• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Impeach Trump or Not?

Luckyone said:
The Mueller investigation is now over and all the information about what Trump's administration did or did not do is now out in the open, at least as far as what Mueller was able to find and confirm.

Mueller was not able to find enough proof to indict more people but he also clearly stated that he was not able to find enough proof to exonerate Trump and those around him so that he could say they were "innocent of any wrongdoing" and he stated that it was now up to Congress to decide the next course of action.

Impeachment does not require proof of a crime being committed as a president can be impeached for simple things as abuse of power and improper conduct while in office. Nonetheless, it does require 60 votes in the Senate to impeach and given that the Democrats only have 47 seats, they need 13 Republicans to vote for impeachment in order for it to pass.

Given the amount of Republican support that Trump has gotten in the past, even in the face of principles once associated with Republicans being broken by Trump but not renounced by the Republican Senators now, It seems impossible that impeachment can occur.

By the same token, what the Democrats have to seriously consider is whether starting impeachment proceedings simply to bring everything out to the public light to prove what kind of person Trump is and those in his administration are, is worth the effort or not.

Evidently, Trump is not going to be impeached but will bringing the Mueller report and Trumps actions to light be of benefit to the 2020 election or detract from it?

As such, this is a thread addressed to the anti-Trumpers on this site in order to give your opinions on whether impeachment proceedings will be of benefit or not. I know what Trump supporters will say so I will likely ignore those posts unless they have something of value to say.

Here is what Pelosi says:



Elizabeth Warren is "for" impeachment:



Alan Deshowitz is "against" impeachment:



Where do you stand? Impeach or not?
Click to expand...

No on impeachment. This would only help Trump. We need to vote him out in 2020.
 
tres borrachos said:
Too bad Trump didn't deliver hope and change.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the stock market, unemploymnent reports, wage hikes, consumer optimism, job opening creation - to name just a few.

tres borrachos said:
I don't see any Dems making fools of themselves.
Click to expand...
That's because you're standing with them.

tres borrachos said:
And did you seriously post that given the fact that we have a toddler in the Oval Office making a fool out of himself every day?
Click to expand...
The people that are working and keeping more of their money and watching their retirement accounts grow don't give a ****.
 
Bullseye said:
Have you seen the stock market, unemploymnent reports, wage hikes, consumer optimism, job opening creation - to name just a few.

That's because you're standing with them.

The people that are working and keeping more of their money and watching their retirement accounts grow don't give a ****.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen all those things. Why do you ask?

I don't stand with the Dems. You're confusing me with lifelong Democrat Trump and his children the Democrats. I'm a registered Republican.

Yes, I know. The people keeping that extra $20 in their paychecks every 2 weeks are watching their retirement accounts grow. If they live to be 384, they can retire in comfort.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes, I've seen all those things. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
If you have to ask, I'm wasting my time. :roll:
tres borrachos said:
I don't stand with the Dems. You're confusing me with lifelong Democrat Trump and his children the Democrats. I'm a registered Republican.
Click to expand...
I didn't SAY you were a Dempcrat, but you're damn well standing with them.
tres borrachos said:
Yes, I know. The people keeping that extra $20 in their paychecks every 2 weeks are watching their retirement accounts grow. If they live to be 384, they can retire in comfort.
Click to expand...
And you say you're not a Democrat? You just channeled Pelosi's "crumbs" argument. Would you rather those people NOT get that extra $20 in their checkes and have to wait to retire until they're 413? Dude, quit kidding yourself, re-register as the Democrat you've become.
 
Luckyone said:
To begin with, Mueller was not a prosecutor, he was an investigator. It was not his position to judge the information but to give it to prosecutors where he believed there was enough to prosecute.

In addition, he was also faced with the fact that by law, he was told that the President could NOT be indicted under any condition,

It was not his position to say guilty or innocent. He did say clearly though, that the information he obtained did not absolve the President.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The term "special prosecutor" expired in 1999. I will leave it to you to guess why if you are old enough to recall what was happening at the time.

Mueller was a prosecutor running a team of especially partisan prosecutors.

Prosecutors normally speak through indictments.

Normal prosecutors will get disbarred for not indicting and smearing though innuendo later like through a "report".


Robert Mueller has assembled a team of 16 seasoned prosecutors
 
Bullseye said:
If you have to ask, I'm wasting my time. :roll:
I didn't SAY you were a Dempcrat, but you're damn well standing with them.
And you say you're not a Democrat? You just channeled Pelosi's "crumbs" argument. Would you rather those people NOT get that extra $20 in their checkes and have to wait to retire until they're 413? Dude, quit kidding yourself, re-register as the Democrat you've become.
Click to expand...

I don't stand with anyone. Don't lie.

No, I'm not a Democrat. I wonder how many times I need to say it before it sinks in the skull. Yes, they were crumbs. You pretend they weren't because Donald Jim Jones Trump won't allow you to say it.

I'm also not a "dude". That's why I have a female symbol for my gender.

Stop failing so much.
 
akyron said:
Incorrect. The term "special prosecutor" expired in 1999. I will leave it to you to guess why if you are old enough to recall what was happening at the time.

Mueller was a prosecutor running a team of prosecutors.

They normally speak through indictments.

Normal prosecutors will get disbarred for not indicting and smearing though innuendo later like through a "report".
Click to expand...

Can you post a link to show all these "normal" prosecutors getting disbarred for that?
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't stand with anyone. Don't lie.

No, I'm not a Democrat. I wonder how many times I need to say it before it sinks in the skull. Yes, they were crumbs. You pretend they weren't because Donald Jim Jones Trump won't allow you to say it.

I'm also not a "dude". That's why I have a female symbol for my gender.

Stop failing so much.
Click to expand...
You can fool yourself, but you're not fooling anyone else.
 
Luckyone said:
The Mueller investigation is now over and all the information about what Trump's administration did or did not do is now out in the open, at least as far as what Mueller was able to find and confirm.

Mueller was not able to find enough proof to indict more people but he also clearly stated that he was not able to find enough proof to exonerate Trump and those around him so that he could say they were "innocent of any wrongdoing" and he stated that it was now up to Congress to decide the next course of action.

Impeachment does not require proof of a crime being committed as a president can be impeached for simple things as abuse of power and improper conduct while in office. Nonetheless, it does require 60 votes in the Senate to impeach and given that the Democrats only have 47 seats, they need 13 Republicans to vote for impeachment in order for it to pass.

Given the amount of Republican support that Trump has gotten in the past, even in the face of principles once associated with Republicans being broken by Trump but not renounced by the Republican Senators now, It seems impossible that impeachment can occur.

By the same token, what the Democrats have to seriously consider is whether starting impeachment proceedings simply to bring everything out to the public light to prove what kind of person Trump is and those in his administration are, is worth the effort or not.

Evidently, Trump is not going to be impeached but will bringing the Mueller report and Trumps actions to light be of benefit to the 2020 election or detract from it?

As such, this is a thread addressed to the anti-Trumpers on this site in order to give your opinions on whether impeachment proceedings will be of benefit or not. I know what Trump supporters will say so I will likely ignore those posts unless they have something of value to say.

Here is what Pelosi says:



Elizabeth Warren is "for" impeachment:



Alan Deshowitz is "against" impeachment:



Where do you stand? Impeach or not?
Click to expand...

The Democratd lied to you about impeaching President Trump. How do feel about getting duped?
 
Captain America said:
I say wait it out. In 2020, when we kick him to the curb, he can no longer hide behind his position or the statute of limitations. (And his bone spurs aren't going to protect him either. LOL!) Justice awaits. Be patient.

Trump could rape a baby and the GOP senate would still circle the wagons around him. So what's the point?

Just vote.
Click to expand...

He could cure cancer and you would defend cancer.
 
tres borrachos said:
Can you post a link to show all these "normal" prosecutors getting disbarred for that?
Click to expand...

"Former prosecutor's disbarment for anonymous online posts is lesson for other lawyers, court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Posted December 10, 2018, 7:25 am CST

A former federal prosecutor has been disbarred for posting anonymous online comments about cases being handled by himself or by his office.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of Sal Perricone in a Dec. 5 decision noted by the Legal Profession Blog.

The court said Perricone had violated ethics rules regarding conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and then cited his case as a lesson for other lawyers.

