Impeachment in Wonderland - 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.
By late
#15060435
"The president’s lawyers have made the sweeping assertion that the articles of impeachment against President Trump must be dismissed because they fail to allege that he committed a crime — and are, therefore, as they said in a filing with the Senate, “constitutionally invalid on their face.”

"The argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable has died a thousand deaths in the writings of all the experts on the subject, but it staggers on like a vengeful zombie. In fact, there is no evidence that the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes.

On the contrary, with virtually no federal criminal law in place when the Constitution was written in 1787, any such understanding would have been inconceivable...The president is entitled to robust legal representation. But his lawyers should not be allowed to use bogus legal arguments to mislead the American public or the senators weighing his fate."

Alice in Wonderland is a searing satire about life in a decaying empire.

When things get crazy, it's often used as a sort of yardstick to measure against. This is one of those times.

When the Mad Queen says "off with their heads", she gets ignored. Same way Kelly and Mattis often did.

Back to impeachment, In the Clinton impeachment Dershowitz took a very strong position against presidential power. Starr took an even more extreme position. I'd say he wandered off the legal reservation into hack territory.

Both are now taking even more extreme positions in favor of essentially unlimited presidential power. Which is why the country's foremost expert on the Constitution thinks Chief Justice Roberts should rule those arguments as impermissible.

If you are wondering how and why Trump got into this incredibly awkward position, there are at least a couple reasons. The first is Trump's need for loyalty at all costs. But the second is because he has a reputation for not paying his bills. The real high powered lawyers expect to be paid.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/19/trumps-lawyers-shouldnt-be-allowed-use-bogus-legal-arguments-impeachment/
#15060453
I love waking up to your whinefests.

Here are some undeniable truths about this impeachment:

1 - Donald Trump will be acquitted by the Senate.
2 - Idiot libs will whine about the trial not being fair.
3 - Idiot libs will accuse Senate Republicans of violating their oath to be impartial.

Idiot libs will then start looking for something else to impeach him for. Maybe they can get him for not buttoning his suit jacket when he stands.

The idiot left is slobbering all over themselves when talking about how Trump will forever have an asterisk next to his name because he was impeached. Well, I'd submit that, with the exception of still being married to a traitorous hag, Bill Clinton's still doing pretty good, and Melania's a lot easier on the eyes.

What this has accomplished is this:

Trump's agenda successfully moved forward in the face of the Mueller investigation and the impeachment hearings. Unemployment is as record lows. The economy is on fire. The Dow Jones is closing in on 30,000 for the first time ever. Things are good in this country. The idiot left will do everything they can to divert credit from Trump, but the reality is that he's drivin' the bus, so he gets the credit.

For the democrats, all they've done for the last three years is try to get Trump impeached and removed from office. That's it. They've done nothing for the American people, and they're going to have to run on the fact that they've accomplished nothing. That's not going to play well with the electorate, so a Trump victory next November is all but guaranteed. Not only that, but a Republican who wants to continue Trump's policies into a new Presidency could easily ride on the coattails of what Trump's accomplished, giving us a minimum of 12 straight years of Republican leadership in the White House.

It's absolutely fascinating to think that the idiot left allowed themselves to be so overcome with hatred for Trump that they failed to actually serve the people who elected them to office.

And they're going to reap the unsavory rewards for having done that...
By late
#15060460
BigSteve wrote:

1) Things are good in this country.

2) For the democrats, all they've done for the last three years is try to get Trump impeached and removed from office. That's it.

3) ...so a Trump victory next November is all but guaranteed.

4) Not only that, but a Republican who wants to continue Trump's policies into a new Presidency could easily ride on the coattails of what Trump's accomplished, giving us a minimum of 12 straight years of Republican leadership in the White House.

5) And they're going to reap the unsavory rewards for having done that...



1) There are profound problems, some of which Trump has made worse.

2) The House has passed about 400 bills. The real story is that Republicans have given up on running the country, for the most part. They serve their masters.

