Senate. Yeah, I have little good to say about the majority of any of them on either side especially today. They are almost all useless, worthless, self serving unethical scum bags who put self interest above country and the constitution. I"m a tad negative about it all today. They have one last chance to at least put a bandaid on it but I don't think they will. Given they never dreamed or seriously considered they'd get 2/3 in the senate, it's then useful to ask what the real motivations were. What were they actually trying to accomplish? I think a motive that has to be considered is that they are actually quite confused, and do not have clear motives. But taking the alternative, if their Schiff show in total had the effect of keeping hard core voters convinced "Orange Man Bad," then that could be a motive. All in all, I'm not comprehending what the witnesses were intended to accomplish and for what goal. They weren't going to somehow create the 2/3. So were they just to be a gambit to keep the whole show going for a couple months? Essentially more repetition of the theme "orange man bad?" There would never be any impeachment if you assumed the other side isn't going to change their mind. As I said previously, this impeachment was far too short. There wasn't enough time for the public to really get engaged (which is where the 2/3 could come from, if we still would like to think the Senate would listen to the voters as opposed to being on their knees worshiping their King) let along all the witness/document issues. But sure, there's always a variety of motives and if you view them as the enemy it's natural to attribute everything to ulterior motives. Doesn't make it true. The bottom line is that the "base" of the Dems have wanted Trump impeached from day one. I was impressed that they held out so long frankly. So I see things a bit differently. The only "ulterior" motive I think that has any potential validity is that it was due to one of their own, i.e. Biden, being involved. Everything else is just politics as usual. |
|
|
|
I was actually really impressed with Schiff throughout the trial. Especially his closing argument last Friday. He was in a league of his own compared to the other House prosecutors.
With some help from Bolton, he forced them to pivot their main defense from 'he didn't do it' last Saturday => 'he did it, but not because Biden was running' => 'even if he did do it, it's fine'.
Schiff gave some good speeches. I didn't like anytime any of them would mock the other side or play political games. It just makes a joke out of it all IMO instead of it being a serious undertaking. And it just reflect bad on you if you can't make your argument without mocking your opponent. Makes you look weak and ineffective. Sekulow and Dershowitz were also very strong. I completely disagree with Dershowitz' constitutional argument, but I can see why he's the guy OJ, Epstein and Harvey Weinstein called when they got in trouble.
Can't stand Sekulow. I've always felt he was a scum bag ambulance chaser type guy. Seems that, if what is now being alleged is true, I was right. Judge Roberts didn't do much, but for some reason I really like the guy after watching him mostly just sit there.
It's not his job to do anything really and I appreciated his "no" to breaking ties. I don't know if it's really right or not but I liked his principled reason for it. If any of the Republican senators choose to run for president in the next few decades, the no witness vote they just had will very likely come back to haunt them.
I doubt it. The majority of the public have the memory of a gnat and most don't care anymore. They just vote for their king and thus any representative no matter how bad the person is as long as he's of the kings party. |
|
|
|
Sounds like you could have done a better job than Schiff et al, I thought they were unstructured and disorganized in their work in the House, weak and illogical in the 2 charges brought, poor in the wording, and impossibly weak in the defense of the charges in the Senate. Yeah, I have little good to say about the majority of any of them on either side especially today. They are almost all useless, worthless, self serving unethical scum bags who put self interest above country and the constitution. I"m a tad negative about it all today. They have one last chance to at least put a bandaid on it but I don't think they will. |
|
|
|
It's is utterly amazing reading the discussions the founders had regarding impeachment. Everything that they are saying today mirrors what was argued way back then. In the end, what the defense is saying etc is exactly everything that the founders rejected which is why the "high crimes and misdemeanors" is in there and that it is fairly broad in what it means. After a short debate, the convention agreed to the language proposed in the Virginia Plan: the executive would “be removable on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty” – a broad standard that the delegates would later rewrite.
Mason, Madison, and Randolph all spoke up to defend impeachment on July 20, after Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania moved to strike it. “[If the president] should be re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence,” Morris argued. “[Impeachment] will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach.” How familiar that sounds doesn't it? I found something else that indicated that "accountability" was what they looked to elections for. Certainly not something like impeachable offenses. “Shall any man be above justice?” Mason asked. “Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?” A presidential candidate might bribe the electors to gain the presidency, Mason suggested. “Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?”
Madison argued that the Constitution needed a provision “for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” Waiting to vote him out of office in a general election wasn’t good enough. “He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation”— embezzlement—“or oppression,” Madison warned. “He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”
Randolph agreed on both these fronts. “The Executive will have great opportunities of abusing his power,” he warned, “particularly in time of war, when the military force, and in some respects the public money, will be in his hands.” The delegates voted, 8 states to 2, to make the executive removable by impeachment.
Sounds like today doesn't it? Limiting impeachment to treason and bribery cases, Mason warned on September 8, “will not reach many great and dangerous offences.” To make his case, he pointed to an impeachment taking place in Great Britain at the time—that of Warren Hastings, the Governor-General of India.
[[charged Hastings with a mix of criminal offenses and non-criminal offenses, including confiscating land and provoking a revolt in parts of India.]]
Mason argued to his fellow delegates that Hastings was accused of abuses of power, not treason, and that the Constitution needed to guard against a president who might commit misdeeds like those alleged against Hastings.
Mason, fearful of an unchecked, out-of-control president, proposed adding “maladministration” [[basically just for being lousy at your job]] as a third cause for impeaching the president. Such a charge was already grounds for impeachment in six states, including Virginia.
But on this point, Madison objected. The scholarly Princeton graduate, a generation younger than Mason at age 36, saw a threat to the balance of powers he’d helped devise. “So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” he argued. In other words, Madison feared the Senate would use the word “maladministration” as an excuse to remove the president whenever it wanted.
So Mason offered a substitute: “other high crimes and misdemeanors against the State.” The English Parliament had included a similarly worded phrase in its articles of impeachment since 1450. This compromise satisfied Madison and most of the other Convention delegates. They approved Mason’s amendment without further debate, 8 states to 3, but added “against the United States,” to avoid ambiguity.
the convention’s Committee on Style and Revision, ......, deleted the phrase “against the United States.” Without that phrase, which explained what constitutes “high crimes,” many Americans came to believe that “high crimes” literally meant only crimes identified in criminal law.
When Mason argued that “the great powers of Europe, as France and Great Britain,” might corrupt the president, Randolph replied that it would be an impeachable offense for the president to violate the Constitution’s emoluments clause by taking payments from a foreign power.
And in an argument with Madison, Mason warned that a president could use the pardon power to stop an inquiry into possible crimes in his own administration. “He may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself,” Mason argued. “If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
Impeachment, Madison responded, could impose the necessary check to a president’s abuse of the pardon power. “If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person,” Madison stated, “and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him.”
Alexander Hamilton predicted in Federalist Paper 65: “In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the preexisting factions ... and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
They also worried that Congress, which they viewed as the primary governing body, might use impeachment threats to bend a president’s policy decisions.
To mitigate this, the impeachment power was divided among the two chambers of Congress, and there was a two-thirds majority required to convict.
Plus, the standard for impeachment was changed from “maladministration” to the more stringent “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The partisan worries the founders had was exactly why the Senate was not to be an elected body. So happy that was changed in 1913 so that the current system is so weak and ineffective now. Despite his partisan concerns, Hamilton definitely supported impeachment and argued for the Senates role. I find it interesting how the founders intended that the Congress be the primary body. Today's state of things is a far cry from what they intended. Seems like they were right about so many things and the country is becoming more and more what they never wanted it to be. Sadly, those in office don't seem to care one bit and are willing assist in it's inevitable demise. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Every "empire" goes through this where it becomes more and more corrupt over time and eventually fails. This quote from Hamilton regarding protecting the country from those with "demagogic tendencies" sounds ... familiar... "When a man unprincipled in private life[,] desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper . . . despotic in his ordinary demeanour — known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty — when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day — It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may 'ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.'" Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 65. “They are of a nature which may with particular propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they related chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” I simply cannot understand Dershowitz's arguments. One of the problems with him is that he argues everything from an acedemic standpoint. i.e., he would be well suited to being in a debate with the founders over what should and should not be in the constitution and what what would constitute impeachment. But him standing up there the way he did is just irresponsible in my opinion. He kept quoting from those that, for all I know, had agendas of their own. Did he even talk about the founders and what they said? I simply cannot see how anyone reading what the founders said and intended could think what much of what the defense has argued is in any way valid. Bottom line, After going through reams of this stuff, I have little doubt that the founders would have impeached and convicted Trump in a second. I also think they would be appalled by what has become of their creation. I was jumping around from site to site yanking out a few quotes here and there as a lot of it was "opinion" and I wanted to try and find quotes etc. I failed to note each and every site. Sorry, but here are a couple I used. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819/fractured-into-factions-what-the-founders-feared-about-impeachment |
|
|
|
crazy how things have shifted last few days. i really feel sad watching many of these republican senators ive respected for so long. grassly, blunt, lee, thune... i never expected them to convict him, but i cant believe they are going to let trumps lawyers get away with trying to say that as long as a president believes hes doing best for the country, it can not be impeachable.
none of them agree with it. they must feel rotten inside choosing to stay quiet cowards rather than show some courage and at the very least call out the bull instead of feeding stupid hillary questions to the defense. everyone hates hillary, they are only trying to please the king so he dont kill there career but all they are doing is giving him more power. they are paving the way to authoritarianism, its time to be patriotic.
these people are a disgrace to the conservatives. reagan is spinning in the ground right now.
