(09-28-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Has anybody else noticed a not-so-subtle shift in the rhetoric on the left, from how Trump is a criminal to how you don't really need a crime to impeach?

I believe it has been fairly well established that you don’t need a crime to impeach.

I’ll cue up an old Lindsay Graham speech if you want.

(09-28-2019 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Has anybody else noticed a not-so-subtle shift in the rhetoric on the left, from how Trump is a criminal to how you don't really need a crime to impeach?

I believe it has been fairly well established that you don’t need a crime to impeach.
I’ll cue up an old Lindsay Graham speech if you want.

But that wasn't the democrat mantra until the last few days.

(09-28-2019 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Has anybody else noticed a not-so-subtle shift in the rhetoric on the left, from how Trump is a criminal to how you don't really need a crime to impeach?

I believe it has been fairly well established that you don’t need a crime to impeach.
I’ll cue up an old Lindsay Graham speech if you want.

But that wasn't the democrat mantra until the last few days.

My guess is you'll still find a good bit of the left that does think Trump is a criminal, and that this was the straw that broke the camels back.

What part of “high crimes” says you don’t need a crime to impeach?

What part of “high crimes” says you don’t need a crime to impeach?

What part of “high crimes” says you don’t need a crime to impeach?

(09-28-2019 07:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What part of “high crimes” says you don’t need a crime to impeach?

Probably the “and misdemeanors” part

(09-28-2019 08:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 07:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What part of “high crimes” says you don’t need a crime to impeach?

Probably the “and misdemeanors” part

Isn’t a misdemeanor a crime?

Edit: never mind. It is.

misdemeanor definition

(09-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Has anybody else noticed a not-so-subtle shift in the rhetoric on the left, from how Trump is a criminal to how you don't really need a crime to impeach?

I believe it has been fairly well established that you don’t need a crime to impeach.
I’ll cue up an old Lindsay Graham speech if you want.

But that wasn't the democrat mantra until the last few days.

My guess is you'll still find a good bit of the left that does think Trump is a criminal, and that this was the straw that broke the camels back.

As opposed to the near majority whose straw was Nov almost three years ago.

(09-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Has anybody else noticed a not-so-subtle shift in the rhetoric on the left, from how Trump is a criminal to how you don't really need a crime to impeach?

I believe it has been fairly well established that you don’t need a crime to impeach.
I’ll cue up an old Lindsay Graham speech if you want.

But that wasn't the democrat mantra until the last few days.

My guess is you'll still find a good bit of the left that does think Trump is a criminal, and that this was the straw that broke the camels back.

My guess is that we have all been told that Trump is a criminal so many times by so many sources in the past that the only people who don't believe he is at this point are those who require evidence to convict.

(09-28-2019 08:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 08:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 07:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What part of “high crimes” says you don’t need a crime to impeach?

Probably the “and misdemeanors” part

Isn’t a misdemeanor a crime?

Edit: never mind. It is.

misdemeanor definition

I think you need to read a bit more about the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

I have always understood that impeachment does not require someone to commit a crime based on our penal code, which is correct. I actually misunderstood why that was - it’s actually that entire phrase that originated from centuries ago and

Quote:Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high...anors.html

(09-29-2019 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Has anybody else noticed a not-so-subtle shift in the rhetoric on the left, from how Trump is a criminal to how you don't really need a crime to impeach?

I believe it has been fairly well established that you don’t need a crime to impeach.
I’ll cue up an old Lindsay Graham speech if you want.

But that wasn't the democrat mantra until the last few days.

My guess is you'll still find a good bit of the left that does think Trump is a criminal, and that this was the straw that broke the camels back.

My guess is that we have all been told that Trump is a criminal so many times by so many sources in the past that the only people who don't believe he is at this point are those who require evidence to convict.

Isn’t the purpose of starting impeachment proceedings to investigate alleged “high crimes and misdemeanors” and not to judge them? Thought that was the Senate’s role.

(09-29-2019 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe it has been fairly well established that you don’t need a crime to impeach.
I’ll cue up an old Lindsay Graham speech if you want.

But that wasn't the democrat mantra until the last few days.

My guess is you'll still find a good bit of the left that does think Trump is a criminal, and that this was the straw that broke the camels back.

My guess is that we have all been told that Trump is a criminal so many times by so many sources in the past that the only people who don't believe he is at this point are those who require evidence to convict.

Isn’t the purpose of starting impeachment proceedings to investigate alleged “high crimes and misdemeanors” and not to judge them? Thought that was the Senate’s role.

In this case, I think it is abundantly clear that the purpose of starting impeachment proceedings is simply to harass and distract the current administration in the performance of its duties.

I have very little doubt that the house will impeach Trump sooner or later, with or without evidence. The task right now is simply to come up with some molehill that can be built into a mountain long enough to get an impeachment vote. It's a high-risk strategy--with high risks for both sides--but it's kind of where the democrats have to go after spending three years telling us constantly how Trump is the devil reincarnated.

(09-29-2019 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But that wasn't the democrat mantra until the last few days.

My guess is you'll still find a good bit of the left that does think Trump is a criminal, and that this was the straw that broke the camels back.

My guess is that we have all been told that Trump is a criminal so many times by so many sources in the past that the only people who don't believe he is at this point are those who require evidence to convict.

Isn’t the purpose of starting impeachment proceedings to investigate alleged “high crimes and misdemeanors” and not to judge them? Thought that was the Senate’s role.

In this case, I think it is abundantly clear that the purpose of starting impeachment proceedings is simply to harass and distract the current administration in the performance of its duties.

I have very little doubt that the house will impeach Trump sooner or later, with or without evidence. The task right now is simply to come up with some molehill that can be built into a mountain long enough to get an impeachment vote. It's a high-risk strategy--with high risks for both sides--but it's kind of where the democrats have to go after spending three years telling us constantly how Trump is the devil reincarnated.

