M
mrad25
Guest
Show me the statute, won’t hold my breath. There is none. Independent group means nothing.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Want to speak with?
M
mrad25
Guest
US Citzen, US tax payers money. Is there another company with those two factors who need to be investigated in Ukraine. Names please.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Ask Trump. My intent is meaningless. Trump asked for one with his opponents son. Thats a coincidence, like winning thr lottery. Twice.
Anyway, Trump apparently denied it.
Bolton is a disgruntled fired ex employee trying to sell a book. Lol.
What names will Bolton have placed by Trump?
I suspect a Lying will be added to fired and disgruntled
Anyway, Trump apparently denied it.
Bolton is a disgruntled fired ex employee trying to sell a book. Lol.
What names will Bolton have placed by Trump?
I suspect a Lying will be added to fired and disgruntled
Last edited:
M
mrad25
Guest
Dershotwitz nails the Constitutional standard and history regarding impeachment. Looking forward to more today. Simply boils down to this.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Problem is he nailed it twice. Depending on who he advocates for
M
mrad25
Guest
He nailed the Constitutional requirement for impeachment with something called facts. It seems to me you want to attack him for his view now because it’s throws the entire Democrats case for impeachment out the window and doing so shows one’s attack is weak and void of anything substantive. And as he stated, maybe you didn’t listen to the video: There is no inconsistency between what I said during the Clinton impeachment and what I am saying now. I said then that there doesn’t have to be a “technical“ crime. I have said now there must be “criminal-like” conduct, or conduct “akin to treason and bribery.” To the extent there are inconsistencies between my current position and what I said 22 years ago, I am correct today. During the Clinton impeachment, the issue was not whether a technical crime was required, because he was charged with perjury. So I have now thoroughly researched the issue and concluded that although a technical crime with all the elements may not be required, criminal like behavior akin to treason and bribery is required.To the extent therefore that my 1998 off-the-cuff interview statement suggested the opposite, I retract it. Scholars learn to adapt and even change old views as they do more research, seems that a difficult concept for some to understand…Problem is he nailed it twice. Depending on who he advocates for
Last edited:
P
petra22
Guest
Last night after your comments about Bill and Hilary… I wrote some remarks that I had read about them in the news. They were factual as far as I know but they weren’t charitable so I deleted them. It occurred to me that a lot of bantering that goes on in this thread repeats one side or the other like it is all gospel truth. Unless we have first hand knowledge of the left or the right and then we choose a side and repeat that side’s comments, we are being uncharitable and will be held responsible when we are called up to meet our maker… I’m going to be more charitable from now on. Kobe died in a terrible accident. It could happen to us at any moment. I pray that we are all ready… best wishes…
M
Maximus1
Guest
His opinion is his opinion. Perjury, lying about a consensual sexual encounter, was not akin to Treason or bribery, yet all of these Senators said it was Impeachable.
Second, he has specifically avoided reference to any of the facts in this case. HIS OWN CHOICE. So, his opinion is limited to a strict fact free reading of the Constitution.
Third, the Bolton proffer throws the factual record into flux. If true, the factual record changes considerably.
Using allocated funds to extort a foreign leader to investigate a private citizen/ political opponent is prooven. The crime becomes extortion to invite foreign leadership to influence an election is precisely the type of high crime mentioned in the Federalist papers.
Next, there are more Harvard professors who have written just what I cite from the Federalist papers than this one outlyer. An outlyer that in the 1990s agreed with his fellow Harvard faculty.
It is a LEGAL QUESTION. Normally determined by Judges. In this case Senators likely on partisan votes.
The problem remains completion of the factual record.
Will they decide it OK for a president to use 350+ millions of dollars of bi- partisan military aid illegally as an extortion device, to force an investigation of " Democrats for election personal benefit. A nation at War, whose budget trying to keep their country from being invaded and taken away, is 10% what we provide. A nation we committed to when we got them to agree to hand over enough nukes to destroy the major cities of the world in exchange for our commitment.
We will see.
Second, he has specifically avoided reference to any of the facts in this case. HIS OWN CHOICE. So, his opinion is limited to a strict fact free reading of the Constitution.
Third, the Bolton proffer throws the factual record into flux. If true, the factual record changes considerably.
Using allocated funds to extort a foreign leader to investigate a private citizen/ political opponent is prooven. The crime becomes extortion to invite foreign leadership to influence an election is precisely the type of high crime mentioned in the Federalist papers.
Next, there are more Harvard professors who have written just what I cite from the Federalist papers than this one outlyer. An outlyer that in the 1990s agreed with his fellow Harvard faculty.
It is a LEGAL QUESTION. Normally determined by Judges. In this case Senators likely on partisan votes.
The problem remains completion of the factual record.
