Mister Meaner
formerly super producer j
- 20,043
- 10,237
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
One doesn't have to be a President to be impeached.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Seems you missed the operative word in my post
Mister Meaner
formerly super producer j
- 20,043
- 10,237
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- 29,454
- 20,701
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
DAMN RIGHT. Our President could shoot a man on 5th Avenue, and its obviously in the best interest of the nation, as NOBODY else could know what that man was planning except our President and the intelligence he's given by his BFFs. He could also order a missile strike on a man in Iraq and NOBODY else needs to know the reason it was so important. But it was. Our President said so. Therefore you MUST acquit!
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Seems you missed the pointmr s j king was making as well.
Nope. Just narrowed it to situations that are on point.
- 6,344
- 4,064
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
I don’t think the witnesses would matter in this proceeding.
I think all the arguments against compelling their testimony in the house still exist with compelling them in the Senate.
Further, the president’s attorneys have argued that the allegations, if believed, do not amount to an impeachable offense as a matter of law.
Normally, that means that the party would move for summary judgment, on that argument, and there would be no need to call witnesses. Since the judges are the senators, they make the decision on what’s impeachable.
aepps20
Supporter
- 40,240
- 85,429
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
If they are victims of Roy Moore yes.
- 9,421
- 7,193
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
"Mr President, we're heading out to get burgers. What do you want on yours?"
"NO ONIONS, NO MUSTARD, and NO QUID PRO QUO!"
"NO ONIONS, NO MUSTARD, and NO QUID PRO QUO!"
- 54,254
- 143,083
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2012
aepps20
Supporter
- 40,240
- 85,429
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 62,841
- 188,696
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Do you every choke on all that bull**** you continuously spew.
Belgium
formerly colombia
- 25,942
- 37,211
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
As much of a scumbag as Bolton is, he is by all means a cunning and intelligent man. Obviously the president has the authority to remove ambassadors for any reason, something Bolton surely knows, so he presumably referred to the role of Giuliani and his henchmen.
According to the Parnas/Fruman indictment and recent reporting, prosecutors believe the henchmen pushed for Yovanovitch's removal at least in part at the direction of one or more Ukrainian officials. The NYT's reporting on the Bolton manuscript also mentioned a conversation Bolton had with Mike Pompeo, who reportedly told Bolton that he believed Giuliani was acting on behalf of his clients.
According to the Parnas/Fruman indictment and recent reporting, prosecutors believe the henchmen pushed for Yovanovitch's removal at least in part at the direction of one or more Ukrainian officials. The NYT's reporting on the Bolton manuscript also mentioned a conversation Bolton had with Mike Pompeo, who reportedly told Bolton that he believed Giuliani was acting on behalf of his clients.
Last edited:
- 6,344
- 4,064
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
Of course the president’s attorneys are going to argue that, that doesn’t make it true. You have no idea if witnesses would matter because you haven’t heard their testimony. Senators don’t make the decision of what’s impeachable, he is already impeached. Also, abuse of power is outlined in the constitution.
Before the narrative was he did this to look into corruption in Ukraine but now the goal post has been moved to yeah he abused the power of the office for his own benefit but it’s not impeachable.
Why all the lies?
- 146,302
- 192,437
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Removal flows from impeachment.
The Senators are the judges. They DO make the decision on what is ultimately a removable offense as they can acquit the president of the charges lodged against him in the house and determine that he did not commit anything that warrants removal from Office.
Since the senators are the judges they can decide to agree with the President’s lawyers and determine that what is alleged is not an impeachable offense as a matter of law. And thus, it does not warrant removal.
Having witnesses would concede that the alleged activities are impeachable, if proven. And then it gets to a back-n-forth factual argument. But summarily deciding on the law is an option since they are ultimately the judges.
The idea of calling witnesses when everyone agrees he won’t be removed is nonsensical.
Try this hypo:
The judge in your case has decided that you are innocent because what’s alleged is not a crime. Your lawyer makes an argument that even if what the DA charged you with is true, it does not meet the elements of the crime. The judge agrees (majority of the senate). Your attorney makes a motion of summary judgment on the law. Does the judge:
a. Hear witnesses to determine the facts; or
b. Make a determination assuming that all of the allegations are true?
The former, I submit, is a waste of time. Because it ends in the same place. Unless they make different charges—as long as the majority agree that the charged behavior doesn’t warrant removal, witnesses won’t matter.
Belgium
formerly colombia
- 25,942
- 37,211
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
Perhaps this is an attempt to deal with an argument by Flynn's defense. I'm not sure how much legal validity, if any, that argument had but when prosecutors changed their sentencing recommendation to jail time rather than probation (within the 6 month maximum guideline), Flynn's lawyers filed a motion against that.
This seems to be prosecutors wanting to have it both ways. Yeah we want jail time now but at the end of the day we'd be ok with our original recommendation too. If the judge's reactions to Flynn and his new counsel are any indication, he probably wouldn't let Flynn off with just probation anyway.
Belgium
formerly colombia
- 25,942
- 37,211
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
Gee I wonder why
- 146,302
- 192,437
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
aepps20
Supporter
- 40,240
- 85,429
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
I've got QUID
I've got PRO QUOS, in different area codes (area, area codes, codes)
Quid, PRO, Quos, in different area codes (area, area codes, codes)
Now you thought I was just 7-7-0
And 4-0-4, I'm worldwide Libs, act like y'all don't know
It's the abominable Pro Quo man
Globe-trot international post man
Neighbor-Quid man
7-1-8s, 2-0-2's
I send small cities and states I-O-U's
9-0-1, matter fact 3-0-5
I'll jump off the G4, we can meet outside
So control your Chris Quomoes and keep your drawers on
'Til I close the door and I'm jumping your QUOS
3-1-2, 3-1-3, 2-1-5, 8-0-3
Read your horoscope and eat some QUO d'oeuvres
Ten on pump one these Quids is self serve
7-5-7, 4-1-0, my cell phone says overload
- 21,963
- 23,887
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
straight skipped over the “its not illegal” and “others have done it” steps directly to “who cares?”
AA would be proud of their mental gymnastics
- 5,696
- 4,556
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
That's always how it goes, the stages of a trump defense. Deny it ever happened, as facts slowly begin to leak say if it did happen it's not illegal. More facts leak, so what if it happened get over it
He has to be the worst of all the Trump bootlickers and that isn't saying much. Trump called his wife ugly, said his pops killed JFK, and called him out numerous times. How can you look yourself and your family in the eye after allowing all of that to happen and then go and be his biggest cheerleader? How can anyone trust a person who'd do that?
Last edited:
Belgium
formerly colombia
- 25,942
- 37,211
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
Bolton liked that tweet 