Yeah, it's pretty fucked up now. Trump is the sort that if he gets off, he'll do even more. And now with all the "he can do anything he wants" stuff, it's pretty damn bad. If they let him off without addressing any of that, then they've opened the door for massive abuse by any President in the future. The only real solution I can see to this, since they won't convict him, is to at least Censure him. But I don't think they even have the balls for that. |
|
|
|
side note: I really don't get how it's possible for someone to make it take so long to get a ruling for something that could be incredibly urgent. Seems like something the needs to be fixed, otherwise a President has free range to do whatever the hell he wants 12 months before the election, including literal crimes to influence the election, as long as he's successful at getting reelected and getting 34 of his friends in the Senate he can't be held accountable.
I agree and noted in another post that I felt that impeachment things should be the highest priority and be fast tracked through the courts. Right, except that has no bearing on what they said and what I'm outlining. Strategy by either side has no bearing as both sides have done things purely for strategic and political purposes. It's only what's constitutional and legal that has any bearing. So, it goes something like this I think.
They had no right to issue subpoenas for impeachment unless the house authorizes it. Which they didn't. i.e. the subpoenas don't carry the weight of an impeachment until such time as the house actually has authorized it. The Democratic argument has been "we can do what we want since we have sole power" which is correct.. Except it wasn't "we". Without a house vote, there is no we.
The committees however do have the right to issue subpoenas for legislative oversight. But the democrats stated in their letters that it was for impeachment. The Democrats then argue that there is precedent in that there have been other inquires done without a vote. The lawyer said yes that's true, but there was no compelling of documents and testimony. i.e. no subpoenas in those instances and thus no precedent. That's the first time I had heard that and that's why I'm re-looking at this.
I'm not totally confident here, but I think whats constitutional and legal is theoretical in these cases (subpoena and house vote examples). Just because you can find one way to thread the unprecedented needle doesn't mean that it is or is not legal or constitutional. It would be one thing if there was already a ruling that 'a congressional subpoena is not valid if impeachment is mentioned but the House hasn't voted to begin an inquiry.' And if that were the case, they could've just not mentioned impeachment. If you only consider this argument: 'We sent them subpoenas, they didn't respond.' Then it's not that unreasonable to defend with: 'We didn't think the first few were valid because there was no vote, and we granted total immunity on the other ones' But if the argument includes: A) The President told us he would not respond to any request no matter and ordered the entire executive branch not to cooperate with us. B) He was planning to drag every single subpoena through multiple courts, multiple times, making it impossible to get a ruling within X amount of time. C) There is a valid reason that this trial needs to take place before X amount of time or The President will greatly benefit directly from what he's being tried for in X amount of time. Then that's a pretty strong argument, although unprecedented, that the President is literally stripping Congress of their power to provide oversight. Yeah I get all that. But I'm talking about what did happen, not what might have happened. These are politicians and they claim to make all sorts of assumptions and the like on what would be best for the country and people when in reality it's about their election and so one needs to take it all with a grain of salt at the least. Yes, this sort of thing can only be resolved by the courts and needs to be. Next time, what's happened here will be used to justify even more potential abuses and on and on it goes. I think this was sort of addressed today but I couldn't hear clearly everything that was said... I think that the Democratic argument came down to this house rule. (m)(1) For the purpose of carrying
out any of its functions and duties
under this rule and rule X (including
any matters referred to it under clause
2 of rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is authorized (subject to
subparagraph (3)(A))—
...
(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony
of such witnesses and the production
of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary. That's very broad and I think there have been instances where the courts have determined they don't have broad powers. In addition, there are numerous court rulings regarding them having the right for legislative purposes. And I think there was some ruling that said impeachment doesn't fall under legislative but I'm not sure about that now. So it appears that the Democrats believe they have the legal right based on their broad rules. The defense doesn't buy that and they've also mentioned the legislative vs impeachment issue. There's an issue in there though that would make the house have to jump through hoops if what the defense says were true. i.e. they're investigating things under legislative oversight and it becomes clear that impeachment can be an issue. They'd be forced to stop and not be able to continue until they had voted on impeachment. That's a bit ridiculous. Bottom line it all needs to go to the courts but they choose not to do that. I don't see why they didn't start things regardless. There argument that it was important to get this all done quickly so he can't do it again certainly sounds great. But they knew perfectly well it wouldn't fly in the Senate. They also know that they can use all of this for the next election. That he was impeached and the Republicans let him get away with it. It's always difficult to figure out how much of what they do is actually done on good faith, in the best interest of the people, and how much is purely for election purposes. |
|
|
|
So after all this time, I finally heard a brief little thing from one of the defense lawyers in terms of the subpoenas not being valid for the pre-vote inquiry that may have some validity. Up until this point the only argument I've heard was that they were invalid because no vote had been held. And yet by the same token, there is precedent for inquiries having occurred in the past without a vote either so the argument seemed completely invalid.