3) It's going to be close. Trump will get 4 or 5 million fewer votes than the Dems, but could still win.

4) The midterms tell a different story.

5) It's true that voters don't like impeachment. It's also true that it was inevitable.

Btw, you're whining about whining, very meta...
By late
#15060475
BigSteve wrote:
1)Of course it was. There were democrats vowing to impeach him almost immediately.

2) That racist skank Maxine Waters

3) Mind you, neither of those ever said exactly why Trump should be impeached.

4) Oh, and I'm not whining about your whining.


1) And exactly how long before Pelosi made it official? That's when it counts...

2) You are projecting, it is ugly. There is racism going on here, but it's not from Waters.

3) That's because you don't pay attention. They did. Many times.

4) You should work on your self awareness.
#15060479
late wrote:1) And exactly how long before Pelosi made it official? That's when it counts.


Wrong.

It's indicative of just how hateful and hate-filled the idiot left is when it comes to Trump. For fuck's sake, Waters was talking impeachment before the Obamas even moved out...
By late
#15060501
BigSteve wrote:
1) Wrong.

2) It's indicative of just how hateful and hate-filled

3) the idiot left is when it comes to Trump.

4) For fuck's sake, Waters was talking impeachment before the Obamas even moved out...



1) It didn't mean a thing until Pelosi supported it because of the "perfect phone call".

2) The Extreme Right has been on a rampage. Something about having a Black president wound them right up. They've been killing, burning churches, shooting up synagogues, running people over...

3) Most Dems are Center-Right. Because the Left was suppressed for a century, there just isn't much of a Left. Civilised countries already have the stuff Warren and Sanders want to do. So, by civilised standards, they are centrist.

4) She wasn't wrong.
By late
#15060510
"After the Democratic House managers released a 111-page indictment providing copious detail on the events that led to impeachment, the nature of Trump’s misconduct and the constitutional basis for his removal, Trump’s attorneys responded with a six-page document that would have been shocking were it not just the kind of thing we’ve come to expect from this White House.

Indeed, it reads as though it was written by a ninth-grader who saw an episode of “Law & Order” and learned just enough legal terms to throw them around incorrectly. It makes no attempt to contest the facts, instead just asserting over and over that the president is innocent and the entire impeachment is illegitimate, calling it “unlawful” and “constitutionally invalid,” with no apparent understanding of what those terms mean."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/20/white-house-doubles-down-its-dumbest-impeachment-defense/
#15060512
late wrote:"After the Democratic House managers released a 111-page indictment providing copious detail on the events that led to impeachment, the nature of Trump’s misconduct and the constitutional basis for his removal, Trump’s attorneys responded with a six-page document that would have been shocking were it not just the kind of thing we’ve come to expect from this White House.

Indeed, it reads as though it was written by a ninth-grader who saw an episode of “Law & Order” and learned just enough legal terms to throw them around incorrectly. It makes no attempt to contest the facts, instead just asserting over and over that the president is innocent and the entire impeachment is illegitimate, calling it “unlawful” and “constitutionally invalid,” with no apparent understanding of what those terms mean."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/20/white-house-doubles-down-its-dumbest-impeachment-defense/


All you accomplish when you post an op/ed is prove that you're incapable of coming up with anything intelligent of your own.

Facts matter. The opinion of some WaPo hack does not...
#15060604
@BigSteve Here is a summary of his post:

I love waking up to your whinefests.

Here are some undeniable truths about this impeachment:

1 - Donald Trump will be acquitted by the Senate.
2 - Idiot libs will whine about the trial not being fair.
3 - Idiot libs will accuse Senate Republicans of violating their oath to be impartial.

Idiot libs will then start looking for something else to impeach him for. Maybe they can get him for not buttoning his suit jacket when he stands.

The idiot left is slobbering all over themselves when talking about how Trump will forever have an asterisk next to his name because he was impeached. Well, I'd submit that, with the exception of still being married to a traitorous hag, Bill Clinton's still doing pretty good, and Melania's a lot easier on the eyes.

