Jump to content
modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

 

Some say we should never consider testimonial evidence (witnesses testifying) or circumstantial evidence, and that we should strictly only consider hard evidence

But that would make pursuing an impeachment even more difficult.

 

To anyone not in Cult 45 & more than a 3rd grade education can see there's evidence of impropriety by trump & cohorts 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

To anyone not in Cult 45 & more than a 3rd grade education can see there's evidence of impropriety by trump & cohorts 

 

OK, if you say so.

  • Cheers 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I’m getting tired of all the diatribe. The Dems need to quit stalling and get off their dead asses and impeach if they think they have a case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, #1Stunner said:

 

 

Dershowitz disagrees with Alexander Hamilton.  Hamilton clearly stated in paragraph 2 of The Federalist Papers No. 65 that the subjects of impeachment are "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

I will take the opinion of one of the founders of this country over the opinion of an attorney who gets paid for arguing guilty people are innocent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sandiegopete said:

Dershowitz disagrees with Alexander Hamilton.  Hamilton clearly stated in paragraph 2 of The Federalist Papers No. 65 that the subjects of impeachment are "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

I will take the opinion of one of the founders of this country over the opinion of an attorney who gets paid for arguing guilty people are innocent. 

Blah, blah, blah, blah. The Dems need to dispense with all the rhetoric and get on with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Personally I’m getting tired of all the diatribe. The Dems need to quit stalling and get off their dead asses and impeach if they think they have a case. 

:shrug: ya know, you don't have to pay attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Blah, blah, blah, blah. The Dems need to dispense with all the rhetoric and get on with it. 

What's the hurry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, #1Stunner said:

 

 

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, renoskier said:

What's the hurry?

The Dems have already convicted him in their eyes. Why wait? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

What is the circumstantial evidence that proves Trump did a "bribery" or "quid pro quo" by withholding money to Ukraine, unless they investigated Joe Biden?

I thought the circumstantial evidence showed he didn't do a quid pro quo?

The money was given to Ukraine without Ukraine ever doing any investigation of Joe Biden.

1. There is considerable hearsay evidence that Guiliani had been surrepticiously having contact with representatives of the Ukraine government since the spring of 2019. See this for example: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/giuliani-said-to-be-in-ukraine-meeting-with-parliament-member-trafficking-in-biden-allegations-2019-12-05?mod=trump-impeachment There are plenty of other articles out there but I chose that one because its succinct. Criticism of such reporting by Republicans as "hearsay" is fully BS since it remains hearsay because Trump ordered all his cronies not to appear before the House to testify. Why would Trump do so? For the same reason he has fought tooth and nail not to have to turn over his income tax returns: he's got a lot to hide. But eventually it's bound to come out. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/12/03/daily-202-hope-hicks-s-fbi-interviews-underscore-trump-s-impulse-to-stonewall-and-hold-back-damaging-info/5de5e9ba88e0fa652bbbdb74/

2. "[Mueller] declined to discuss whether his report represented a tacit recommendation of impeachment, and refused to say the word himself" when he testified before the House Judicial Committee on July 24. https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/mueller-testimony-hearing-watch-live-stream-special-counsel-report-hearing-congress-2019-07-24/ Here's what Trump said later that day about Mueller's testimony: http://talkmedianews.com/featured/2019/07/24/trump-responds-to-mueller-testimony-via-twitter/

3. Having been emboldened by the wussification of Mueller, the very next day, July 25, Trump got on the horn to Zelensky in what even Republican expert Jonathan Turley admitted on Wednesday was hardly a "perfect" phone call. In addition, Kevin McCarthy put his foot in his mouth on 60 Minutes by saying to corresondent Scott Pelley, "Well you added the a word," to which Pelley clarified McCarthy meant "though." Pelley actually hadn't added that word and the fact McCarthy made a brief issue of it shows McCarthy knew it suggested a quid pro quo. Later Mulvaney acknowledged there was a quid pro quo. Doesn't even need to be a quid pro quo if you read the Constitution but assuming arguendo that's necessary, there was undoubtedly a quid pro quo for the money as evidenced by the McCarthy and Mulvaney comments and that by Sondland once the guy's "memory was refreshed" (lol). And what about the testimony by Bill Taylor and the English woman whose name escapes me? And what about the fact the summary of the call indicates that never once did Trump use the word "corruption"?

4. Then there was this on September 20: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/19/politics/rudy-giuliani-joe-biden-ukraine-cnntv/index.html# 

Trump can't hide forever and even if Moscow Mitch makes a mockery out of the Senate trial by declining to allow any of those who have dirt on Mr. Grumpy to testify, history will record him as being as slimy as Tricky Dick Nixon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing about all this is that there's zero chance trump testfies or even lets some of his closes associates testify - trump can't go under oath and not purger himself, then he's up on that charge too 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Some say we should never consider testimonial evidence (witnesses testifying) or circumstantial evidence, and that we should strictly only consider hard evidence

But that would make pursuing an impeachment even more difficult.

"Hard" evidence? Do you mean non-hearsay evidence? Well that would fall under the rubric of "direct" evidence and that includes testimony from those with personal knowledge of the facts. In other words, obtained their knowledge through their own perception of an event rather than being told of it by someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, sandiegopete said:

Dershowitz disagrees with Alexander Hamilton.  Hamilton clearly stated in paragraph 2 of The Federalist Papers No. 65 that the subjects of impeachment are "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

I will take the opinion of one of the founders of this country over the opinion of an attorney who gets paid for arguing guilty people are innocent.

Elma Sands would roll over in her well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

History won’t be written by Fox and Friends. 

I'm wondering whether guys like Cavuto, Napolitano and Brett Baier will still be on the air a year from now. My guess is that if Trump doesn't get reelected their days will be numbered because rightwingers will refuse to watch them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UNLV2001 said:

It's like religion..........one needs to believe beyond the reality of no evidence !!! 

 

2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Some say we should never consider testimonial evidence (witnesses testifying) or circumstantial evidence, and that we should strictly only consider hard evidence

But that would make pursuing an impeachment even more difficult.

 

 

58 minutes ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

"Hard" evidence? Do you mean non-hearsay evidence? Well that would fall under the rubric of "direct" evidence and that includes testimony from those with personal knowledge of the facts. In other words, obtained their knowledge through their own perception of an event rather than being told of it by someone else.

I was only responding to the UNLV fan with the high IQ.

Only evidence ever worth considering in any circumstance is apparently hard, physical evidence.   

Nothing exists or has merit unless we have hard  physical evidence.  (His position, not mine).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

History won’t be written by Fox and Friends. 

Nevertheless, we all benefit when we see their many, many, many tweets (they need to be shared on here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×