myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Trump
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1040, 1041, 1042 ... 1060, 1061, 1062  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vientomas



Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 941

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
mac wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
vientomas wrote:
A primary element that has separated the United States of America from virtually every other nation in history is the concept of it being “a nation of laws, not a nation of men.”

“A nation of laws” means that laws, not people, rule. Everyone is to be governed by the same laws, regardless of their station; whether it is the most common American or Members of Congress, high-ranking bureaucrats or the President of the United States; all must be held to the just laws of America. No one is, or can be allowed to be, above the law.

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/26902-the-united-states-of-america-a-nation-of-laws-not-a-nation-of-men


Does that include Due Process????? Something the dems seem to have zero interest in with their bogus impeachment clown show....


Of course you have no idea of how due process applies in an impeachment inquiry, or how the Trumpists ignore it in everything they do. Someone just gave you a peanut—you didn’t notice how it had been used.


Actually moron you are wrong. The Supreme Court has been very clear that congressional hearings absolutely require Due Process...otherwise we would live in a banana republic. But we know the Critical Thinker does not care about the law or precedents as long as it hurts Trump..






This is what a true Critical Thinker sounds like.....pretty much the opposite of a turd like you...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-have-to-make-impeachment-fair-but-it-still-should-be/2019/10/13/b09ce182-ec44-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html


Due process protects regular people from an overbearing, arbitrary hand of government that attempts to deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property” without notice and an opportunity to be heard first. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (the one that binds the federal government) is not intended to protect officeholders—such as the individual who heads the entire federal criminal and military apparatus—from political investigation or a House impeachment trial. Moreover, while a criminal defendant might be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment, a conviction in the Senate means that the president only loses his job. Even targets of grand jury investigations don’t get the panoply of “rights” that Cipollone wrongly claims the president deserves under the Constitution at the House stage of the impeachment proceedings—namely, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, to have counsel present during each stage of the process, to have access to the evidence, to get transcripts of the testimony, and “many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.”

That said, as Republicans have pointed out, the full House of Representatives held votes formally triggering the impeachment inquiries for presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. For both Nixon and Clinton, the impeachment process began with resolutions giving the Judiciary Committee the power to conduct an investigation into whether grounds for impeachment existed. Republicans argue that this precedent—although not binding—should be followed here.

In 1868, however, after Andrew Johnson dismissed the Secretary of War in violation of a statute that required Senate approval, the House voted on a “Resolution providing for the impeachment” of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors in office.” A vote on the actual articles of impeachment came a few days later. For Johnson, then, there was no threshold vote on an impeachment inquiry, so historical precedent isn’t uniform.

That said, there is a legal and strategic rationale for holding a House vote at this juncture. Per Cipollone’s letter, the White House is refusing categorically to respond to congressional subpoenas. For Nixon and Clinton, the subpoenas came through the judicial branch, not Congress. Encouraging Monica Lewinsky to conceal gifts subpoenaed by independent counsel Ken Starr was among the items listed in the articles of impeachment for Clinton. Nixon balked at a subpoena from special prosecutor Leon Jaworski for the White House tapes, losing the challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court.

For congressional subpoenas, the 1961 decision in Wilkinson v. United States is more on point. In that case, a witness refused to answer questions about his Communist party affiliation when subpoenaed to testify before a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was investigating Communist infiltration in the South. The witness cited First Amendment concerns, claiming that “the Congress cannot investigate into an area where it cannot legislate.” He was convicted of violating a statute making it a misdemeanor for refusing to answer any question pertinent to a congressional inquiry.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that the investigation was authorized by Congress, that the subcommittee was pursuing a valid legislative purpose, and that the questioning was pertinent to the congressional inquiry. It rejected the First Amendment claim.

Arguably, a House vote to instigate formal impeachment hearings would strengthen Congress’s hand should the stonewalled subpoenas reach the federal courts through the filing of a civil action. (We can expect that, unlike in Wilkinson, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Bill Barr won’t take up a criminal action to enforce Congress’s subpoena prerogative.)

But impeachment is an express power entrusted to the House in Article II of the Constitution. There’s no debate here about squishy constitutional language, originalism, or a “living Constitution.” Nor does this text involve arcane English that people today cannot readily comprehend. The House unequivocally has the power it is currently exercising.

If this issue reaches the Supreme Court on the merits, even conservative-leaning justices will likely agree: Impeachment proceedings are not unconstitutional.

https://thebulwark.com/impeachment-and-the-due-process-canard/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6611

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
mac, that photo characterization of Donald Trump in that British article at the hobbledehoy website was beyond hilarious. Needless to say, the article itself was spot on.

As time moves on, Trump is sounding exceedingly whiny and desperate about the Democrats' impeachment investigation and everything around him. It's more than pathetic seeing the supposedly strong alpha male character playing the poor victim routine fishing for sympathy. What a con man. Only a fool would eat that stuff up.


Let me remind you stupid...Trump has destroyed the Clintons, destroyed the Bushes, Destroyed the Bidens, destroyed the media, and is in the process of destroying the deep state.... LOL



Impeachment will be an absolute disaster for dems....going nowhere and if it does make it to the Senate it will never even see a vote.....

If vou t
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6611

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vientomas wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
mac wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
vientomas wrote:
A primary element that has separated the United States of America from virtually every other nation in history is the concept of it being “a nation of laws, not a nation of men.”

