(01-19-2019 03:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2019 11:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Plus there is no way to strike biased Senators.
I would have voted to censure him, and I’m glad he got his law license pulled. I would have voted for any punishment short of impeachment and removal. But making Al Gore President, no thanks.
If there was a mechanism to strike biased Senators, do you think there would be even one Senator left to actually judge the impeachment trial? Lol.....
Roger Stone arrested in the middle of the night by the FBI.
lad forgot it was 7 process crimes; no collusion. And not even process crimes relating to past events like 'forgetting to file a paper 8 years ago'.
Pretty fing wild there happened to be a random CNN crew on the takedown squad. Or perhaps it might be the only news crew in the world that carries contemporaneous Federal peace officer credentials.
(01-25-2019 08:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]lad forgot it was 7 process crimes; no collusion. And not even process crimes relating to past events like 'forgetting to file a paper 8 years ago'.
Pretty fing wild there happened to be a random CNN crew on the takedown squad. Or perhaps it might be the only news crew in the world that carries contemporaneous Federal peace officer credentials.
I forgot? Jesus that’s a fricken leap.
I simply posted a fact about something happening. Haven’t read nor listened to anything about it as I was busy getting ready for field work this AM.
Someone pee in your Cheerios this morning?
(01-25-2019 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 08:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]lad forgot it was 7 process crimes; no collusion. And not even process crimes relating to past events like 'forgetting to file a paper 8 years ago'.
Pretty fing wild there happened to be a random CNN crew on the takedown squad. Or perhaps it might be the only news crew in the world that carries contemporaneous Federal peace officer credentials.
I forgot? Jesus that’s a fricken leap.
I simply posted a fact about something happening. Haven’t read nor listened to anything about it as I was busy getting ready for field work this AM.
Someone pee in your Cheerios this morning?
Perhaps someone did. I am typically blithely ignorant about such things, though.
(01-25-2019 10:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 08:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]lad forgot it was 7 process crimes; no collusion. And not even process crimes relating to past events like 'forgetting to file a paper 8 years ago'.
Pretty fing wild there happened to be a random CNN crew on the takedown squad. Or perhaps it might be the only news crew in the world that carries contemporaneous Federal peace officer credentials.
I forgot? Jesus that’s a fricken leap.
I simply posted a fact about something happening. Haven’t read nor listened to anything about it as I was busy getting ready for field work this AM.
Someone pee in your Cheerios this morning?
Perhaps someone did. I am typically blithely ignorant about such things, though.
"Blithely ignorant" is a term I associate with people like Ocasio-Cortez and Warren, not you.
lad, apologies if in fact you just tossed out a 'quick breaking' recap.
Im somewhat crushed you didnt ask if someone p-ssed in my coffee this morning. I know an emoji I could use for that.
(01-25-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]lad, apologies if in fact you just tossed out a 'quick breaking' recap.
Im somewhat crushed you didnt ask if someone p-ssed in my coffee this morning. I know an emoji I could use for that.
Ohhh, I’ll remember that one.
And yeah, it was simply a breaking, newsworthy event. Offered with no commentary because all I saw was that he had been raided by the FBI.
(01-25-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]lad, apologies if in fact you just tossed out a 'quick breaking' recap.
Im somewhat crushed you didnt ask if someone p-ssed in my coffee this morning. I know an emoji I could use for that.
Ohhh, I’ll remember that one.
And yeah, it was simply a breaking, newsworthy event. Offered with no commentary because all I saw was that he had been raided by the FBI.
My commentary is that this does not make him a witch. It makes him a victim of an investigation that never should have existed.
(01-25-2019 12:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]lad, apologies if in fact you just tossed out a 'quick breaking' recap.
Im somewhat crushed you didnt ask if someone p-ssed in my coffee this morning. I know an emoji I could use for that.
Ohhh, I’ll remember that one.
And yeah, it was simply a breaking, newsworthy event. Offered with no commentary because all I saw was that he had been raided by the FBI.
My commentary is that this does not make him a witch. It makes him a victim of an investigation that never should have existed.
As always, you're more than welcome to take that up with the Republican Congress and Republican-led Justice Department and Republican-appointed Rod Rosenstein.
(01-25-2019 04:21 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 12:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]lad, apologies if in fact you just tossed out a 'quick breaking' recap.
Im somewhat crushed you didnt ask if someone p-ssed in my coffee this morning. I know an emoji I could use for that.
Ohhh, I’ll remember that one.
And yeah, it was simply a breaking, newsworthy event. Offered with no commentary because all I saw was that he had been raided by the FBI.
