My thoughts on impeachment

[flockofseagulls104]

As far as I can see, President Zelensky has not claimed he was extorted or bribed.

Victims of extortion have a tendency not to admit that, especially when the person doing the extorting remains in a position of power.

And again, it's not just Bob and I and Adam Schiff claiming that Trump has committed impeachable actions. A large number of legal experts have said the same thing (including a number of Republicans and other conservatives). Even if you can find one or two to support your point of view doesn't mean that there wasn't ample evidence presented in the impeachment proceedings and ample grounds for impeaching Trump.

When Rudy Giuliani and Sean Hannity are your legal experts, you've got a problem Flock.

The only question here is MOTIVE. Did he ask for investigations for 'dirt'. (BTW, for all the dems who said the word 'corruption' was never said, where was the word 'dirt' said?), did he ask for help in the ongoing investigations by Barr and Durham from a source that might have information we don't have? The only evidence that was allowed to be presented was supporting the former.

If you would leave out the extraneous bullshit from your posts, you might actually pass for a reasonable, albeit misinformed, person.

[Beebs52]

Really, where are the articles of impeachment for that? Who exactly is the accuser? Has anyone said they were extorted? Has anyone said they were bribed? As far as I can see, President Zelensky has not claimed he was extorted or bribed. Nor has anyone else. In fact, he has stated publicly that he wasn't bribed, extorted or even pressured. Do you know of anyone who has been? Doesn't there have to be an accuser or a victim when a crime is committed? Can you extort someone or bribe someone who says they weren't extorted or bribed? If so, can't anyone, even you, be accused of bribery and extortion of anyone else in the world?
So, taking this further, shouldn't we sanction Ukraine because their President has lied to us and the world?

Here's an expert with first hand knowledge who agrees with you, Flock

Putin says Trump was impeached for fabricated reasons

Sss, here are some of your friends in favor of impeachment
https://www.cpusa.org/article/statement ... -hearings/

[jarnon]

The only question here is MOTIVE. Did he ask for investigations for 'dirt'. (BTW, for all the dems who said the word 'corruption' was never said, where was the word 'dirt' said?), did he ask for help in the ongoing investigations by Barr and Durham from a source that might have information we don't have? The only evidence that was allowed to be presented was supporting the former.

Barr and Durham's investigations dealt with FBI errors, and possible political bias, in the Russia collusion investigations. But Trump mentioned Joe and Hunter Biden (whom even Barr can't find a cause to investigate) and Crowdsource (which has no basis in fact). So either Trump had political motives, or he actually believes the BS about corrupt Democrats that he hears from Giuliani and Fox News.

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm not going to argue this anymore. It's in the hands of the imbeciles we have elected to positions of power. They don't listen to me, they don't listen to you. The 'debates' (actually media circuses) they held proved they don't even listen to each other.
I have just stated my opinions, which are held by millions of other people, whether you agree with them or not. Regardless, this impeachment was not supported by even one member of the minority party. And I suspect it will be the same in the Senate. It is purely political, which is what the framers warned against, and even Ms. Pelosi was against just a few months ago. But I guess she's grown out of that.

One observation I have heard that I think is relevant. Nancy and her sycophants repeated many phrases yesterday as if they were coached. Nobody in the HOR came to congress to impeach the president, even though many of them said they would at the time. After she announced the vote, Nancy gave a look at her side of the aisle when someone started to clap. They were obviously coached as to what they should wear (black) and how they should act, not to mention what they should say (focus group tested) and how they should vote. They also, in such flowery terms, stated their love and reverence for the Constitution. But many of them, including Ms. Pelosi, represent 'sanctuary' cities or states. I will maybe believe Ms. Pelosi, et al, have a love for the Constitution when they denounce and condemn their support for sanctuary cities and states, which are CLEARLY unconstitutional. Until then, I believe they are very selective in their 'love' for the Constitution, and that THEY have already broken the 'solemn' oath they took.

[jarnon]

They also, in such flowery terms, stated their love and reverence for the Constitution. But many of them, including Ms. Pelosi, represent 'sanctuary' cities or states. I will maybe believe Ms. Pelosi, et al, have a love for the Constitution when they denounce and condemn their support for sanctuary cities and states, which are CLEARLY unconstitutional. Until then, I believe they are very selective in their 'love' for the Constitution, and that THEY have already broken the 'solemn' oath they took.

Actually, the 'sanctuary cities' doctrine is based on the Fourth Amendment and judicial decisions. (I expect SSS to chime in that the only amendment Flock knows is the Second). Also, more undocumented immigrants are victims of crime than criminals. In 'sanctuary cities,' they're not afraid to report crimes, so the culprits are caught before they attack citizens. That promotes 'law and order.'

[flockofseagulls104]

They also, in such flowery terms, stated their love and reverence for the Constitution. But many of them, including Ms. Pelosi, represent 'sanctuary' cities or states. I will maybe believe Ms. Pelosi, et al, have a love for the Constitution when they denounce and condemn their support for sanctuary cities and states, which are CLEARLY unconstitutional. Until then, I believe they are very selective in their 'love' for the Constitution, and that THEY have already broken the 'solemn' oath they took.

Actually, the 'sanctuary cities' doctrine is based on the Fourth Amendment and judicial decisions. (I expect SSS to chime in that the only amendment Flock knows is the Second). Also, more undocumented immigrants are victims of crime than criminals. In 'sanctuary cities,' they're not afraid to report crimes, so the culprits are caught before they attack citizens. That promotes 'law and order.'

Oh, are you joining the trolling now?
I see you've got the batphone up and working.

[Bob78164]

They also, in such flowery terms, stated their love and reverence for the Constitution. But many of them, including Ms. Pelosi, represent 'sanctuary' cities or states. I will maybe believe Ms. Pelosi, et al, have a love for the Constitution when they denounce and condemn their support for sanctuary cities and states, which are CLEARLY unconstitutional. Until then, I believe they are very selective in their 'love' for the Constitution, and that THEY have already broken the 'solemn' oath they took.

Actually, the 'sanctuary cities' doctrine is based on the Fourth Amendment and judicial decisions. (I expect SSS to chime in that the only amendment Flock knows is the Second). Also, more undocumented immigrants are victims of crime than criminals. In 'sanctuary cities,' they're not afraid to report crimes, so the culprits are caught before they attack citizens. That promotes 'law and order.'

Oh, are you joining the trolling now?
I see you've got the batphone up and working.

It's neither trolling nor the Batphone. It's the simple truth.

No wonder you don't recognize it. --Bob

[jarnon]

They also, in such flowery terms, stated their love and reverence for the Constitution. But many of them, including Ms. Pelosi, represent 'sanctuary' cities or states. I will maybe believe Ms. Pelosi, et al, have a love for the Constitution when they denounce and condemn their support for sanctuary cities and states, which are CLEARLY unconstitutional. Until then, I believe they are very selective in their 'love' for the Constitution, and that THEY have already broken the 'solemn' oath they took.

Actually, the 'sanctuary cities' doctrine is based on the Fourth Amendment and judicial decisions. (I expect SSS to chime in that the only amendment Flock knows is the Second). Also, more undocumented immigrants are victims of crime than criminals. In 'sanctuary cities,' they're not afraid to report crimes, so the culprits are caught before they attack citizens. That promotes 'law and order.'

Oh, are you joining the trolling now?
I see you've got the batphone up and working.

Sorry for channeling SSS. I don't mean it and won't make it a habit. But I have read a lot about 'sanctuary cities' (not just from the 'batphone').

