Trump and the Rule of Law - Page 3 - 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.
#15048507
late wrote:1) That doesn't support your argument. What you need is evidence about Joe, not Hunter.

Wrong. All we need is evidence that Joe Biden knew that Hunter Biden and Devin Archer were lobbying for a result at the State Department. We already know that Joe Biden's staff were warned. We already know that the New York Times tipped Joe Biden off. So there is more than enough evidence for investigation into both of them.

late wrote:2) Again, this is about the Constitution.

Ok. Then cite a clause in the constitution that you think the president violated. Why is this so hard for you guys?

late wrote:3) It is if Congress says it is.

Wait, I thought this was about the constitution. Can you make up your mind?

late wrote:4) But he does have an obligation to fulfill his oath of office, and that he has failed repeatedly to do.

Okay, so enumerate the offenses. You are asserting a fact with no enumeration, no bill of particulars, no express act, etc. It would be nice if you guys would get specific. "We really don't like Trump" is well established, but that is a political matter handled by elections.

late wrote:5) Enjoy that fantasy.

All we have so far is two people who think they are very important who have never communicated with the president in any way who think Ukraine is vital to the United States; and, in spite of Obama never delivering any military aid and indirectly delivering civilian aid while Russia annexed Crimea and ostensibly occupied the Donbas are very upset that Trump slowed down a military aid package for a few weeks--which has been delivered and Ukraine is no worse for the wear; and, heard from a colleague, who heard from a colleague, who heard from a colleague that Trump wanted Ukraine to announce investigations into Clinton and Biden; and, neither of them could identify an impeachable offense. It was a Schiff Show...as puzzlingly pointless as the Mueller hearing.


late wrote:What constitutes impeachable conduct is what Congress says it impeachable. Learn your history.

No president in US history has been removed from office via impeachment. Of the two impeached--Johnson and Clinton--Johnson's was the most serious in terms of closeness to removal, and Clinton's was the most serious in terms of the sheer number of proven violations of the law. Neither was removed from office. With Trump, we have basically a taxpayer funded anti-Trump campaign infomercial that cannot even clearly articulate a violation of any law. It's pathetic, but not quite as pathetic as the Democratic primary candidates who have now seen Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg jumping into the race with rumors that Hillary Clinton may jump in as well. The Democrats are in complete disarray.
By late
#15048522
blackjack21 wrote:
1) Wrong.


2) Ok. Then cite a clause in the constitution that you think the president violated.


3) Wait, I thought this was about the constitution. Can you make up your mind?


4) All we have so far is two people...

5) No president in US history has been removed from office via impeachment. Of the two impeached--Johnson and Clinton--Johnson's was the most serious in terms of closeness to removal, and Clinton's was the most serious in terms of the sheer number of proven violations of the law. Neither was removed from office. With Trump, we have basically a taxpayer funded anti-Trump campaign infomercial that cannot even clearly articulate a violation of any law. It's pathetic, but not quite as pathetic as the Democratic primary candidates who have now seen Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg jumping into the race with rumors that Hillary Clinton may jump in as well. The Democrats are in complete disarray.



1) Baloney.

If there was evidence, the FBI would have acted on it some time ago. You need actual, real, evidence that shows Joe dealing under the table. You've got squat.

2) I am getting tired of typing this. There was self dealing, a breach of trust, extortion, influence from foreign governments. All in one, nice, juicy, incompetent and deranged package.

3) Why are you trying to talk about this when you know almost nothing.

4) There have been several witnesses with more coming. I ignored the rest of your fiction.

5) While no president has been removed, they have been impeached. You're confused. That also is not an argument that impeachment serves no function. Trump is attacking the institutions of democracy, elections being the primary focus. That's because if he rigs the election, as he keeps trying to do, what little there is of our democratic process dies. Impeachment (without removal) is hardly an adequate response, but it is the best our degraded country has to offer.

"The impeachment process will reveal whether Republicans will tolerate corruption, dishonesty, & avarice in our Nation’s highest office. If so, America’s political soul & global standing will be indelibly sullied, and @realDonaldTrump will have destroyed the very heart of the GOP."
John O. Brennan
#15048536
late wrote:If there was evidence, the FBI would have acted on it some time ago. You need actual, real, evidence that shows Joe dealing under the table. You've got squat.

You mean like they acted on Hillary Clinton's law breaking? :roll:

You don't know if the FBI or DoJ is acting on it now. It's quite possible that they are.

At any rate, if the rules the Democrats are trying to use against Trump constitute justice, Biden is guilty as charged and we don't need to let him confront his accusers, nor allow him to call witnesses to his defense, and we can allow him to be prosecuted entirely on hearsay on an inchoate complaint that doesn't specify any section of the USC or CFR.

late wrote:2) I am getting tired of typing this. There was self dealing, a breach of trust, extortion, influence from foreign governments. All in one, nice, juicy, incompetent and deranged package.