You know Trump is the one that got himself into this latest situation, right?

After being accused of colluding with a foreign government, what does he go and do? Ask a foreign government to investigate the man who is likely his biggest political opponent as well as the person he beat in 2016.

He doesn’t care about corruption, as he has ignored other regimes who have much larger and more important areas of corruption to fight. If what Biden did was so corrupt, why was it not a bigger deal when he and the Obama admin pushed to oust the prosecutor? Did new information come to light between then and now?

(09-29-2019 09:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 08:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 06:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My guess is you'll still find a good bit of the left that does think Trump is a criminal, and that this was the straw that broke the camels back.

My guess is that we have all been told that Trump is a criminal so many times by so many sources in the past that the only people who don't believe he is at this point are those who require evidence to convict.

Isn’t the purpose of starting impeachment proceedings to investigate alleged “high crimes and misdemeanors” and not to judge them? Thought that was the Senate’s role.

In this case, I think it is abundantly clear that the purpose of starting impeachment proceedings is simply to harass and distract the current administration in the performance of its duties.

I have very little doubt that the house will impeach Trump sooner or later, with or without evidence. The task right now is simply to come up with some molehill that can be built into a mountain long enough to get an impeachment vote. It's a high-risk strategy--with high risks for both sides--but it's kind of where the democrats have to go after spending three years telling us constantly how Trump is the devil reincarnated.

You know Trump is the one that got himself into this latest situation, right?

After being accused of colluding with a foreign government, what does he go and do? Ask a foreign government to investigate the man who is likely his biggest political opponent as well as the person he beat in 2016.

He doesn’t care about corruption, as he has ignored other regimes who have much larger and more important areas of corruption to fight. If what Biden did was so corrupt, why was it not a bigger deal when he and the Obama admin pushed to oust the prosecutor? Did new information come to light between then and now?

Lolz. There is definitely new information for the press. Trump is President.

You havent noticed how the water carrying for the President has reversed polarity? I mean the press practically fellated the Obama presidency and everything associated with it. And more than just a few people have noticed this.

If Trumps son was doing / was associated with the same Ukranian money machine (the story of Biden's and Kerrey's sons' hedge fund is quite ulluminating into potential massive misus of piwer and connections) the mainstream press absolutely would have been on it incessantly. Replace Trump with Biden and Kerrey you get fing crickets. Funny that.

(09-29-2019 08:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 08:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 08:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 07:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What part of “high crimes” says you don’t need a crime to impeach?

Probably the “and misdemeanors” part

Isn’t a misdemeanor a crime?

Edit: never mind. It is.

misdemeanor definition

I think you need to read a bit more about the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

I have always understood that impeachment does not require someone to commit a crime based on our penal code, which is correct. I actually misunderstood why that was - it’s actually that entire phrase that originated from centuries ago and

Quote:Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high...anors.html

In a similar vein, most of the legal analysis I've seen on the topic is that the question of what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" is one for the political branches -- i.e. it is what the houses of Congress say it is.

The alternative approach -- to insist that the phrase is justiciable -- would suggest that a president could be impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate, and then have the conviction reversed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the stated reason for conviction was not a "high crime or misdemeanor". I can't imagine any Supreme Court touching that with a ten-foot pole.

Impeachment of the executive by the legislature is fundamentally a political, not legal, matter -- and should be.

(09-29-2019 10:31 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 08:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 08:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 08:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 07:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What part of “high crimes” says you don’t need a crime to impeach?

Probably the “and misdemeanors” part

Isn’t a misdemeanor a crime?

Edit: never mind. It is.

misdemeanor definition

I think you need to read a bit more about the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

I have always understood that impeachment does not require someone to commit a crime based on our penal code, which is correct. I actually misunderstood why that was - it’s actually that entire phrase that originated from centuries ago and

Quote:Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high...anors.html

In a similar vein, most of the legal analysis I've seen on the topic is that the question of what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" is one for the political branches -- i.e. it is what the houses of Congress say it is.

The alternative approach -- to insist that the phrase is justiciable -- would suggest that a president could be impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate, and then have the conviction reversed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the stated reason for conviction was not a "high crime or misdemeanor". I can't imagine any Supreme Court touching that with a ten-foot pole.

Impeachment of the executive by the legislature is fundamentally a political, not legal, matter -- and should be.

True it is a political matter. And should be.

But when we come to the point of 'the standard is X', if it goes down the path that 'the standard is whatever the hell we want it to be today' there are two points to consider:

1) that this is the ultimate of the progressive vein of the type of school that is the 'living Constitution' mode of political rule; and

2) if that standard becomes the basis, this republc and ideal of 'rule of law' is just as crappily bad as any gd random banana republic you might care to name.

I think the current behavior of the Democrats, going back to Election Day, 2016, perfectly illustrates that this is a political matter, and a political matter only.

Not to mention a perfect display of left wing hypocrisy and corruption.

I think back to the statement made about grand juries, that a D.A. can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants to. Except now, it is that a Democratic House can impeach a President for eating (or not eating) a ham sandwich if they want to.

And they want to impeach, just looking for an excuse. Anything.

BTW, if a Democrat is elected I may need to come out of retirement at 75 and find a job. As near as I can tell, I am as qualified as Hunter Biden for the job he held, just with the wrong daddy. Think I have a chance?

(09-29-2019 11:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  BTW, if a Democrat is elected I may need to come out of retirement at 75 and find a job. As near as I can tell, I am as qualified as Hunter Biden for the job he held, just with the wrong daddy. Think I have a chance?

What policy that has been proposed by a Democrat would directly affect you in a way that your savings/retirement funds would be hurt so badly that you would need to renter the workforce?