Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Definitions.

  1. #1
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Staten Island, NY USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,019

    Definitions.

    As the probability of a bill of impeachment being presented to the United States Senate increases, the senators are facing the challenge of defining what is and what is not an impeachable offense. The results of the impeachment of Mr. William Clinton resulted in the precedent-setting decision that dalliance by a sitting president with an aide is not an offense worthy of removal from office. Nor, for that matter, is lying to the Congress of the United States about sexual peccadilloes.

    This time, the senate will be able to consider such offenses as failing to turn over requested documents to Congress, instructing people not to obey Congressional subpoenas and withholding aid to a foreign government in order to gain their assistance in defeating a possible political opponent. All three will in all probability be added to the list of offenses not serious enough to force removal from office.

    How this will affect the functional limits of future presidents is an interesting subject for the hot stove league. [Ed.: Or, perhaps, among the readers of this post.]
    Last edited by Torus34; 11-12-19 at 11:45 AM.
    "And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche." Chaucer, the Canterbury Tales.

  2. #2
    Sage
    Moderate Right's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    39,419

    Re: Definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Torus34 View Post
    As the probability of a bill of impeachment being presented to the United States Senate increases, the senators are facing the challenge of defining what is and what is not an impeachable offense. The results of the impeachment of Mr. William Clinton resulted in the precedent-setting decision that dalliance by a sitting president with an aide is not an offense worthy of removal from office. Nor, for that matter, is lying to the Congress of the United States.

    This time, the senate will be able to consider such offenses as failing to turn over requested documents, instructing people not to obey Congressional subpoenas and withholding aid to a foreign government in order to gain their assistance in defeating a possible political opponent. All three will in all probability be added to the list of offenses not serious enough to force removal from office.

    How this will affect the functional limits of future presidents is an interesting subject for the hot stove league. [Ed.: Or, perhaps, among the readers of this post.]
    Other presidents have failed to turn over requested documents and instructed people not to obey Congressional subpoenas so the precedent as already been set on that. Many presidents have also temporarily halted foreign aid so that by itself is a nothingburger. The rest would have to be proven. Right now Democrats are connecting the dots the way they want to connect them.

  3. #3
    Advisor Yakshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Last Seen
    01-09-20 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    575

    Re: Definitions.

    The quid quo pro is an impeachable offense. Republicans will not impeach him for it.

    It isn't difficult. Republicans simply don't care.

  4. #4
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Staten Island, NY USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,019

    Re: Definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    Other presidents have failed to turn over requested documents and instructed people not to obey Congressional subpoenas so the precedent as already been set on that. Many presidents have also temporarily halted foreign aid so that by itself is a nothingburger. The rest would have to be proven. Right now Democrats are connecting the dots the way they want to connect them.
    Hi! And, unless I'm very much mistaken, Republicans are also tracing lines from dot to dot. Still, whether things have been overlooked in the past or not, there's a certain seal of imprimatur placed upon an action when the Congress of the United States of America decides and through a vote confirms that it falls outside the limits of presidential removal from office.

    Regards.
    "And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche." Chaucer, the Canterbury Tales.

  5. #5
    Sage
    MrWonka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,569

    Re: Definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    Other presidents have failed to turn over requested documents and instructed people not to obey Congressional subpoenas
    Citation needed.

    Executive Privileged has been used in some cases, but to my knowledge that has never happened in an impeachment investigation where the President himself is being investigated for a serious crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    Many presidents have also temporarily halted foreign aid so that by itself is a nothingburger. The rest would have to be proven.
    Basically every witness who has knowledge of the event has testified under oath that there was in fact a quid pro quo.

    Furthermore, I fully expect that when they take the step of moving forward with impeachment they will include articles of impeachment for everything found under the Mueller investigation as well. That will likely produce at least 10 additional charges.
    Obstruction of Justice also applies to overt coercion of court or government officials via the means of threats or actual physical harm and also applying to deliberate sedition against a court official to undermine the appearance of legitimate authority.

  6. #6
    Visual Opportunist
    Tanngrisnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    No longer Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,233

    Re: Definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    Other presidents have failed to turn over requested documents and instructed people not to obey Congressional subpoenas so the precedent as already been set on that. Many presidents have also temporarily halted foreign aid so that by itself is a nothingburger. The rest would have to be proven. Right now Democrats are connecting the dots the way they want to connect them.
    Except, of course, for the pesky little fact that twump pushed public power and money for private gain, which itself is a serious crime. And he's admitted to having done so. On camera.

    That you can't accept that simple fact won't make it go away.
    Well, he see this one particularly hot chick and not does she bag he slackjawed, but he lets a "Whoa" slip out

  7. #7
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    56,099

    Re: Definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Torus34 View Post
    As the probability of a bill of impeachment being presented to the United States Senate increases, the senators are facing the challenge of defining what is and what is not an impeachable offense. The results of the impeachment of Mr. William Clinton resulted in the precedent-setting decision that dalliance by a sitting president with an aide is not an offense worthy of removal from office. Nor, for that matter, is lying to the Congress of the United States about sexual peccadilloes.

    This time, the senate will be able to consider such offenses as failing to turn over requested documents to Congress, instructing people not to obey Congressional subpoenas and withholding aid to a foreign government in order to gain their assistance in defeating a possible political opponent. All three will in all probability be added to the list of offenses not serious enough to force removal from office.

    How this will affect the functional limits of future presidents is an interesting subject for the hot stove league. [Ed.: Or, perhaps, among the readers of this post.]
    IMHO, far too much fuss is being made about that (bolded above) motive alone. The fact that politicians do and say things purely for political gain is a given - see this House impeachment "inquiry" process.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #8
    Sage
    Moderate Right's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    39,419

    Re: Definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWonka View Post
    Citation needed.

    Executive Privileged has been used in some cases, but to my knowledge that has never happened in an impeachment investigation where the President himself is being investigated for a serious crime.


    Basically every witness who has knowledge of the event has testified under oath that there was in fact a quid pro quo.

    Furthermore, I fully expect that when they take the step of moving forward with impeachment they will include articles of impeachment for everything found under the Mueller investigation as well. That will likely produce at least 10 additional charges.
    They testified that it was their opinion that it was a quid pro quo.

  9. #9
    Sage
    Moderate Right's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    39,419

    Re: Definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir View Post
    Except, of course, for the pesky little fact that twump pushed public power and money for private gain, which itself is a serious crime. And he's admitted to having done so. On camera.

    That you can't accept that simple fact won't make it go away.
    How would it be private gain? That's not proven. If Ukraine had investigated Biden (which they didn't) they might have found the Bidens squeeky clean and did nothing wrong or illegal. Why do you just assume that dirt would have been found, thereby being a gain to Trump?

  10. #10
    Visual Opportunist
    Tanngrisnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    No longer Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,233

    Re: Definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    How would it be private gain? That's not proven. If Ukraine had investigated Biden (which they didn't) they might have found the Bidens squeeky clean and did nothing wrong or illegal. Why do you just assume that dirt would have been found, thereby being a gain to Trump?
    He's asking them to investigate his main political rival for his benefit. He's not asking them to investigate any other 'corruption'. There is no credible evidence, whatsoever, of any corruption on his part and he was cleared earlier by Ukraine.

    This is so obvious that it's embarrassing for you to cling to it.

    And you don't even know it.
    Well, he see this one particularly hot chick and not does she bag he slackjawed, but he lets a "Whoa" slip out

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •