Trump and the Rule of Law - Page 4 - 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.
#15048780
late wrote:Congress could impeach over jaywalking if it wanted to.

How about hurting Marie Yovanovitch's feelings?

Q: Do you have any evidence of President Trump receiving a bribe?
Yovanovitch: No.
Q: Do you have any evidence of President Trump engaged in any criminal activity?
A: No.
Q: Tell us about your feelings when Trump fired you two months before the call we're saying is an impeachable offense.
A: Bwaaahahahhahaa...It hurt my feelings! Bwahhahahaa!
#15048786
blackjack21 wrote:
How about hurting Marie Yovanovitch's feelings?



That is witness tampering.

During the Convention, as you can imagine, there were people that didn't want impeachment. Ben Franklin said 'imagine a president that gets help from a foreign power to win an election'.

That was the argument that won the day, What Trump did is literally why we have the ability to impeach.
#15048798
late wrote:Congress could impeach over jaywalking if it wanted to.

Well, yes the corrupt Democrats could impeach Trump for winning the election if they get enough of them to vote for it. However, they would have a very hard time getting that through the Republican controlled Senate.
#15048800
late wrote:That is witness tampering.

No it's not. It's criticizing the witness. Remember, as you like to point out so frequently, it's a political process so they don't have the power to issue a gag rule on Trump. He can criticize them all he wants.

Are you going to cry now? :*(

late wrote:What Trump did is literally why we have the ability to impeach.

What you guys fantasize Trump to have done in your collective fantasies, perhaps. The fact that you have no evidence that any American colluded with Russians is part of the problem. Now we do have evidence that Alexandra Chalupa was working with the Ukrainians to get dirt on Trump, that Hillary Clinton--through many layers of indirection--financed the Steele Dossier, colluding with an ex-British spy to work with the Russians to dig up dirt on Trump, and that Adam Schiff got punked by Russian comedians pretending to have ties to the Russian government with "kompromat" on Trump.
#15048831
blackjack21 wrote:
No it's not.

The fact that you have no evidence that any American colluded with Russians




"Witness tampering is the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings." Trump keeps trying to influence witnesses. He's done it several times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_tampering

Roger Stone, seriously, do you pay any attention to the news?

The rest is fiction.
#15048836
late wrote:"Witness tampering is the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings." Trump keeps trying to influence witnesses. He's done it several times.

Again, as you like to point out, impeachment is not a civil or criminal proceeding. It's political. Yovanovitch was not aware of Trump's tweet until Schiff read it to her and solicited her opinion, to which she said she felt intimidated--although witness intimidation involves threats. Tampering involves trying to alter or prevent testimony. Trump did neither. He criticized her work product. Basically, the media was building her up, and Trump was tearing her back down.

late wrote:Roger Stone, seriously, do you pay any attention to the news?

Roger Stone was not convicted of colluding with the Russians. Do you pay any attention to the news?
#15048839
blackjack21 wrote:
1) Again, as you like to point out, impeachment is not a civil or criminal proceeding. It's political.

2) Yovanovitch was not aware of Trump's tweet until Schiff read it to her and solicited her opinion, to which she said she felt intimidated--although witness intimidation involves threats.

3) Tampering involves trying to alter or prevent testimony. Trump did neither. He criticized her work product. Basically, the media was building her up, and Trump was tearing her back down.


4) Roger Stone was not convicted of colluding with the Russians. Do you pay any attention to the news?



I am embarrassed for you.

1) It's both, which I made plain with a quote from Hamilton yesterday.

2) She had good reason to feel threatened. The most powerful man in the world said he was going to make an example of her. That testimony was thoroughly credible.


3) You *might* have been able to scrape together a point. If Trump hadn't hadn't lost it during her testimony. Your fiction needs to be at least vaguely believable.

4) Wikileaks was another Russian attempt to get the dirt they had stolen out. Stone, acting as a go between, puts us a step closer toward criminal conspiracy. Using the standards of the intelligence community, this is obvious. Proving it is a little tougher. But we keep getting closer. Complicated cases like this would be better served in court, and it's my hope that justice will one day be served.
#15049016
late wrote:She had good reason to feel threatened. The most powerful man in the world said he was going to make an example of her. That testimony was thoroughly credible.