Perricone’s “caustic, extrajudicial comments about pending cases strikes at the heart of the neutral dispassionate control which is the foundation of our system,” the court said. “Our decision today must send a strong message to [Perricone] and to all the members of the bar that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are not diminished by the mask of anonymity provided by the internet.”

In the interests of education I will help you this time but you really should learn to research a little.

Knowledge is power.

There are quite a few low hanging fruit examples if one is curious about such things.
 
akyron said:
"Former prosecutor's disbarment for anonymous online posts is lesson for other lawyers, court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Posted December 10, 2018, 7:25 am CST

A former federal prosecutor has been disbarred for posting anonymous online comments about cases being handled by himself or by his office.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of Sal Perricone in a Dec. 5 decision noted by the Legal Profession Blog.

The court said Perricone had violated ethics rules regarding conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and then cited his case as a lesson for other lawyers.

Perricone’s “caustic, extrajudicial comments about pending cases strikes at the heart of the neutral dispassionate control which is the foundation of our system,” the court said. “Our decision today must send a strong message to [Perricone] and to all the members of the bar that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are not diminished by the mask of anonymity provided by the internet.”

In the interests of education I will help you this time but you really should learn to research a little.

Knowledge is power.
Click to expand...

So that's one person and it had to do with posting anonymous online comments about pending cases. Pending. Not closed cases. Discussing pending cases you are handling is an ethic violation.

So please provide an example of a "normal" prosecutor getting disbarred for not indicting and smearing though innuendo later like through a "report".
 
tres borrachos said:
So that's one person and it had to do with posting anonymous online comments about pending cases. Pending. Not closed cases. Discussing pending cases you are handling is an ethic violation.

So please provide an example of a "normal" prosecutor getting disbarred for not indicting and smearing though innuendo later like through a "report".
Click to expand...

Do not hurt yourself carrying those goalposts. Google is your friend.

And besides, perhaps you were asleep the last few years but there were MANY leaks reported by the media about a certain PENDING case.....

Dont box yourself in.
 
akyron said:
Do not hurt yourself carrying those goalposts. Google is your friend.

And besides, perhaps you were asleep the last few years but there were MANY leaks reported by the media about a certain PENDING case.....

Dont box yourself in.
Click to expand...

There is no goalpost. Anyone with a brain knows that lawyers are not authorized to discuss their pending cases. So your example wasn't an example at all.

You can't show a single example of a lawyer getting disbarred for not indicting and then "smearing" through innuendo later, like a report. That's a fact.
 
tres borrachos said:
You can't show a single example of a lawyer getting disbarred for not indicting and then "smearing" through innuendo later, like a report. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point for me. There is a reason this behavior is prohibitive.

"The court said Perricone had violated ethics rules regarding conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and then cited his case as a lesson for other lawyers.

Perricone’s “caustic, extrajudicial comments about pending cases strikes at the heart of the neutral dispassionate control which is the foundation of our system,” the court said. “Our decision today must send a strong message to [Perricone] and to all the members of the bar that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are not diminished by the mask of anonymity provided by the internet.”"

Miami Beach attorney faces disbarment over 'bad faith, annoying, abusive litigation tactics'

Apparently the bar is not that high. "Annoying" legal tactics are enough.

No wonder Wiseman has been in hiding.

Miami Foreclosure Lawyer Disbarred After He and Lover Move Into Client's House

Ouch!
 
akyron said:
Thank you for proving my point for me. There is a reason this behavior is prohibitive.

"The court said Perricone had violated ethics rules regarding conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and then cited his case as a lesson for other lawyers.

Perricone’s “caustic, extrajudicial comments about pending cases strikes at the heart of the neutral dispassionate control which is the foundation of our system,” the court said. “Our decision today must send a strong message to [Perricone] and to all the members of the bar that a lawyer’s ethical obligations are not diminished by the mask of anonymity provided by the internet.”"

Miami Beach attorney faces disbarment over 'bad faith, annoying, abusive litigation tactics'

Apparently the bar is not that high. "Annoying" legal tactics are enough.

No wonder Wiseman has been in hiding.
Click to expand...

You didn't prove your point. I'm waiting for you to do that.