Trump does not personally benefit in any way. Politics is a separate question. You have no extortion (not a good idea to listen to Swalwell, because he's kind of an idiot), because nobody has alleged they were threatened with injury (see 18 USC for details), you have no bribery because there was no quid quo pro transpired, and the only influence from Ukraine (which isn't a crime by itself anyway) happened at the solicitation of Alexandra Chalupa on behalf of the Hillary Clinton for president campaign.

Remember, the federal government is powerful, but its jurisdiction is limited. It's primarily commerce that Congress can regulate. So there needs to be money changing hands for them to prosecute, and it has to be via a statute.

Generally, incompetence tends to undermine arguments on intent.

late wrote:4) There have been several witnesses with more coming.

Everybody saw it. There is no allegation of any law broken, once again. They even offered that they were only there to tell you what they heard from other people, who aren't testifying. In other words, it's hearsay and gossip--meaningless.

late wrote:While no president has been removed, they have been impeached.

Right. They had more meaningful cases. This is just an attempt to slander the president in hopes of weakening him politically, because the Democratic slate of Presidential candidates is an absolute disaster.

late wrote:Trump is attacking the institutions of democracy, elections being the primary focus.

Biden using his office to fire foreign prosecutors investigating a company his son represents is a legitimate topic. Once again, be reminded that the presidential election isn't necessarily democratic. The electoral college determines who becomes president, or the House of Representatives should the electoral college deadlock. Most states allocate electoral college votes in a winner takes all manner, not on a district-by-district basis. I think Maine and maybe Nebraska have something like that, but it's not a popular vote anyway.


"The impeachment process will reveal whether Republicans will tolerate corruption, dishonesty, & avarice in our Nation’s highest office. If so, America’s political soul & global standing will be indelibly sullied, and @realDonaldTrump will have destroyed the very heart of the GOP."
John O. Brennan

John Brennan doesn't give a flying fuck about the GOP and neither do I.

Let's ask here at PoFo: who here is really concerned about the welfare of the Republican Party?
#15048541
@blackjack21 wrote:
John Brennan doesn't give a flying fuck about the GOP and neither do I.

Let's ask here at PoFo: who here is really concerned about the welfare of the Republican Party?


:lol:

Let us sing a song of love for the Grand Ole Party...

Yo soy la muerte...yo soy la muerte....

La muerte soy....

I am death...I am death...
death am I....

I think you and I agree there. :D

The question then becomes Relampaguito, do you want their demise as a party to come suavemente? Or fuertemente?

I will be dancing the suavemente way even though they might suffer fuertemente....



I bet you can't dance to save your life Senor Blackjack....it won't save that GOP...no it won't.
By late
#15048542
blackjack21 wrote:
John Brennan doesn't give a flying fuck about the GOP and neither do I.



"The impeachment process will reveal whether Republicans will tolerate corruption, dishonesty, & avarice in our Nation’s highest office."

I think you have answered that question completely, irrevocably.
#15048546
Whats the deal with this thread....... is it rule of law or you can impeach a president because he sometimes hurts your feelings. Can someone point me to the facts the OP claims to have all the time, can't seem to locate them?
#15048575
late wrote:"The impeachment process will reveal whether Republicans will tolerate corruption, dishonesty, & avarice in our Nation’s highest office."

I think you have answered that question completely, irrevocably.

Well, they aren't tolerating it from Adam Schiff or Joe Biden. So I think we can extend that out reasonably.

Finfinder wrote:Whats the deal with this thread....... is it rule of law or you can impeach a president because he sometimes hurts your feelings. Can someone point me to the facts the OP claims to have all the time, can't seem to locate them?

Law is whatever Nancy Pelosi is feeling.

Basically, late is melting down because the Schiff has hit the fan.

For me, Trump's biggest mistake so far was not firing every holdover straight away. By contrast, late has been hanging his hat on the Democrats and their failed putsch for years and he's not upset at their failure at all. He seems more upset that we don't believe their bullshit anymore.
#15048596
Rancid wrote:Look up the first impeachment in US history. The question of the day when that happened was "Does impeachment include things that are not technically crimes?" The answer was yes.

No crime was committed. Though, it did fail by a single vote.

You should stick with what you know as an engineer, because U.S. History is not your thing. Here is the truth:
Of the 11 articles of impeachment returned against President Andrew Johnson in 1868, nine involved technically criminal violations of the Tenure of Office Act, but the last and most significant two articles alleged general abuses of presidential authority. Johnson escaped conviction in the Senate by one vote, but no serious historian contends that his acquittal rested on the absence of an indictable crime.

