Jump to content

toonkee

Members
  • Content Count

    10,358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by toonkee

  1. We should have hired Mark Pope.
  2. All of the desert isle is wearing green today to support our cousins. Rainbow Warriors will be putting donkey meat in the imu tomorrow. Go 'bows!
  3. Byu ball movement is killing rebs.
  4. Mandalorian is okay. It's fine.
  5. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency'—even if those deeds didn't violate any criminal laws."[1]
  6. High crimes and misdemeanors includes office abuse, violating public trust, etc. This "in addition" stuff is nonsense. The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency'—even if those deeds didn't violate any criminal laws."
  7. No it's not. High crimes and misdemeanors is a well understood term. The senate either convicts the president of that or it doesn't. It's not so complicated.
  8. So Dershowitz decides what is sufficient for removal "in addition" to the requirements stated in the constitution and I'm supposed to move a discussion forward based on that? No thanks.
  9. What's ridiculous are your goal posts. First of all, for the 1,000th time there is no statutory crime requirement for impeachment. Mulvaney, the president's chief of staff, admitted on tv there was a quid pro quo on the aid and every state dept official operating in Ukraine somehow understood it was about the announcement of investigations and/or the white house visit and said so under oath, including a guy that paid Trump 1,000,000 bucks to be an ambassador. Then of course, the transcript where Trump asks for the investigations which corroborates the witness testimony. But you want Trump on video signing a bribe contract with a notary present or something. K.
  10. Thank you for your opinion but I'm not so sure. In my opinion I don't think Trump defying the courts would sway enough R voters to force the hands of the R senators, and I don't see why the R senators would do it for the sake of it being the right thing to do. The evidence is already there for them to do the right thing and we know that's not a good enough reason for them. So in the end we're getting all hung up on the oomph of an obstruction charge where 1) I say court involvement wouldn't matter in the end game or 2) you say courts would rule against Trump and he would comply...so a meaningless process dance. Maybe the dems best way forward is to not include obstruction in the articles and just ride with the abuse of power articles.
  11. Here's the difference, friend. My posts of tweets (and videos) are done in good faith. Are yours?
  12. To use your analogy... the expert witnesses were brought in to advise on whether to "indict" or not, so I would say they were quite relevant.
  13. Couldn't agree more. The guy is smart and that's better than what we got but he just doesn't pass the smell test for me. Something is unauthentic about this guy. Could be a replicant or something.
  14. So let's say Dems seek judicial review and courts tell Trump to turn over docs, allow exec staff to testify, etc. and Trump defies. In your opinion does it make a difference in the end result? Does it cause enough R senators to vote to remove. @sactowndog I'll take your thoughts as well please.
  15. Yeah but there was 3 million in California. My grandpa told me so.
  16. Well that's just your opinion, man, but again not required or advised by the constitution. That's your goalpost, not prescribed by the FF. R's in the senate would just say he hasn't been convicted of a crime by any court (although we know that's a faulty premise the dummies will still accept that) and it wouldn't matter if Trump defied a judicial order anyway. The R's and their voters either have a come to jesus moment about what Trump did or they don't.
  17. This discussion has become wholly nonsensical as it revolves around a faulty premise that a crime is required for impeachment or that even the court ordering the president to do something validates a "crime". Maybe we'll try again later.
  18. Congress can issue charges of contempt of congress, which are considered offenses against the US, and issue contempt citations. Still no way to really enforce but there's your crime. This "crime" prerequisite is a false and goalpost on a poor foundation anyway. High crimes and misdemeanors is the criteria. Trump did those. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-houses-contempt-powers-explained
  19. Let’s continue down the congressional subpoena thought exercise. Congress subpoenas Pence. Pence and Trump say no. Congress goes to court. Court tells Pence and Trump to comply. Pence and Trump say no. Who’s enforcing now? End scene.
×