Will they decide it OK for a president to use 350+ millions of dollars of bi- partisan military aid illegally as an extortion device, to force an investigation of " Democrats for election personal benefit. A nation at War, whose budget trying to keep their country from being invaded and taken away, is 10% what we provide. A nation we committed to when we got them to agree to hand over enough nukes to destroy the major cities of the world in exchange for our commitment.
We will see.
D
drcube
Guest
So, call their bluff and let them call witnesses. You should call your Senator and tell them to allow witnesses.The first rule of trial attorneys is to avoid unpredictable witnesses.
I don’t see the defense wanting witnesses unless the defense felt desperate.
I don’t think this defense is feeling desperate.
M
mrad25
Guest
Yes his opinion is his opinion just like everyone else’s opinion. But it was also the opinion of most of the Founders of the Constitution, as well as Supreme Court Justices Benjamin Curtis during Andrew Johnson’s impeachment and what the Constitution says. I think there were 12 actual crimes in Clinton’s impeachment he was charged with, yes perjury being one as well as Obstruction of Justice. He was acquitted as well, I’m sure you remember why.
If you listed to his interview with Chris Wallace he explains exactly the history of the Constitution, the debate between Mason and Madison as well as impeachment history and what a SC justice said regarding impeachment. Those are facts.
Bolton’s charge is irrelevant, has not changed the facts of anything. We haven’t even heard what he has to say and to assume what he is saying off an unpublished draft of his book is absurd.
What you claim or others doesn’t matter what matters is what the House Managers have impeached Trump on. You can throw out any other crime you’d like or accusation but it’s irrelevant. Trump is on trial for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress, two non-crimes.
Trump gave Ukraine lethal aid. Obama refused to give lethal aid to Ukraine. So this argument that delaying Ukraine military aid, even for a moment , and endangered lives is and was a tremendous blow to national security…is wrong and total hypocrisy. If there is a such a compelling national security interest to give military aid, then what do these House Democrats have to say about the years that Obama refused to give lethal military aid to Ukraine? Instead they sent blankets and MREs. On the other hand the Trump Administration has given Javelin missiles that can take out Russian tanks. So if the House Managers argument is right, I guess the consequence is that, under their argument, maybe they should have impeached Obama if not giving military aid to Ukraine was a deep threat to the US national security.
If you listed to his interview with Chris Wallace he explains exactly the history of the Constitution, the debate between Mason and Madison as well as impeachment history and what a SC justice said regarding impeachment. Those are facts.
Bolton’s charge is irrelevant, has not changed the facts of anything. We haven’t even heard what he has to say and to assume what he is saying off an unpublished draft of his book is absurd.
What you claim or others doesn’t matter what matters is what the House Managers have impeached Trump on. You can throw out any other crime you’d like or accusation but it’s irrelevant. Trump is on trial for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress, two non-crimes.
Trump gave Ukraine lethal aid. Obama refused to give lethal aid to Ukraine. So this argument that delaying Ukraine military aid, even for a moment , and endangered lives is and was a tremendous blow to national security…is wrong and total hypocrisy. If there is a such a compelling national security interest to give military aid, then what do these House Democrats have to say about the years that Obama refused to give lethal military aid to Ukraine? Instead they sent blankets and MREs. On the other hand the Trump Administration has given Javelin missiles that can take out Russian tanks. So if the House Managers argument is right, I guess the consequence is that, under their argument, maybe they should have impeached Obama if not giving military aid to Ukraine was a deep threat to the US national security.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
I wouldn’t beat yourself up. The Clinton’s are people. In politics, that clearly gets lost as we dehumanize. I do it myself and shouldn’t.
My arguments with respect to Trump should not focus on his personal failings where they do not reflect on his leadership and character to lead.
Frankly, his wives and dalliances are flaws, and I do not equate them to national danger where I do have an interest.
My arguments involving Trump I try to limit to those things that flat out scare me.
They are:
His clear statement that he has never done anything in 70+ years he needs to ask God’s forgiveness for. He is Christian and believes in God. His statement tells me that he likely has a radical view of right and wrong. A belief that his wrongs( we all have wrongs) don’t count for him. Specifically, things obviously wrong, like adultery( AN EXAMPLE I am aware of) he thinks is not wrong. You don’t need that example. We know as Catholics that we all have many sins over a life. We have reconciliation as a Sacrament dedicated to a reality and necessity. His statement, in my opinion, sounds almost sociopathic, based on my understanding of the Confessional and it’s necessity. If anything, we Catholics worry about our state of Grace " between " our visits. So my faith makes me sensitive to a self evaluation in NEVER NEEDING TO ASK. FRANKLY, I NEVER HEARD THAT FROM ANOTHER CHRISTIAN IN MY LIFE. THIS is not an attack on a weakness or sin. It is a mindset he volunteers. In selecting a president it makes him unfit and dangerous in my mind. We pray that in private life he learns to distinguish right from wrong as a Christian does, since he is Christian. In private life the potential harm is not a national one, or even international. We self govern unlike the nation’s in the Bible. So our obligation is different.