However, this time he got up and he seemed to actually acknowledge that precedent but then simply said that they were different because those times did not compel the production of documents and testimony as opposed to just gather what was available so they don't apply. Still not sure how valid it would be given the times were different and the house and committees have much more authority to issue subpoenas today thanks to the republicans as opposed to back in those days. The real issue though is that there just doesn't seem to be any clear rules etc on impeachment that stipulate any of this which just turns it all into a mess of conflicting opinions depending on which side you're on as well as it being power struggle between the two branches. But still, I suppose some due diligence may be in order even though it sort of seems pointless now.
Schiff did a good job explaining what Trumps strategy was regarding subpoenas when he disputed the defenses claim that the subpoenas could've been resolved in a reasonable amount of time. For the subpoenas before the official vote, they used the 'it's before the vote card' instead of executive privilege. For the ones after, instead of claiming executive privilege they basically made up the legal term 'absolute immunity'. Neither of these arguments had much of a chance of getting a ruling in favor of the president, 'absolute immunity' especially, but they would appeal as long as possible. When they eventually run out of options, he would turn around and say 'ok, lets try executive privilege now' and the whole thing would start over. He has a history of doing this in the business world. Just sue the fuck out of someone, even if with 0 chance of winning, just keep it in court as long as possible and make the guy who pissed you off miserable and hemorrhaging money. Right, except that has no bearing on what they said and what I'm outlining. Strategy by either side has no bearing as both sides have done things purely for strategic and political purposes. It's only what's constitutional and legal that has any bearing. So, it goes something like this I think. They had no right to issue subpoenas for impeachment unless the house authorizes it. Which they didn't. i.e. the subpoenas don't carry the weight of an impeachment until such time as the house actually has authorized it. The Democratic argument has been "we can do what we want since we have sole power" which is correct.. Except it wasn't "we". Without a house vote, there is no we. The committees however do have the right to issue subpoenas for legislative oversight. But the democrats stated in their letters that it was for impeachment. The Democrats then argue that there is precedent in that there have been other inquires done without a vote. The lawyer said yes that's true, but there was no compelling of documents and testimony. i.e. no subpoenas in those instances and thus no precedent. That's the first time I had heard that and that's why I'm re-looking at this. So. In the absence of any rules that state otherwise for any of it, or precedent in which impeachment subpoenas were in fact issued prior to a house vote (or authorized in some other fashion for impeachment), they may have a valid point. If true, then the Democrats did all of that for purely political purposes. It also means that if any of that was used for the obstruction article, then that would make it invalid. The only stuff they could use for obstruction would be anything after the vote. I wasn't paying attention to the obstruction article enough to know what it all entailed. Now, there was that one judge ruling in the muller report case as pertaining to impeachment but I can't remember when that occurred or what specifically it was for. I do remember that there was no argument being made about subpoenas in it. Don't know if there even were any for it. |
|
|
|
|
So after all this time, I finally heard a brief little thing from one of the defense lawyers in terms of the subpoenas not being valid for the pre-vote inquiry that may have some validity. Up until this point the only argument I've heard was that they were invalid because no vote had been held. And yet by the same token, there is precedent for inquiries having occurred in the past without a vote either so the argument seemed completely invalid.
However, this time he got up and he seemed to actually acknowledge that precedent but then simply said that they were different because those times did not compel the production of documents and testimony as opposed to just gather what was available so they don't apply. Still not sure how valid it would be given the times were different and the house and committees have much more authority to issue subpoenas today thanks to the republicans as opposed to back in those days. The real issue though is that there just doesn't seem to be any clear rules etc on impeachment that stipulate any of this which just turns it all into a mess of conflicting opinions depending on which side you're on as well as it being power struggle between the two branches. But still, I suppose some due diligence may be in order even though it sort of seems pointless now.
|
|
|
|
Right. Except none of that addresses my issue with any real weight or a convincing argument. It's perfectly understandable that citizens have the right to arm for self defense. The issue is when it comes to the militia. It was intended and written that the right was for arming for state militias. But they don't exist any more. More importantly, the states have allowed the federal government to have a standing army which is what the entire concern was at the time. Having failed to protect the country from that, the states have basically said there is no need for their state militias and thus there is no need for people to arm for that. That is my issue. I have yet to see any solid argument that resolves that for me and without that, then I can't see owning things like assault rifles as still being an actionable right. If the states reformed militias then yes, by all means arm but in the absence of that, no. Besides which, history has shown time and again that poorly armed groups are capable of "defeating" well armed groups over time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
