Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

modestobulldog

Game Thread: Impeachment Trial

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, sandiegopete said:

Do you have an example of a past president asking a foreign government to assist him in an election or re-election campaign by initiating an investigation of a political rival?

No.  But I have examples of past Presidents using the IRS to target political opponents.  Or fabricating evidence to lead us to was.  Or lying under oath.  And so on.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, toonkee said:

 

Honestly, that graphic just shows media bias. 

 

A quick google search shows me that this guy is:

1. Chief Counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice

2. Has 41 years of experience practicing law

3. Was named to The American Lawyer's Public Sector 45, a list dedicated to legal public servants who have had the greatest effect in their respective fields, in 1997. 

4.  Legal times profiled him as one of the 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the last 30 years.

And that's just from a brief reading of his wikipedia page. 

 

Unless Trump was holding up being a drummer as a qualification :shrug:

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Honestly, that graphic just shows media bias. 

I mean, I generally agree with you on stuff... but look through Sekulow's CV......... there isn't a lot else to mention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Wow, the impeachment trial is even “more fair” to the prosecution than the previous one :Clapping:. What an olive branch, I’m sure everyone can agree.

Nice try.  It’s was poor English.  The Clinton trial gave everyone 3 days and in his rush to judgement McConnell tried to cram it into two.   However Senators wanted to go home before 1:00 am so they revolted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mugtang said:

No.  But I have examples of past Presidents using the IRS to target political opponents.  Or fabricating evidence to lead us to was.  Or lying under oath.  And so on.

So Trump is the first to ask a foreign government to involve itself in U.S. domestic politics.  Is that now acceptable for future presidents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I mean, I generally agree with you on stuff... but look through Sekulow's CV......... there isn't a lot else to mention. 

See my update

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Nor should history look favorably on any of us. Trump, Pelosi...they aren’t the real problem.

Well, unlike some of those who disagree with me most of the time, you actually pay attention to what I say rather than lumping me in with every other non-Republican here. For that reason you know I favor creation of a third major party in our country. Maybe I'm just too much of a pessimist these days but it seems to me that's the only way to put a scare into two parties which have come to be much too influenced by their lunative fringe.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sandiegopete said:

So Trump is the first to ask a foreign government to involve itself in U.S. domestic politics.  Is that now acceptable for future presidents?

In what world did I say it was acceptable?  Please state where I said it was acceptable to ask for foreign governments to interfere in our elections.  What I said was presidents have played loose with the law in the past, not saying I endorse what Trump did.  Why are you playing absolutism? 

 

So, because Obama bombed many countries without Congressional authorization does that mean you support Trump starting a war with Iran or any other nation without first going to Congress? 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

Well, unlike some of those who disagree with me most of the time, you actually pay attention to what I say rather than lumping me in with every other non-Republican here. For that reason you know I favor creation of a third major party in our country. Maybe I'm just too much of a pessimist these days but it seems to me that's the only way to put a scare into two parties which have come to be much too influenced by their lunative fringe.

Didn't read :P

 

jk

 

Also, what's up with your "interests" on your profile linking to a tweet? 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I’ll address your second point first.  I didn’t have an issue with the house impeachment process.  I did think they rushed it a bit and that was a mistake but otherwise I don’t really take an issue with what they did.  As to your first point, I don’t know.  Every president has played fast and loose when it comes to obeying laws.  I argued at the time the house should’ve censured the President and still think that may have been the best course of action.  Probably would’ve gotten some Republicans to support censuring Trump.  

I'm copacetic with that. However, there's playing fast and loose and then there is outright defiance of the law and the latter is Donald J. Trump and no other.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mugtang said:

No.  But I have examples of past Presidents using the IRS to target political opponents.  Or fabricating evidence to lead us to was.  Or lying under oath.  And so on.

We don’t know if this is true because the Republican House didn’t have the balls to force Holder to testify.   They whined and with the exception of Amash said the opposite of what they say today.   
 

Sadly had the forced Holder it might be easier to deal with Trump today.  And when the Senate lets Trump off it will only get harder and harder to reign in an out of control executive branch.  Something I suspect we will see in spades Trumps next term.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SleepingGiantFan said:

I'm copacetic with that. However, there's playing fast and loose and then there is outright defiance of the law and the latter is Donald J. Trump and no other.

I'd argue that Bush & Obama creating and expanding Prism is worse than what Trump did.  But that's just me. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

We don’t know if this is true because the Republican House didn’t have the balls to force Holder to testify.   They whined and with the exception of Amash said the opposite of what they say today.   
 

Sadly had the forced Holder it might be easier to deal with Trump today.  And when the Senate lets Trump off it will only get harder and harder to reign in an out of control executive branch.  Something I suspect we will see in spades Trumps next term.   

Actually the House held Holder in contempt of Congress.  But that was in relation to fast and furious.  I'm not sure if Holder was involved at all in the IRS targeting issue. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Honestly, that graphic just shows media bias. 

 

A quick google search shows me that this guy is:

1. Chief Counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice

2. Has 41 years of experience practicing law

3. Was named to The American Lawyer's Public Sector 45, a list dedicated to legal public servants who have had the greatest effect in their respective fields, in 1997. 

4.  Legal times profiled him as one of the 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the last 30 years.

And that's just from a brief reading of his wikipedia page. 

 

Unless Trump was holding up being a drummer as a qualification :shrug:

Of course it does. 

It's funny because MSNBC is ridiculous and it's funny because the Jay Sekulow Band is also ridiculous. 

Why not both?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mugtang said:

Actually the House held Holder in contempt of Congress.  But that was in relation to fast and furious.  I'm not sure if Holder was involved at all in the IRS targeting issue. 

There wasn't really anything linking Obama either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mugtang said:

In what world did I say it was acceptable?  Please state where I said it was acceptable to ask for foreign governments to interfere in our elections.  What I said was presidents have played loose with the law in the past, not saying I endorse what Trump did.  Why are you playing absolutism? 

 

So, because Obama bombed many countries without Congressional authorization does that mean you support Trump starting a war with Iran or any other nation without first going to Congress? 

Normalizing Trump's behavior?  Sounds line Charlottesville.  Which president has traded our national security for PERSONAL gain?

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...