What this has accomplished is this:

Trump's agenda successfully moved forward in the face of the Mueller investigation and the impeachment hearings. Unemployment is as record lows. The economy is on fire. The Dow Jones is closing in on 30,000 for the first time ever. Things are good in this country. The idiot left will do everything they can to divert credit from Trump, but the reality is that he's drivin' the bus, so he gets the credit.

For the democrats, all they've done for the last three years is try to get Trump impeached and removed from office. That's it. They've done nothing for the American people, and they're going to have to run on the fact that they've accomplished nothing. That's not going to play well with the electorate, so a Trump victory next November is all but guaranteed. Not only that, but a Republican who wants to continue Trump's policies into a new Presidency could easily ride on the coattails of what Trump's accomplished, giving us a minimum of 12 straight years of Republican leadership in the White House.

It's absolutely fascinating to think that the idiot left allowed themselves to be so overcome with hatred for Trump that they failed to actually serve the people who elected them to office.

And they're going to reap the unsavory rewards for having done that...


You can skip the parts that are not bold.
#15060610
Let's say that you do not even believe that this legal argument by his lawyers actually is meritorious and he can still be charged...

It would still not be a stretch to suggest that it is very irresponsible to impeach someone without a chargeable public defense. It allows impeachment to be used Willy-nilly to forge political narratives. Impeachment no longer is about justice, but is about political maneuvering.

Nobody wants that -- and once you go there, you can't come back. That is a genie that will not get back into the bottle.
#15060618
It would still not be a stretch to suggest that it is very irresponsible to impeach someone without a chargeable public defense. It allows impeachment to be used Willy-nilly to forge political narratives. Impeachment no longer is about justice, but is about political maneuvering.


Remember that I believe that this impeachment is a world shattering political mistake.

The issue of impeachment revolves around the founder's notions of things that are quite unlike today. They are:

The founders believed in men of honor. Their honor was paramount to their sense of self worth. Merely calling someone a liar would have precipitated a duel, sometimes to the death.

The founders were overwhelmingly aware of politicians who lined their pockets at the public purse. They would have been shocked that a president would have tried to use official funds to buy dirt on his opponent.

When they spoke of misdemeanors they were not articulating criminal offenses. The were talking about bad behavior.

Suffice it to say that they could not even begin to imagine a president insulting another candidate's wife and walking away. Not only would the husband have sought satisfaction on the field of honor, such a man would have been socially ostracized.

So you see Verve, there is no intention to limit impeachment to violations of statute and there never was.

I disagree that this impeachment is not about justice. After all. At the heart of this is the indisputable fact that Trump tried to use his office and government money to get dirt on his political opponent. In what world is that OK? You tell me what justification YOU offer for doing this.

It is true that this is a political trial and I offer as proof the fact that not a single republican senator (my party) has said he/she would actually abide by the solemn taken to administer impartial justice. And that means not decide based upon the motives of the accusers but rather by the facts of the case.

Lets face it. The dude did it. Should he be removed from office? Of course. Will he? No. And that is why the democrats should have kept this investigation going until the election.

This impeachment has given Trump the election. It is one of the most monumental political blunders in US history.
#15060619
The founders were overwhelmingly aware of politicians who lined their pockets at the public purse. They would have been shocked that a president would have tried to use official funds to buy dirt on his opponent.


Lol if anyone from their generation saw the state of the world today they would be running for the hemlock.
#15060626
BigSteve wrote:1 - Donald Trump will be acquitted by the Senate.
2 - Idiot libs will whine about the trial not being fair.
3 - Idiot libs will accuse Senate Republicans of violating their oath to be impartial.

Drlee attacked your latest work because of its needlessly nasty language and amateurish ad homs.

But I want to attack the entire gist of your media-fabricated opinions, Big.