You need to back your claim up. What prosecutors have been disbarred for not indicting and then smearing through innuendo, like a report? That was your claim. Nobody said anything about anonymity.
 
tres borrachos said:
You didn't prove your point. I'm waiting for you to do that.

You need to back your claim up. What prosecutors have been disbarred for not indicting and then smearing through innuendo, like a report? That was your claim. Nobody said anything about anonymity.
Click to expand...

Uhh the first post...Not charging but posting comments online about his cases. That dude is disbarred. Why?

That is unethical unchallenged "reports" untested in court.

Lets see if you like being in a room with a team of prosecutors and a grand jury with no defense lawyer......

The sheriff closes the door and guards it.

This is why the prosecutors charge or they do not charge.

They write no reports afterwards on all the he said/she said in between.....


Prosecutor in Duke Case Is Disbarred for Ethics Breaches

"a disciplinary hearing panel found Michael B. Nifong, the Durham County district attorney, guilty today of ethical violations while pressing a false accusation of sexual assault against three former Duke University lacrosse players. The panel then ruled that Mr. Nifong should be disbarred.
"They were accused by a stripper the team had hired for a party on March 13. Mr. Nifong said her accusation and identification were the main reasons he filed the case. He said most police officers and the sexual assault nurse believed the woman, but there was no other evidence. Mr. Nifong says he agreed with the attorney general’s decision to drop the case."

This guy smeared them in the media and had no case...

"But the ruling was almost an anticlimax to the case because in the penalty phase of the five-day ethics hearing, David Freedman, one of Mr. Nifong’s lawyers, told the panel that Mr. Nifong believed that disbarment was “the appropriate punishment in this case.” The state also said it felt disbarment was appropriate."
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
Uhh the first post...Not charging but posting comments online about his cases. That dude is disbarred. Why?

That is unethical unchallenged "reports" untested in court.

Lets see if you like being in a room with a team of prosecutors and a grand jury with no defense lawyer......

The sheriff closes the door and guards it.

This is why the prosecutors charge or they do not charge.
Click to expand...


So you can't post a single example to back u your claim?
 
apdst said:
He could cure cancer and you would defend cancer.
Click to expand...

LOL!

I used to say the same thing about you guys and Obama.

That's my line.

You really should try to be original now and again.
 
akyron said:
Twice now. Added a famous one you might recognize.

Pace University - The Prosecutors Duty of Silence
Click to expand...

Where in that article does it talk about a prosecutor being disbarred for not indicting and then spreading innuendo through a report? Nowhere. That article talks about prosecutors' words to the media and so on. It doesn't talk about a specific attorney getting disbarred for what you claimed. And if you read the end of the article, it talks about a prosecutor's words prejudicing the case. Your article talks about an ongoing case. You were referring to a case that had already been settled (no indictments) and then the prosecutor smearing the person through innuendo via a report.

Can you please back up what you claimed?
 
tres borrachos said:
Can you please back up what you claimed?
Click to expand...

Done. Twice now. I cant help you if you insist on clutching an intellectually dishonest argument. I place no blame upon you though.
A pervasive lack of honest analysis for the last 2 plus years will wear on anyone.

First one was disbarred for disseminating information publicly and anonymously about a case.

2nd one was disbarred for disseminating information publicly and smearing the defendants reputations in an unwarranted fashion with proven lies about a case.

The prosecutors team currently not getting disbarred does both arguably before, during, and after.

There is a reason prosecutors legally speak in indictments.
 
akyron said:
Done. Twice now. I cant help you if you insist on clutching an intellectually dishonest argument. I place no blame upon you though.
A pervasive lack of honest analysis for the last 2 plus years will wear on anyone.

First one was disbarred for disseminating information publicly and anonymously about a case.

2nd one was disbarred for disseminating information publicly and smearing the defendants reputations in an unwarranted fashion with proven lies about a case.

The prosecutors team currently not getting disbarred does both arguably before, during, and after.

There is a reason prosecutors legally speak in indictments.
Click to expand...

What were these prosecutors' names? That article didn't mention one.

You have yet to prove your case that prosecutors don't indict (you are talking about cases that are pending, not open) and being disbarred for spreading innuendo via a report. Just show me all of these examples. You have not done that.

And why are you going on about the last 2 years? We are talking about this issue today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom