I just picked the OP to quote, as I could not choose from among the many others. Your anger has been somewhat cathartic for me. I’ve longed for access to the people who wrote the dialogue for Deadwood, thinking that only that kind of Shakespearean cursing could come close to expressing my emotions. Lacking that, I’ve thought of marathoning the show and taking copious notes, studying the stunning poetry of curses that flowed from nearly every character. I should anyway, 'cause, you know, it’s Deadwood.
Anyway, what you lack in poetry, you make up for with spirit and determination, spewing forth a virtual R-rated Donald Duck fit of frustration and furious anger throughout this thread. Not bad, sir. Thank you.
Think I’ll still marathon Deadwood and take notes. Maybe I’ll skip season 3, though.
As I see it, the decision addresses the matter of the procedures of an impeachment legitimately entered into (and yes, I agree it applies to the House as well as the Senate), not the requirements for a legitimate impeachment in the first place.
Let me ask you, does the “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” clause have any meaning and/or effect whatsoever?
Except “high crimes and misdemeanors” is undefined, to be defined but the House via their “sole power”. But I’m guessing we’ll never see for sure as I think the odds of such a case going to the SCOTUS is as close to zero as possible.
I have heard of each of these concepts, but I don’t see how they make sense in this context.
When we discuss things like disclosure of classified information, it’s factually true that if the President does it, then it’s not a crime. So when you say, sarcastically, “If the President does it, it’s not a crime,” it seems like you’re trying to suggest, by sarcasm, that the claim isn’t true. . . even when it is. But because you’re not making a literal claim, it’s almost impossible to rebut that suggestion. So you simultaneously get to make a suggestion and insulate that suggestion from meaningful critique.
I think the effect he’s going for is: It’s true, but it shouldn’t be true. So the rebuttal might be aimed at the idea that things would actually be worse if it were not true.
Oh, right. I meant to change that to “disingenuous Trump-garglers” but then I got sidetracked. Damn. That would have been much better. Feel free to make the edit, if you want.
This thread here is the **“If you are carrying water for Donald Trump, even now - especially now - kindly go fuck yourself” ** thread. Arguments are down the hall.
Turning this thread into an exploration of my inner life would be the equivalent of making you barf up the water in your Donald-hump and putting it in my neti pot. Therefore, in the interests of adapting myself to company, kindly go fuck yourself.
I’m asking you what you let yourself think about the charge of “carrying water.” It seems to me you’re willing to level this charge against anyone who objects to the truth of attacks against Trump, without concern for whether those attacks are in fact true. The thread subject and your reactions, in other words, are simply unconcerned with the facts: if the truth hurts Trump, you seem to be saying, bring it on, but if the truth doesn’t hurt Trump, it has no place here.
So, yes, I’m very interested in your inner thought process as it relates to that framework. Do you let yourself think it? Or just sort of do it, without allowing yourself to examine the equities?
I am willing to level the charge against the guy who’s working overtime to find excuses for Trump’s mistakes in a thread about excoriating those who excuse Trump’s mistakes.
I don’t believe that you care what I’m thinking. I don’t think you’re being honest in your arguments or your actions here, whether it’s insulting me or urging me provide cites about your hijacks or claiming to want to hear an exegesis of my ratiocinations . If I pursue anyone of those discussion branches, then it fulfills your attempt to hijack the discussion away from condemning the people who change the subject
You are the one enabling Trump by derailing condemnation with hijacks about stuff like gun control. You’re the living embodiment of the kind of guy the OP was talking about.
The only reason I’m spelling this out is because I want everyone here to see you standing there, holding Trump’s dick like a water hose. Piss off, Gunga Din.
There was alot of give and take at that point, and the thread was moving fast, so I am not sure that Bricker ever saw my reply to that question, especially as it seems that is still an active topic, so I quote myself.
As I said there, I assume that I am not correct on that point, but everytime I hear of a new thing that Mr. 45 has done, I think, “Well, that’s gotta be illegal, right?” and the answer has always been “No, the president has the power to do that.” and I have to wonder what, if any limits, are on that power.
Bricker has assured me, I think, that if trumpo were to actually pull off his hypothetical threat of shooting someone dead on fifth avenue, then that would be a power that the president does not have, and that he would in fact get in trouble for that.
So, at the risk of sounding dense, I am curious on a list of a couple of things, and whether or not the president can do them. And in these, I am assuming we have concrete proof of these actions, so it is not a matter of whether he did it, just a matter of whether or not he is allowed to do that by law, or at least by practical realities of things that will actually result in impeachment or otherwise removal from office.
You can answer with just yes or no, give more explanation on marginal cases if you like, or ignore them entirely. I am just wondering from the aspect of how soundly I can sleep at night.
Starts a war with someone in exchange for money from a foreign power.
Ends a war with someone in exchange for money from a foreign power.
Sells military troop movements to a foreign power. (Convoy routes, active battle plans, etc.)
Sells strategic military designs to a foreign power. (Stealth technology, nuclear tech, that sort of thing)
Fires the special prosecutor that was just appointed.
Jails journalists for what we will call “novel” reasons. (Point is, there are plenty of reasons to jail journalists other than their journalism, for instance if a journalist is a murderer, then I would not count their prosecution, so reasons that have no, or little historical precedent.)
Nukes a third party country or city in exchange for money from a foreign power.
Instructs the intelligence agencies to investigate or not investigate a particular person or entity, in exchange for money from a foreign power.
Refuses to give me a pony.
I could rack my head, and try to come up with other marginal cases upon which I would think on first light that would be illegal, but given the unique circumstances, I cannot make that assumption anymore, so if you feel that there are marginal cases that would better describe the limits of the abuses of power that the officeholder of the president of the US, feel free to provide such as an example. If not, I am sure that trump will provide non-hypothetical examples aplenty.
No, but by your own admission, you find Mr. 45 to be more acceptable than Hillary. That by definition, means you are carrying water for trump. I never said you had sworn fealty, just that you are no better than those who did.
He’s actually worse as he carries the water but is too chicken-shit to just admit it. Same as Bricker actually though one of them denies with really poor attempts at snark while the other attempts to obfuscate with legal hand-waving. We get it, our scientists thawed you out and our world confuses and frightens you.
But make no mistake, both of them are nothing but canteens for the orange menace.
That’s an interesting interpretation, especially coming from a dedicated textualist such as yourself.
But while your interpretation may very well be valid, it’s hardly a slam-dunk. At this point in time, no one has raised that precise issue, possibly because Congress has not impeached anyone without citing a legally-defined crime. Should the Congress ever impeach someone without there being an act that was already defined as a crime of some sort, I can definitely see the accused feeling like they have some sort of standing to challenge the impeachment in court.
John Mace:
The term may be somewhat undefined, but it at least seems to indicate some sort of crime needs to be the basis for impeachment proceedings. As I said to Bricker, it may well end up that if an impeachee for a non-crime challenges the impeachment in court, the court will find your interpretation is the correct one. But I don’t think it’s necessarily the obvious outcome.
IIRC a Senate trial to remove a President from office is presided over by the Chief Justice. Could the Chief Justice rule that articles of impeachment were invalid because they did not include a legally-defined crime?
So the House impeaches Trump for being a bozo, and Trump’s defense attorney stands up at the start of the trial and says “being a bozo isn’t against the law. Move to dismiss” and the Chief Justice rules in his favor. Could the prosecution appeal to the Supreme Court?