This IMPEACHMENT DREAMSCAPE MEME has nothing to do with libs-versus-cons or any other philosophical argument. It's just one half of America's corrupt elite using lawfare to force the other half of its corrupt elite to bomb harder, or sanction harder, or send the CIA in to subvert harder, or rip off ordinary Americans harder.

There is no principle being defended by this impeachment, but there is also no principle that would protect the current president from being fired. It's just two mafias shooting at each other while burning down the world.
User avatar
By Verv
#15060661
While it is certainly true that the founders would be ashamed to see anything happening today, I think that, to some degree, we have an overly romantic view of our founding fathers.

Just check out this Smithsonian article on Alexander Hamilton's affair, and check out how Presidents Jefferson and Monroe were involved in the behind-the-scenes with this. Pres. Jefferson himself kept a mulatta concubine.

These guys were also largely "free thinkers" -- ironically, not Hamilton, but certainly Jefferson, Monroe, Washington, Adams, etc. It was a really a gang of universalist Freemason deists running the bulk of the show while the deeply religious fellahs like John Jay were in the outer circle.

But I would say that the founding fathers very likely did not want these sorts of issues to spill out into politics by becoming points of public censure through impeachment unless there was actual, literal illegal activity and corruption.
By late
#15060707
Verv wrote:
unless there was actual, literal illegal activity and corruption.



You didn't read the OP.

There was very little Federal law at that point, so "literal illegal" was impossible, and not at all what they meant.
#15060714
But I would say that the founding fathers very likely did not want these sorts of issues to spill out into politics by becoming points of public censure through impeachment unless there was actual, literal illegal activity and corruption.


Quick note before I get on an airplane.

I am surprised that the house did not go for the emoluments clause. The withholding of public money for personal gain (political dirt) is surely that.

Even so. They were common law people and lived in a world where one could bring private prosecution for a "crime". Also, late is correct that there were few federal laws. "Misdemeanor" was not the literal thing that it is now. It referred to scandal, bad behavior, ungentlemanly behavior....etc.
By late
#15060726
Verv wrote:
Let's say that you do not even believe that this legal argument by his lawyers actually is meritorious and he can still be charged...

It would still not be a stretch to suggest that it is very irresponsible to impeach someone without a chargeable public defense. It allows impeachment to be used Willy-nilly to forge political narratives. Impeachment no longer is about justice, but is about political maneuvering.

Nobody wants that -- and once you go there, you can't come back. That is a genie that will not get back into the bottle.



You're talking about Newt, not Pelosi.
#15060749
“And McConnell also released a schedule that could put some arguments on T.V. at midnight or 1 in the morning. These guys really are something. They don’t want witnesses, they don’t want new evidence, they don’t want reporting, and they don’t want people watching. It’s almost like they have something to hide — but what could that be? The phone call was perfect! It was a perfect call. Maybe they’re just shy?” — JIMMY KIMMEL
User avatar
By Verv
#15060831
late wrote:You didn't read the OP.

There was very little Federal law at that point, so "literal illegal" was impossible, and not at all what they meant.


I actually do not believe that.

High crimes & misdemeanors would literally refer to breaking the law.

While there was not a lot of federal legislation at that point, there were still crimes concerning corruption, embezzlement, bribery, larceny, murder, etc. etc., because at no point was traditional English common law irrelevant in the colonies.

It was not as if anyone thought at that time "well, murder ain't on the books of the Fed'rul gubmint right now, so, Johnny, GET YER MUSKET, we're gonna teach old man Phelps a thing or two about a thing or two."

The intent was quite clear.

Note, as well, that in my link Alexander Hamilton came forward and admitted his adultery to clear his name of the idea that he had participated in an illegal financial scheme. His adultery would have been considered irrelevant to his office, while at the same time still being a major moral flaw.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13

Israel receives 7 Billion per Year by the USA. Mor[…]

No one in the U.S. with covid-19 has died because[…]

Jacinda vs ScoMo

They see the short term cash and nothing else. […]

By minorities I mean mostly South Asian and Afric[…]