[flockofseagulls104]

Actually, the 'sanctuary cities' doctrine is based on the Fourth Amendment and judicial decisions. (I expect SSS to chime in that the only amendment Flock knows is the Second). Also, more undocumented immigrants are victims of crime than criminals. In 'sanctuary cities,' they're not afraid to report crimes, so the culprits are caught before they attack citizens. That promotes 'law and order.'

Oh, are you joining the trolling now?
I see you've got the batphone up and working.

It's neither trolling nor the Batphone. It's the simple truth.

No wonder you don't recognize it. --Bob

bob-tel. It is not the simple truth. Many people have different viewpoints, opinions and perspectives. Anyone can cherry-pick facts to support their opinions. Just because you believe something does not make it the truth.

If you want a simple truth here's one. People who come to this country and stay here without going through the legal process of doing so have broken the law. They are NOT supposed to do that. They are Illegal Aliens. That is what is called a simple truth. The only way to change that is an amendment to the Constitution or some Federal legislation that is not likely to pass, much less be brought up right now. Can you not comprehend the difference?

[Bob78164]

Oh, are you joining the trolling now?
I see you've got the batphone up and working.

It's neither trolling nor the Batphone. It's the simple truth.

No wonder you don't recognize it. --Bob

bob-tel. It is not the simple truth. Many people have different viewpoints, opinions and perspectives. Anyone can cherry-pick facts to support their opinions. Just because you believe something does not make it the truth.

If you want a simple truth here's one. People who come to this country and stay here without going through the legal process of doing so have broken the law. They are NOT supposed to do that. They are Illegal Aliens. That is what is called a simple truth. The only way to change that is an amendment to the Constitution or some Federal legislation that is not likely to pass, much less be brought up right now. Can you not comprehend the difference?

Actually, you're wrong. Overstaying a visa is not a crime, and it's not a crime no matter how many people believe it is a crime. A simple truth that has been repeatedly explained to you, but one that you have consistently refused to comprehend.

And it's the same with Donny's acts of extortion or bribery. The facts are the facts no matter how obstinately you refuse to accept them. All your refusal does is emphasize the need to politically kneecap the Republican Party so that voters like you lose the ability to elect officials who will stand by while a demagogue drives our nation off a cliff. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

It's neither trolling nor the Batphone. It's the simple truth.

No wonder you don't recognize it. --Bob

bob-tel. It is not the simple truth. Many people have different viewpoints, opinions and perspectives. Anyone can cherry-pick facts to support their opinions. Just because you believe something does not make it the truth.

If you want a simple truth here's one. People who come to this country and stay here without going through the legal process of doing so have broken the law. They are NOT supposed to do that. They are Illegal Aliens. That is what is called a simple truth. The only way to change that is an amendment to the Constitution or some Federal legislation that is not likely to pass, much less be brought up right now. Can you not comprehend the difference?

Actually, you're wrong. Overstaying a visa is not a crime, and it's not a crime no matter how many people believe it is a crime. A simple truth that has been repeatedly explained to you, but one that you have consistently refused to comprehend.

And it's the same with Donny's acts of extortion or bribery. The facts are the facts no matter how obstinately you refuse to accept them. All your refusal does is emphasize the need to politically kneecap the Republican Party so that voters like you lose the ability to elect officials who will stand by while a demagogue drives our nation off a cliff. --Bob

What is overstaying a visa, if not a crime?
Like I said, I'm not going to argue this anymore, especially with people who don't understand the difference between an opionion and a fact

[silverscreenselect]

What is overstaying a visa, if not a crime?

It's a civil violation that can lead to administrative penalties (primarily having the visa revoked and barring the person from obtaining a new visa for a period of time). A crime is an offense that carries a possible prison sentence or fine, neither of which applies here.

As far as not knowing the difference between facts and opinions, take a good hard look in the mirror. You get your facts from right wing news, which also tells you what things to label as opinions you can dismiss.

[Beebs52]

What is overstaying a visa, if not a crime?

It's a civil violation that can lead to administrative penalties (primarily having the visa revoked and barring the person from obtaining a new visa for a period of time). A crime is an offense that carries a possible prison sentence or fine, neither of which applies here.

As far as not knowing the difference between facts and opinions, take a good hard look in the mirror. You get your facts from right wing news, which also tells you what things to label as opinions you can dismiss.

I'm confused. What about those with no visas and such...

[Bob78164]

What is overstaying a visa, if not a crime?

It's a civil violation that can lead to administrative penalties (primarily having the visa revoked and barring the person from obtaining a new visa for a period of time). A crime is an offense that carries a possible prison sentence or fine, neither of which applies here.

As far as not knowing the difference between facts and opinions, take a good hard look in the mirror. You get your facts from right wing news, which also tells you what things to label as opinions you can dismiss.

I'm confused. What about those with no visas and such...

It's also not a crime for someone to enter the country ANYWHERE (not necessarily at a Port of Entry), with or without a visa, in order to request refugee status. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

As far as I can see, President Zelensky has not claimed he was extorted or bribed.

Victims of extortion have a tendency not to admit that, especially when the person doing the extorting remains in a position of power.

And again, it's not just Bob and I and Adam Schiff claiming that Trump has committed impeachable actions. A large number of legal experts have said the same thing (including a number of Republicans and other conservatives). Even if you can find one or two to support your point of view doesn't mean that there wasn't ample evidence presented in the impeachment proceedings and ample grounds for impeaching Trump.

When Rudy Giuliani and Sean Hannity are your legal experts, you've got a problem Flock.

A large number of legal experts.
This shows exactly what is wrong. Less than a week ago, I posted an article by Alan Dershowitz, who is unarguably a legal expert, and has more credentials and experience than all three of Nadler's cherry picked 'experts' combined. He made several important points in that article.Now I don't agree with his politics and he mine. But that doesn't matter.
The point is that you did not read it. If you did, you did not understand it. If you did understand it you are just totally ignoring it. And you go back to "many legal experts" as a defense of your opinion, without even addressing any of the arguments made by Dershowitz.
That is what happened in the House. That's what those morons did for umpteen hours on our dime.
Nadler kept saying he hadn't heard any defense of the president's actions, only whining about process. He did the same thing as you did here after Collins and many others stated exactly what the facts were. I'm sure the repubs did the same thing with whatever valid points the dems might have made.
This is not debate. It's speech making and diversion. And the side with the most votes wins.

[Beebs52]

It's a civil violation that can lead to administrative penalties (primarily having the visa revoked and barring the person from obtaining a new visa for a period of time). A crime is an offense that carries a possible prison sentence or fine, neither of which applies here.

As far as not knowing the difference between facts and opinions, take a good hard look in the mirror. You get your facts from right wing news, which also tells you what things to label as opinions you can dismiss.

I'm confused. What about those with no visas and such...

It's also not a crime for someone to enter the country ANYWHERE (not necessarily at a Port of Entry), with or without a visa, in order to request refugee status. --Bob

Not talking about those who request refugee asylum.

[Bob78164]

I'm confused. What about those with no visas and such...

It's also not a crime for someone to enter the country ANYWHERE (not necessarily at a Port of Entry), with or without a visa, in order to request refugee status. --Bob

Not talking about those who request refugee asylum.

With that exception, it's a crime for anyone, including a citizen, to enter the United States other than at a Port of Entry. --Bob

[Estonut]

The only question here is MOTIVE. Did he ask for investigations for 'dirt'. (BTW, for all the dems who said the word 'corruption' was never said, where was the word 'dirt' said?), did he ask for help in the ongoing investigations by Barr and Durham from a source that might have information we don't have? The only evidence that was allowed to be presented was supporting the former.