Lying "shifty" Adam Schiff and his lawyer where the ones that was threatening her and leading her to say she felt terrible and threatened over and over. President Trump simply uses the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution to tweet in accordance with law and order as he often does.
By late
#15049040
Hindsite wrote:
Lying "shifty" Adam Schiff and his lawyer where the ones that was threatening her and leading her to say she felt terrible and threatened over and over. President Trump simply uses the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution to tweet in accordance with law and order as he often does.



Again, you need lies that are at least vaguely plausible.
#15049084
late wrote:1) It's both, which I made plain with a quote from Hamilton yesterday.

It's a predicate to a criminal act to remove someone from office. It is not a criminal proceeding itself, because it does not include a power to fine or imprison someone. It deals only with removing someone from high office.

late wrote:2) She had good reason to feel threatened. The most powerful man in the world said he was going to make an example of her. That testimony was thoroughly credible.

Her personal safety was not in question at all. She had no reason to feel physically threatened. However, feeling upset that someone criticized her work product is understandable. It's just that criticizing someone's results at work is not criminal. Her testimony, whether credible or not, did not establish a foundation for impeachment. She said she did not know of any criminal activity on the part of the president. In fact, she testified she had never met nor communicated with the president before.

late wrote: If Trump hadn't hadn't lost it during her testimony.

Is this a typo or are you engaging in double negatives?

late wrote:4) Wikileaks was another Russian attempt to get the dirt they had stolen out.

That has never been adjudicated as a matter of law. Julian Assange is Australian, not Russian.

late wrote:Stone, acting as a go between, puts us a step closer toward criminal conspiracy.

Well, at least your a step closer to admitting that this is a conspiracy theory.

late wrote:Using the standards of the intelligence community, this is obvious.

The standards of the intelligence community? Hah! They traffice in disinformation constantly. That's what they do. They are just supposed to do it to foreign powers, not to American citizens.

late wrote:Proving it is a little tougher. But we keep getting closer. Complicated cases like this would be better served in court, and it's my hope that justice will one day be served.

Stone was prosecuted in a US District Court.
#15049088
blackjack21 wrote:
1) It's a predicate to a criminal act to remove someone from office. It is not a criminal proceeding itself, because it does not include a power to fine or imprison someone. It deals only with removing someone from high office.


2) Her personal safety was not in question at all. She had no reason to feel physically threatened. However, feeling upset that someone criticized her work product is understandable. It's just that criticizing someone's results at work is not criminal. Her testimony, whether credible or not, did not establish a foundation for impeachment. She said she did not know of any criminal activity on the part of the president. In fact, she testified she had never met nor communicated with the president before.


3) Is this a typo or are you engaging in double negatives?


4) That has never been adjudicated as a matter of law. Julian Assange is Australian, not Russian.


5) Well, at least your a step closer to admitting that this is a conspiracy theory.


6) The standards of the intelligence community? Hah! They traffic in disinformation constantly. That's what they do.


7) Stone was prosecuted in a US District Court.



1) I really wish you were willing to share your sources with us. This one would be fun. Impeachment has the force of law. Sure, all it can do is remove someone from office. But so what? Congress typically borrows from the law because that makes sense. The process needs structure, and if you can find a better way to structure that process, you'll go down in history as a great American.

2) Once somebody has left the reservation, and Trump was never on it, all bets are off. Especially since this wacko is also president, with all the power that implies.

3) Verbally attacking her while she was giving testimony that she felt threatened... that's self destructive idiocy. First Rule of Holes, when you're in one, stop digging!

4) There's a bunch of intelligence agencies, not just ours, that say that. How about a little common sense, please.

5) Again, by intel standards, this is clear. Congress will need to walk American through this, step by step. But given everything Trump has admitted to, over the least couple years, it's a foregone conclusion.

6) That's what you do.

7) I was referring to impeachment, and the limits of politics. Having a judge that knows the law cold, and is skilled enough to handle a complex case... that would give the process a rigor that no political environment can ever match.

I know it's not a possibility. But this is like the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, it's simply too much for people to handle. Given the way I have to keep explaining the basics, that should be obvious.
#15049243
late wrote:Again, you need lies that are at least vaguely plausible.