In terms of this case, it BEGINS on the heels of Russia ending. After the nation going through Mueller, THE NEXT DAY, he goes gangbusters without consideration of us engaging in this Impeachment. That trait of his personality makes him dangerous to the Republic. Again, not judging him as a man, just his suitability to have so much power and the potential endangerment of people.
The Clinton issues were personal flaws. They were not using his office to break down our Republic. That would have clearly resulted in his ouster. And should.
If Trump’s issues were simply engaging in malfeasance, or misfeasance, you have to wait for another election to remove him. But if the conduct is precisely to prevent an election that is fair, you have to consider a remedy that prevents the unfair election.
The fact he just did it after Mueller, means he will not fly right on his own.
As a Catholic, I think we have an obligation to pick a fit leader from the perspective of upholding the laws that maintain the Constitution. THIS IS OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEiGENCE. PERSONALLY, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so my obligation as a Catholic American is greater. You literally make the Holy Spirit a liar under THE CCC when you violate an oath.
My arguments with respect to Trump should not focus on his personal failings where they do not reflect on his leadership and character to lead.
Frankly, his wives and dalliances are flaws, and I do not equate them to national danger where I do have an interest.
My arguments involving Trump I try to limit to those things that flat out scare me.
They are:
His clear statement that he has never done anything in 70+ years he needs to ask God’s forgiveness for. He is Christian and believes in God. His statement tells me that he likely has a radical view of right and wrong. A belief that his wrongs( we all have wrongs) don’t count for him. Specifically, things obviously wrong, like adultery( AN EXAMPLE I am aware of) he thinks is not wrong. You don’t need that example. We know as Catholics that we all have many sins over a life. We have reconciliation as a Sacrament dedicated to a reality and necessity. His statement, in my opinion, sounds almost sociopathic, based on my understanding of the Confessional and it’s necessity. If anything, we Catholics worry about our state of Grace " between " our visits. So my faith makes me sensitive to a self evaluation in NEVER NEEDING TO ASK. FRANKLY, I NEVER HEARD THAT FROM ANOTHER CHRISTIAN IN MY LIFE. THIS is not an attack on a weakness or sin. It is a mindset he volunteers. In selecting a president it makes him unfit and dangerous in my mind. We pray that in private life he learns to distinguish right from wrong as a Christian does, since he is Christian. In private life the potential harm is not a national one, or even international. We self govern unlike the nation’s in the Bible. So our obligation is different.
In terms of this case, it BEGINS on the heels of Russia ending. After the nation going through Mueller, THE NEXT DAY, he goes gangbusters without consideration of us engaging in this Impeachment. That trait of his personality makes him dangerous to the Republic. Again, not judging him as a man, just his suitability to have so much power and the potential endangerment of people.
The Clinton issues were personal flaws. They were not using his office to break down our Republic. That would have clearly resulted in his ouster. And should.
If Trump’s issues were simply engaging in malfeasance, or misfeasance, you have to wait for another election to remove him. But if the conduct is precisely to prevent an election that is fair, you have to consider a remedy that prevents the unfair election.
The fact he just did it after Mueller, means he will not fly right on his own.
As a Catholic, I think we have an obligation to pick a fit leader from the perspective of upholding the laws that maintain the Constitution. THIS IS OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEiGENCE. PERSONALLY, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so my obligation as a Catholic American is greater. You literally make the Holy Spirit a liar under THE CCC when you violate an oath.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
His idea is an outlier. What Constitutional scholars are endorsing this desperate view?He nailed the Constitutional requirement for impeachment
Apart from undercutting Trump’s defense massively.Bolton’s charge is irrelevant,
And for those who think the Presidents can do whatever they want: the response from the POTUS makers it clear that he realizes that Bolton’s testimony is relevant and damaging.
How lucky we are to get this information, before the Republicans rushed to conclude the cover-up.
Good thing Nancy held off a bit.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Your focus on Obama is policy. And is framed incorrectly. Congress allocated per the Constitution( we don’t have a king). The circumstances then were then and they sre what they are now. A bit partisan Congress allocated and he signs off. Same for Obama.
I wrote about the interview I watched live. These very Republicans passed and voted on an obstruction charge.
And
Clinton fully cooperated and testified while this president used tactics that defeats the remedy of impeachment.
The example used is ACTUAL. McGANN.