Barr and Durham's investigations dealt with FBI errors, and possible political bias, in the Russia collusion investigations. But Trump mentioned Joe and Hunter Biden (whom even Barr can't find a cause to investigate) and Crowdsource (which has no basis in fact). So either Trump had political motives, or he actually believes the BS about corrupt Democrats that he hears from Giuliani and Fox News.

OK. Which is more likely, that he believed a BS story or that he actually feared running against Biden so much that he'd solicit help from a foreign agent in front of witnesses?

[Bob78164]

I have to say, I wasn't expecting this.

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

Christianity Today, the magazine founded by Billy Graham, has called for Donny's removal from office. --Bob

[Beebs52]

It's also not a crime for someone to enter the country ANYWHERE (not necessarily at a Port of Entry), with or without a visa, in order to request refugee status. --Bob

Not talking about those who request refugee asylum.

With that exception, it's a crime for anyone, including a citizen, to enter the United States other than at a Port of Entry. --Bob

And...?

[silverscreenselect]

And you go back to "many legal experts" as a defense of your opinion, without even addressing any of the arguments made by Dershowitz.
That is what happened in the House.

Dershowitz's point, and it's one in which he is in a distinct minority among legal scholars is that Trump did nothing that would constitute a "high crime and misdemeanor." He apparently defines that as some sort of serious crime that's laid out in a criminal code somewhere. Leaving aside the fact that obstruction of justice is criminalized in several places in the US Code, that overlooks the essence of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors," which was in fairly common usage back in the 1780s to describe abuses of office for personal gain.

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/hig ... anors.html

You are doing the same thing with Dershowitz's opinion as you are with the facts of this case, cherry-picking what to believe in based on what suits your preconceived beliefs and not on what the clear weight of the evidence, both fact and expert legal opinion, shows.

[Estonut]

And you go back to "many legal experts" as a defense of your opinion, without even addressing any of the arguments made by Dershowitz.
That is what happened in the House.

Dershowitz's point, and it's one in which he is in a distinct minority among legal scholars is that Trump did nothing that would constitute a "high crime and misdemeanor." He apparently defines that as some sort of serious crime that's laid out in a criminal code somewhere. Leaving aside the fact that obstruction of justice is criminalized in several places in the US Code, that overlooks the essence of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors," which was in fairly common usage back in the 1780s to describe abuses of office for personal gain.

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/hig ... anors.html

You are doing the same thing with Dershowitz's opinion as you are with the facts of this case, cherry-picking what to believe in based on what suits your preconceived beliefs and not on what the clear weight of the evidence, both fact and expert legal opinion, shows.

Says the guy who has to go back to 1386 Parliamentary Law to "prove" his point...

[Estonut]

My mistake. I thought that competent lawyers require proof. I still do. I also noticed you failed to cite what I asked for.

There was proof in the testimony of witnesses who heard the call and also had direct knowledge of the events that transpired before the call. And at least one of those witnesses testified that the "transcript" of the call was incomplete.

The evidence presented in the hearing would have been enough to get the case to any jury in this country.

Blah, blah, blah. If you're going to respond to questions posed to someone else, maybe you should answer the questions.

Where's the coercion?
Where's the "request to invent dirt?"

[Estonut]

I'll believe that when Donny's abuse of power to coerce a foreign government to invent dirt against a domestic political opponent ...

He did no such thing. The pertinent quotes that I see in the transcript are:

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.

and

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

If you are not imagining the coercion and request to invent dirt against an opponent, please cite where that was said, or even implied.

I'm not arguing one way or another, and I'm asking because I truly don't know, but do you know what the conversation was before the first quote above. The word "though" implies that it was in response to something said previously and that would clarify the context of the statement.

I got it from here.

[silverscreenselect]

Says the guy who has to go back to 1386 Parliamentary Law to "prove" his point...

What's at issue is the meaning of a phrase in the Constitution, which was drafted in the 1780s and used a phrase that had been in continuous use since 1386.

A lot of our constitutional rights derive from the Magna Carta, which is even older.