Trump has been impeached - Page 28 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15060358
jimjam wrote:If Republicans took their Congressional Oath of Office seriously, they would have investigated Trump's violation of the Emoluments Clause and then taken the appropriate actions, depending on the results of the investigation.

After all, the Emoluments Clause is in the Constitution.

Republicans have refined the lack of curiosity about Trump's activities to a fine art.


I suppose the implied meaning here is that "the only appropriate action is to convict and remove at least Trump, and possibly the entirety of his administration".
#15060363
BigSteve wrote:I'm sure, in your head, that all makes sense.

It's no secret who the whistleblower is...


Let us take this one step at a time.

Is there evidence that this man is the whistleblower?

Yes or no?

BigSteve wrote:He doesn't need to exonerate himself. He doesn't need to provide witnesses who will say he's not guilty. He doesn't have to produce any evidence which demonstrates that.

It's pretty clear you have no clue how our justice system works...


A trial by senate is not a criminal proceeding done by the justice system. If it were, Trump would be looking at a much steeper sentence than merely being kicked out of the Oval Office. The Senate can, at worst, get rid of him and bar him from holding public office.
#15060365
Pants-of-dog wrote:Let us take this one step at a time.

Is there evidence that this man is the whistleblower?

Yes or no?


I accept that there is, seeing as damn near everyone and their mother knows the guy's been identified as the whistleblower.

But let's apply some Pants of Dog logic here: Let him be identified as the whistleblower and let him prove that he's not. If he can't prove that he's not, then we can conclude that he is...

A trial by senate is not a criminal proceeding done by the justice system.


True, but the basic principles remain.

A person cannot be charged with a crime and then be forced to prove those charges false. That's stupid...
#15060366
BigSteve wrote:He doesn't need to exonerate himself. He doesn't need to provide witnesses who will say he's not guilty. He doesn't have to produce any evidence which demonstrates that.

It's pretty clear you have no clue how our justice system works...

That is because they are liberals. They don't really believe in the Constitution or justice system. They always want to change something about it to fit whatever new permissive ideas they think up. You see it in abortion, same-sex marriage, open borders, giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants, abolishing ICE, and other crazy far-left ideas. We know that President Trump did nothing wrong with that call, even by bringing up the fact that what Joe Biden and his son did seemed pretty bad. The Democrats seem to me to be concerned about protecting Joe Biden, since he is their best hope to win the presidency for the Democrats.
#15060370
BigSteve wrote:I accept that there is, seeing as damn near everyone and their mother knows the guy's been identified as the whistleblower.


But you do not actually know if there is any evidence or not, do you?

But let's apply some Pants of Dog logic here: Let him be identified as the whistleblower and let him prove that he's not. If he can't prove that he's not, then we can conclude that he is...


Yes, that is the logic you seem to be using, and you seem to believe that it is bad logic. Excellent.

Do you think the whistleblower should be charged with a crime?

True, but the basic principles remain.

A person cannot be charged with a crime and then be forced to prove those charges false. That's stupid...


If the Senate does not use reasonable doubt as the standard of burden of proof, but instead merely looks at the preponderance of evidence, then all that the prosecution needs to do is have more evidence than Trump. And that would be easy to do if Trump brings no evidence to the table.
#15060371
Pants-of-dog wrote:Let us take this one step at a time.

Is there evidence that this man is the whistleblower?

Yes or no?

Yes

Pants-of-dog wrote:A trial by senate is not a criminal proceeding done by the justice system. If it were, Trump would be looking at a much steeper sentence than merely being kicked out of the Oval Office. The Senate can, at worst, get rid of him and bar him from holding public office.

Impeachment in the House of Representatives is not a criminal proceeding either. They are both political. There are no criminal charges alleged against President Trump, because even the Democrats know they can't prove a crime.
#15060372
Hindsite: "This political process outlined in the political document known as the Constitution is not a criminal trial."

Also Hindsite: "Donald Trump has not been charged with a crime because the Democrats are the real criminals."

Please drive slowly through this page, very smart children with giant brains are present.
#15060373
Pants-of-dog wrote:But you do not actually know if there is any evidence or not, do you?


Considering the fact that everyone seems to know who the fuck the guy is, I'll simply accept that there is evidence. The fact that I, personally, don't have said evidence is meaningless...

Yes, that is the logic you seem to be using, and you seem to believe that it is bad logic. Excellent.


Yes, your logic, which I applied, is faulty...

Do you think the whistleblower should be charged with a crime?


Perhaps.

If what he said to start this whole train rolling was false then, yeah, he should be...

If the Senate does not use reasonable doubt as the standard of burden of proof, but instead merely looks at the preponderance of evidence, then all that the prosecution needs to do is have more evidence than Trump. And that would be easy to do if Trump brings no evidence to the table.


The "evidence" which is provided by the prosecution must be compelling, even in the absence of evidence from the defense...
#15060376
BigSteve wrote:Considering the fact that everyone seems to know who the fuck the guy is, I'll simply accept that there is evidence. The fact that I, personally, don't have said evidence is meaningless...


A lack of evidence is meaningful in that it then makes no sense to believe the claim.

At a certain point in history, everyone seemed to know the Earth was flat. Just because “everyone knows” something is supposedly true does not mean that it actually is.



Perhaps.

If what he said to start this whole train rolling was false then, yeah, he should be...


Then you are accusing him of being guilty of a crime without any evidence that he is even the person you are looking for.

Also, everything that the whistleblower claimed has already been corroborated by other witnesses who are already testifying. So, what the whistleblower said was almost certainly not false.

The "evidence" which is provided by the prosecution must be compelling, even in the absence of evidence from the defense...


Not necessarily, no.

The Senate can basically decide for itself what burden of proof it wants. Which is good for those of you who uncritically support Trump no matter how much he threatens democracy.

They can simply decide on some unreasonable standard of evidence.
#15060403
Pants-of-dog wrote:A lack of evidence is meaningful in that it then makes no sense to believe the claim.

At a certain point in history, everyone seemed to know the Earth was flat. Just because “everyone knows” something is supposedly true does not mean that it actually is.


Interesting...

Then you are accusing him of being guilty of a crime without any evidence that he is even the person you are looking for.

Also, everything that the whistleblower claimed has already been corroborated by other witnesses who are already testifying. So, what the whistleblower said was almost certainly not false.


So, what about all the people who once said the world was flat? They were wrong, correct?

See, just because "everyone knows something" doesn't make it true...

The Senate can basically decide for itself what burden of proof it wants. Which is good for those of you who uncritically support Trump no matter how much he threatens democracy.

They can simply decide on some unreasonable standard of evidence.


Ain't life grand??
#15060420
I will not accept the impeachment proceedings as legitimate until Shifty Adam Shit formally apologizes for making fun of Daddy, who can do no wrong.

I have in my hand the names of every deep state actor who is also an Atlantean Extra Terrestrial that supports abortion.
#15060433
BigSteve wrote:Interesting...


Not really. An appeal to popularity is one of the more boring logical fallacies.

So, what about all the people who once said the world was flat? They were wrong, correct?

See, just because "everyone knows something" doesn't make it true...


That has nothing to do with my point that the whistleblower’s information has already been corroborated by others who are testifying, thereby negating the need to the whistleblower testify.

Ain't life grand??


That your politicians are so corrupt as to look the other way as your POTUS subverts democracy?

I am actually completely unsurprised.
#15060436
Pants-of-dog wrote:That has nothing to do with my point that the whistleblower’s information has already been corroborated by others who are testifying, thereby negating the need to the whistleblower testify.


It's not negated at all.

If someone says the earth is flat, is his opinion corroborated if 100 other people say the same thing?

Of course not.

Here's the thing: I can't imagine witnesses testifying if Ciaramella doesn't testify. Let's hold the democrats feet to the fire. If democrats want more witnesses, then the Republicans can get theirs. There's no way this should be easy for the democrats...

That your politicians are so corrupt as to look the other way as your POTUS subverts democracy?

I am actually completely unsurprised.


He's not subverting democracy at all. The one who are guilty of that are the ones who've spent the last three years trying to undue the lawful results of a fair election...
#15060439
BigSteve wrote:It's not negated at all.

If someone says the earth is flat, is his opinion corroborated if 100 other people say the same thing?

Of course not.


Explain how I committed an appeal to popularity.

Here's the thing: I can't imagine witnesses testifying if Ciaramella doesn't testify.


Your inability to imagine simple things is not an argument.

Let's hold the democrats feet to the fire. If democrats want more witnesses, then the Republicans can get theirs. There's no way this should be easy for the democrats...


Being a jerk to Democrats is not a good reason to summon a witness or endanger the role of the whistleblower.

He's not subverting democracy at all. The one who are guilty of that are the ones who've spent the last three years trying to undue the lawful results of a fair election...


This is called a tu quoque fallacy.

Trump is not magically right just because you think the Democrats are bad people.

It is possible that both parties are guilty.
By late
#15060442
BigSteve wrote:
1) It's not negated at all.


2) He's not subverting democracy at all.



1) You are correct, insofar as negated isn't the precise term to use. As a practical matter, with several witnesses more directly involved, it's completely superfluous. You want him as part of a smear campaign to try and create a false narrative; despite having several witnesses (including some of the Trump crowd) corroborating his testimony. Ironically, your side wants to keep most other witnesses and evidence out of the trial. Because it would prove the obvious, he's guilty as hell...

2) There's a boatload of experts who vehemently disagree. I'm going to be starting The Unmaking of the Presidency next week, it's on order. They are more conservative than Prof Tribe, but I like what I've seen in reviews and interviews.

Republicans have been subverting democracy since 1968.


https://www.amazon.com/Unmaking-Presidency-Donald-Trumps-Powerful/dp/0374175365
#15060451
@late said:

Republicans have been subverting democracy since 1968.


The Democrats have been lying and manipulating and being ruled by corrupt lobbyists for decades too and are horrible. Both parties suck.

I hope they kick Trumps ass to kingdom come but I also hope they get rid of the corrupt squishy middle of the liberals in the Demon party. It is time for the hard left and hard right to fight it out to the end....because the racist shit needs to be killed permanently for the USA. And the Republicans are weeding out anyone who is not some kind of freak of sellout corporate shit with racist assholes. That is all they will have left in the Republican party. And the only Leftist capable of kicking those repuke racists out are the far left. Those liberals with hidden racism and soft on capitalists won't do the job!
#15060454
Pants-of-dog wrote:Being a jerk to Democrats is not a good reason to summon a witness or endanger the role of the whistleblower.


Why would calling Ciaramella as a witness constitute being a jerk to democrats?

It's clear the last thing the left wants is for him to be put under oath. The question which needs to be answered is "Why?"
#15060464
BigSteve wrote:Why would calling Ciaramella as a witness constitute being a jerk to democrats?


That is the reason you gave: to put the Democrats’ proverbial feet in the fire. To not make it easy for them.

It's clear the last thing the left wants is for him to be put under oath. The question which needs to be answered is "Why?"


I already explained why several times.

Here it is again:

1. It exposes the whistleblower to reprisal.
2. Any evidence that the whistleblower might be able to give has already been provided by other non-anonymous sources.
3. There is no reason to provide Republicans with ammunition in their campaign to distract from Trump’s misdeeds and vilify the messenger.
#15060467
Pants-of-dog wrote:That is the reason you gave: to put the Democrats’ proverbial feet in the fire. To not make it easy for them.


Why should it be easy?

All I want is for it to be fair. If fair holding their feet to the fire, so be it...

I already explained why several times.

Here it is again:

1. It exposes the whistleblower to reprisal.


Hey, that ship has sailed. Everyone knows he's the whistleblower. Hell, if he'd provided evidence against one of the Clintons he'd have committed suicide by now. But if you don't want to believe he's the whistleblower because there's no "evidence", knock yourself out...

2. Any evidence that the whistleblower might be able to give has already been provided by other non-anonymous sources.


Well, then another source can't hurt. Swear him in...

3. There is no reason to provide Republicans with ammunition in their campaign to distract from Trump’s misdeeds and vilify the messenger.


I see.

So you're not interested in a fair proceeding.

You want the left to have all the power. Well, guess what? That's not happenin'...
  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 40

What are your views on their plans for building a[…]

Well first off we'll make absolutely no apologies[…]

With rent protections ending, and Republican Senat[…]

Obama was also responsible for hurricane Katrina, […]