There is no indictable crime against President Trump concerning that phone conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Surely, I agree that the Democrats in Congress can vote anyway they want on impeachment in the House, but without bipartisan support it is going nowhere.

I have already given reference to a report where the FBi investigated the Whistleblower accusations and determined that President Trump did not commit a crime.
By late
#15048612
Hindsite wrote:
You should stick with what you know as an engineer, because U.S. History is not your thing.



Leave history and law to the professionals.

Ain't yer thing, man.

For the umpteenth time, the Federalist Papers settled this a couple hundred years ago, you are bloviating out the wrong hole.
#15048636
late wrote:Leave history and law to the professionals.

Ain't yer thing, man.

For the umpteenth time, the Federalist Papers settled this a couple hundred years ago, you are bloviating out the wrong hole.

The Federalist Papers do not contain opinions contrary to mine. If you think different, then quote the relevant parts for our review with reference.
By Rich
#15048648
late wrote:"The impeachment process will reveal whether Republicans will tolerate corruption, dishonesty, & avarice in our Nation’s highest office."

Well clearly the impeachment process has already revealed that Democrats will tolerate corruption, dishonesty & avarice in the Nation's highest office, corrupt Joe being the very embodiment of these principles.
By late
#15048657
Rich wrote:
Well clearly the impeachment process has already revealed that Democrats will tolerate corruption, dishonesty & avarice in the Nation's highest office, corrupt Joe being the very embodiment of these principles.



Ahh, I see, you got your LLC in a cereal box.
#15048666
Rich wrote:Well clearly the impeachment process has already revealed that Democrats will tolerate corruption, dishonesty & avarice in the Nation's highest office, corrupt Joe being the very embodiment of these principles.

That was already proven by there choice of Hillary Clinton. The lying "shifty" Adam Schift just makes it worse for the Dems.
#15048683
Hindsite wrote:The Federalist Papers do not contain opinions contrary to mine. If you think different, then quote the relevant parts for our review with reference.


Yea you would think that a discussion about rule of law my include some facts or even laws.
By Rich
#15048687
Say what you like about Obama, he was a smart political operator. Spiro Agnew not withstanding the wise Presidential candidate always makes sure his running mate is more corrupt than himself. Trump would have been in a lot safer position now if he'd gone with Rudy Giuliani rather than Mike Pence.
By late
#15048693
Finfinder wrote:
Yea you would think that a discussion about rule of law my include some facts or even laws.



I did, a number of times.

Balls in your court!

(He laughs maniacally)
Image
#15048696
late wrote:I did, a number of times.

Balls in your court!

(He laughs maniacally)
Image


Really ? Can you please point out where you answered this question?


Hindsite wrote:The Federalist Papers do not contain opinions contrary to mine. If you think different, then quote the relevant parts for our review with reference.
By late
#15048702
Finfinder wrote:
Really ? Can you please point out where you answered this question?



"One of the most hotly debated clauses in the Constitution deals with the removal of federal government officials through the impeachment process.."

Hamilton: “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."

“But what might fall into the category of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was still quite unclear.”

That's because they didn't want a corrupt president to escape on a technicality. You can see that in the addition of misdeamanor. Jaywalking is a misdemeanor. They didn't have a written criminal code. While they did borrow English jurisprudence, there was a lot of work to be done making it work here.

So they left it up to future Congresses to determine what just cause is.



https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/wha ... -president
#15048777
late wrote:"One of the most hotly debated clauses in the Constitution deals with the removal of federal government officials through the impeachment process.."

Hamilton: “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."

“But what might fall into the category of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ was still quite unclear.”

That's because they didn't want a corrupt president to escape on a technicality. You can see that in the addition of misdeamanor. Jaywalking is a misdemeanor. They didn't have a written criminal code. While they did borrow English jurisprudence, there was a lot of work to be done making it work here.

So they left it up to future Congresses to determine what just cause is.

Well we do have written criminal codes now and jaywalking is clearly not a high crime or misdemeanor that could be used for impeachment. That would be ridiculous. Jaywalking is a low crime or misdemeanor listed under traffic violations.
By late
#15048778
Hindsite wrote:
Well we do have written criminal codes now and jaywalking is clearly not a high crime or misdemeanor that could be used for impeachment. That would be ridiculous. Jaywalking is a low crime or misdemeanor called a traffic violation.



Congress could impeach over jaywalking if it wanted to.
How to become an EU citizen

I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense whats[…]

This is why the Democrats continue to lose electi[…]

Divine decadence empowers fascists

But what about the sexual culture in the SA leade[…]

@Truth To Power You still do not understand. Y[…]