My commentary is that this does not make him a witch. It makes him a victim of an investigation that never should have existed.
As always, you're more than welcome to take that up with the Republican Congress and Republican-led Justice Department and Republican-appointed Rod Rosenstein.
Well, if impeached, that Republican-led Senate will not convict and remove, and I guess you will be here saying that proves he is innocent.
(01-25-2019 04:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 04:21 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 12:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]lad, apologies if in fact you just tossed out a 'quick breaking' recap.
Im somewhat crushed you didnt ask if someone p-ssed in my coffee this morning. I know an emoji I could use for that.
Ohhh, I’ll remember that one.
And yeah, it was simply a breaking, newsworthy event. Offered with no commentary because all I saw was that he had been raided by the FBI.
My commentary is that this does not make him a witch. It makes him a victim of an investigation that never should have existed.
As always, you're more than welcome to take that up with the Republican Congress and Republican-led Justice Department and Republican-appointed Rod Rosenstein.
Well, if impeached, that Republican-led Senate will not convict and remove, and I guess you will be here saying that proves he is innocent.
That’s not how that logic works...
Using the initial logic, which is that bad things done to one party by members of that same party mean they are legitimate, a Senate full of Reps not impeaching would not be indicative of innocence. You would have to have a Senate full of Dems not impeaching for that to be indicative of innocent.
(01-25-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Using the initial logic, which is that bad things done to one party by members of that same party mean they are legitimate, a Senate full of Reps not impeaching would not be indicative of innocence. You would have to have a Senate full of Dems not impeaching for that to be indicative of innocent.
Well, first, you wouldn't have a senate of anyone impeaching or not impeaching. That's not what the senate does. The house impeaches or not. Impeachment is analogous to indictment. The senate then tries the case, and removes or does not remove the defendant from office. And while it takes a simple majority to impeach in the house, it takes 2/3 to convict in the senate.
(01-25-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 04:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 04:21 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 12:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ohhh, I’ll remember that one.
And yeah, it was simply a breaking, newsworthy event. Offered with no commentary because all I saw was that he had been raided by the FBI.
My commentary is that this does not make him a witch. It makes him a victim of an investigation that never should have existed.
As always, you're more than welcome to take that up with the Republican Congress and Republican-led Justice Department and Republican-appointed Rod Rosenstein.
Well, if impeached, that Republican-led Senate will not convict and remove, and I guess you will be here saying that proves he is innocent.
That’s not how that logic works...
Using the initial logic, which is that bad things done to one party by members of that same party mean they are legitimate, a Senate full of Reps not impeaching would not be indicative of innocence. You would have to have a Senate full of Dems not impeaching for that to be indicative of innocent.
Here's how the logic works:
If a Democrat-majority House impeaches, voting party, that's just public servants doing their duty. That's good.
But the public servants in the Senate will vote Party. That's bad.
when Clinton was impeached, all 45 Democrats in the Senate voted "Noy Guilty" on both charges. What a coincidence.
(01-25-2019 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Using the initial logic, which is that bad things done to one party by members of that same party mean they are legitimate, a Senate full of Reps not impeaching would not be indicative of innocence. You would have to have a Senate full of Dems not impeaching for that to be indicative of innocent.
Well, first, you wouldn't have a senate of anyone impeaching or not impeaching. That's not what the senate does. The house impeaches or not. Impeachment is analogous to indictment. The senate then tries the case, and removes or does not remove the defendant from office. And while it takes a simple majority to impeach in the house, it takes 2/3 to convict in the senate.
I had thought the term in the Senate was still impeach. Aware of how the process works, but a reminder never hurts.
(01-25-2019 07:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Using the initial logic, which is that bad things done to one party by members of that same party mean they are legitimate, a Senate full of Reps not impeaching would not be indicative of innocence. You would have to have a Senate full of Dems not impeaching for that to be indicative of innocent.
Well, first, you wouldn't have a senate of anyone impeaching or not impeaching. That's not what the senate does. The house impeaches or not. Impeachment is analogous to indictment. The senate then tries the case, and removes or does not remove the defendant from office. And while it takes a simple majority to impeach in the house, it takes 2/3 to convict in the senate.
I had thought the term in the Senate was still impeach. Aware of how the process works, but a reminder never hurts.
Nope. Impeachment refers to the house procedure, analogous to indictment. Don't worry, the geniuses in the media screw it up too.
"The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
"The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law."
I think that latter provision probably means that the double jeopardy prohibition does not attach, to answer one question that has come up.