That may be why the lying "shifty' Adam Schiff is no longer credible to a near genius, like me.
Praise the Lord.

late wrote:Verbally attacking her while she was giving testimony that she felt threatened... that's self destructive idiocy. First Rule of Holes, when you're in one, stop digging!

I don't see any hole for President Trump at all. If all the Dem's have is "she said he said" rumors, then President Trump has no hole to dig out of.

late wrote:I know it's not a possibility. But this is like the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, it's simply too much for people to handle. Given the way I have to keep explaining the basics, that should be obvious.

Not true. This is not like any other impeachment of a President in our history. No other impeachment was held by the Intelligence Committee instead of the Judiciary Committee to name only the first of many differences.
By late
#15049261
Hindsite wrote:

Not true. This is not like any other impeachment of a President in our history. No other impeachment was held by the Intelligence Committee instead of the Judiciary Committee to name only the first of many differences.



Where does it say, in the Constitution, that it has to be just the Judiciary Comm?

Oh wait, it doesn't.

Fiction.
#15049269
late wrote:I know it's not a possibility. But this is like the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, it's simply too much for people to handle. Given the way I have to keep explaining the basics, that should be obvious.


Actually, you're correct. In 1868, there was concern among some Republicans that the proceedings were manipulated so that the presentation of evidence was grossly one-sided. The same is true now.

However, the vast difference is that there was bipartisan support to not convict Johnson, as 12 Republicans joined nine Democrats in voting to not convict the Democrat.

In the case of Donald Trump, Adam Schiff has made it clear there will be nothing bipartisan...
By late
#15049270
BigSteve wrote:
Actually, you're correct. In 1868, there was concern among some Republicans that the proceedings were manipulated so that the presentation of evidence was grossly one-sided. The same is true now.

However, the vast difference is that there was bipartisan support to not convict Johnson, as 12 Republicans joined nine Democrats in voting to not convict the Democrat.

In the case of Donald Trump, Adam Schiff has made it clear there will be nothing bipartisan...



Well, partly, they threw everything at him. I have yet to actually study this (prob won't, at my age). The reality is he was a crap president, and there were very good reasons to remove him. But... whether what they said was justified or not, it was too much for a lot of people to handle. That includes a lot of Congress.

Politics has become profoundly divisive. "The Party of NO" had a lot to do with that (see link).

#15049330
late wrote:Where does it say, in the Constitution, that it has to be just the Judiciary Comm?

Oh wait, it doesn't.

Fiction.

That is another one of your logical fallacies called a "straw man" argument.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I was simply pointing out one of many ways that it was different from previous impeachments by not following established precedent of holding the impeachment hearing by the Judiciary Committee, which is better suited to oversee legal matters. Because of this irregular operation, today the Intelligence Committee members have not received their normal intelligence briefings which may put our nations security at risk. In Constitution law, established precedent is important.

In common law legal systems, precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of "Let the decision stand"). Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation - that is, delegated legislation (in UK parlance) or regulatory law (in U.S. parlance) (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
By late
#15049377
Hindsite wrote:
I was simply pointing out one of many ways that it was different from previous impeachments by not following established precedent of holding the impeachment hearing by the Judiciary Committee, which is better suited to oversee legal matters.

In Constitution law, established precedent is important.

In common law legal systems



Because Intel has a direct bearing on the case, their involvement makes perfect sense.

Saying precedent is important is true, but vacuous. You still need a persuasive argument, and that you just don't have.


"The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes."

You can use the law, common or otherwise, as the reasoning behind an article of impeachment. But in no way are the traditions of common law binding on an impeachment. That is absurd.
By late
#15049392
Finfinder wrote:
Should make that the new Democrat slogan.



We don't need to stoop to your level.
#15049411
Hindsite wrote:Well, yes the corrupt Democrats could impeach Trump for winning the election if they get enough of them to vote for it. However, they would have a very hard time getting that through the Republican controlled Senate.


They're going to have a hard time getting anything through the Republican controlled Senate...
The Irishman...

As far as Harvey Weinstein comment your post to @[…]

He definitely wouldn't be looming behind her as he[…]

Unfortunately, Time has a record of picking PotYs[…]

The one that erased the 1910-1940 warming and the[…]