There is a lower court ruling already that the absolute privilege was bogus. It is in the circuit court of Appeals, then likely to SCOTUS. THATS over a year more time.
Assuming SCOTUS UPHOLDS THE TRIAL COURT THEY REMAND.
THEN MCGANN sits for depo or perhaps doesn’t. If he sits questions are asked. They intend not to answer those in the future. A record will be made of objections and it has a few more years churning the SCOTUS.
TWO TERMS passing before you get an answer means Trump has found a way to eliminate the remedy known as IMPEACHMENT. THE FOUNDERS NEVER expected scoundrel.
So comparing Clinton and Trump is apples and oranges.
Bolton short circuits Trump’s plan. The Senate can complete the record because Bolton decided a different path than McGann.
Johnson involved a statute real to his domestic conduct. Trump’s conduct if you accept the Bolton proffer is precisely the type of crime the founders worried about.
The position that a President can extort a foreign let to investigate a political rival and HIS PARTY, because it is OK is untenable.
I wrote about the interview I watched live. These very Republicans passed and voted on an obstruction charge.
And
Clinton fully cooperated and testified while this president used tactics that defeats the remedy of impeachment.
The example used is ACTUAL. McGANN.
There is a lower court ruling already that the absolute privilege was bogus. It is in the circuit court of Appeals, then likely to SCOTUS. THATS over a year more time.
Assuming SCOTUS UPHOLDS THE TRIAL COURT THEY REMAND.
THEN MCGANN sits for depo or perhaps doesn’t. If he sits questions are asked. They intend not to answer those in the future. A record will be made of objections and it has a few more years churning the SCOTUS.
TWO TERMS passing before you get an answer means Trump has found a way to eliminate the remedy known as IMPEACHMENT. THE FOUNDERS NEVER expected scoundrel.
So comparing Clinton and Trump is apples and oranges.
Bolton short circuits Trump’s plan. The Senate can complete the record because Bolton decided a different path than McGann.
Johnson involved a statute real to his domestic conduct. Trump’s conduct if you accept the Bolton proffer is precisely the type of crime the founders worried about.
The position that a President can extort a foreign let to investigate a political rival and HIS PARTY, because it is OK is untenable.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Bolton’s charge is irrelevant,Lucky? Since Bolton was not subpoenaed to testify, he took matters into his own hands, thus insuring his bombshell would force the issue. Something tells me he is waaaaay too anxious to spill his beans, especially with his book coming to print soon.How lucky we are to get this information, before the Republicans rushed to conclude the cover-up.
As for witnesses, why won’t Shiff release the transcript of the 18th witness?
“The House managers kept putting up charts talking about the 17 witnesses,” Ratcliffe began. "But there were 18 … I was there. It’s the one transcript out of 18 that hasn’t been released. It’s a 179-page transcript … It’s the one transcript that talks about Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Now, everyone knows by now that Adam Schiff was not truthful about his contacts with the whistleblower. What they don’t know and what’s IN that transcript is that the whistleblower wasn’t truthful about his contacts with Adam Schiff.
M
Maximus1
Guest
That is precisely right. The President had the manuscript for 5 weeks. They intended to put on a fraud.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Not quite. They got it Dec 30. They had a 30 day review period with an embargo. There were rushing for a vote before the release.The President had the manuscript for 5 weeks.
M
Maximus1
Guest
How is that relevant when the testimony comes from other credible witnesess that represent the record.
The rules of evidence do not allow you to put on a witness just to impeach him. Who cares if someone who adds nothing is dishonest!
DID YOU KNOW THAT! Most lawyers dont. You only impeach him if he offers substantive evidence because it is the veracity of that evidence that is relevant to the trier of fact. ONE OF THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF A JURY IS TO DETERMINE VERACITY OF WITNESSES so as to determine the weight of the evidence they offer.
Another way to describe this is this.
There are lots of untruthful people. If the person has nothing substantive to add to the charges and facts, we don’t put on people just to show they can’t be believed.
The rules of evidence do not allow you to put on a witness just to impeach him. Who cares if someone who adds nothing is dishonest!
DID YOU KNOW THAT! Most lawyers dont. You only impeach him if he offers substantive evidence because it is the veracity of that evidence that is relevant to the trier of fact. ONE OF THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF A JURY IS TO DETERMINE VERACITY OF WITNESSES so as to determine the weight of the evidence they offer.
Another way to describe this is this.
There are lots of untruthful people. If the person has nothing substantive to add to the charges and facts, we don’t put on people just to show they can’t be believed.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
They were on notice is the point. And trying to prevail based on a deception. Got it. And
We were led to believe it was the State of the Union or Super Bowl. Boy they are subtle. Lol
We were led to believe it was the State of the Union or Super Bowl. Boy they are subtle. Lol
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.