“A nation of laws” means that laws, not people, rule. Everyone is to be governed by the same laws, regardless of their station; whether it is the most common American or Members of Congress, high-ranking bureaucrats or the President of the United States; all must be held to the just laws of America. No one is, or can be allowed to be, above the law.

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/26902-the-united-states-of-america-a-nation-of-laws-not-a-nation-of-men


Does that include Due Process????? Something the dems seem to have zero interest in with their bogus impeachment clown show....


Of course you have no idea of how due process applies in an impeachment inquiry, or how the Trumpists ignore it in everything they do. Someone just gave you a peanut—you didn’t notice how it had been used.


Actually moron you are wrong. The Supreme Court has been very clear that congressional hearings absolutely require Due Process...otherwise we would live in a banana republic. But we know the Critical Thinker does not care about the law or precedents as long as it hurts Trump..






This is what a true Critical Thinker sounds like.....pretty much the opposite of a turd like you...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-have-to-make-impeachment-fair-but-it-still-should-be/2019/10/13/b09ce182-ec44-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html


Due process protects regular people from an overbearing, arbitrary hand of government that attempts to deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property” without notice and an opportunity to be heard first. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (the one that binds the federal government) is not intended to protect officeholders—such as the individual who heads the entire federal criminal and military apparatus—from political investigation or a House impeachment trial. Moreover, while a criminal defendant might be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment, a conviction in the Senate means that the president only loses his job. Even targets of grand jury investigations don’t get the panoply of “rights” that Cipollone wrongly claims the president deserves under the Constitution at the House stage of the impeachment proceedings—namely, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, to have counsel present during each stage of the process, to have access to the evidence, to get transcripts of the testimony, and “many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.”

That said, as Republicans have pointed out, the full House of Representatives held votes formally triggering the impeachment inquiries for presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. For both Nixon and Clinton, the impeachment process began with resolutions giving the Judiciary Committee the power to conduct an investigation into whether grounds for impeachment existed. Republicans argue that this precedent—although not binding—should be followed here.

In 1868, however, after Andrew Johnson dismissed the Secretary of War in violation of a statute that required Senate approval, the House voted on a “Resolution providing for the impeachment” of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors in office.” A vote on the actual articles of impeachment came a few days later. For Johnson, then, there was no threshold vote on an impeachment inquiry, so historical precedent isn’t uniform.

That said, there is a legal and strategic rationale for holding a House vote at this juncture. Per Cipollone’s letter, the White House is refusing categorically to respond to congressional subpoenas. For Nixon and Clinton, the subpoenas came through the judicial branch, not Congress. Encouraging Monica Lewinsky to conceal gifts subpoenaed by independent counsel Ken Starr was among the items listed in the articles of impeachment for Clinton. Nixon balked at a subpoena from special prosecutor Leon Jaworski for the White House tapes, losing the challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court.

For congressional subpoenas, the 1961 decision in Wilkinson v. United States is more on point. In that case, a witness refused to answer questions about his Communist party affiliation when subpoenaed to testify before a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was investigating Communist infiltration in the South. The witness cited First Amendment concerns, claiming that “the Congress cannot investigate into an area where it cannot legislate.” He was convicted of violating a statute making it a misdemeanor for refusing to answer any question pertinent to a congressional inquiry.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that the investigation was authorized by Congress, that the subcommittee was pursuing a valid legislative purpose, and that the questioning was pertinent to the congressional inquiry. It rejected the First Amendment claim.

Arguably, a House vote to instigate formal impeachment hearings would strengthen Congress’s hand should the stonewalled subpoenas reach the federal courts through the filing of a civil action. (We can expect that, unlike in Wilkinson, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Bill Barr won’t take up a criminal action to enforce Congress’s subpoena prerogative.)

But impeachment is an express power entrusted to the House in Article II of the Constitution. There’s no debate here about squishy constitutional language, originalism, or a “living Constitution.” Nor does this text involve arcane English that people today cannot readily comprehend. The House unequivocally has the power it is currently exercising.

If this issue reaches the Supreme Court on the merits, even conservative-leaning justices will likely agree: Impeachment proceedings are not unconstitutional.

https://thebulwark.com/impeachment-and-the-due-process-canard/




Wrong nitwit....Shiff has called these hearings depositions and grand jury style.....What they are doing is wrong, useless, and will absolutely backfire....

Impeachment is not a partisan event, which this clearly is. If you think the framers would approve of what's going on here you are one stupid liberal.

But I doubt you have the integrity to admit that...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 7470
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now we know why Pompeo was trying to keep this guy from testifying..
SPOOS dropped 9 handles when this came out today...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-taylor-diplomat-who-texted-concerns-about-trumps-ukraine-moves-testifies-under-subpoena
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 450

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
Wrong nitwit....Shiff has called these hearings depositions and grand jury style.....What they are doing is wrong, useless, and will absolutely backfire....
Impeachment is not a partisan event, which this clearly is. If you think the framers would approve of what's going on here you are one stupid liberal.
But I doubt you have the integrity to admit that...

I hear it took Republicans a while to come around during Nixon's impeachment. With today's testimony, it will happen. And I doubt you will admit being wrong.
PS. I also just learned what a SPOOS is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6611

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
Now we know why Pompeo was trying to keep this guy from testifying..
SPOOS dropped 9 handles when this came out today...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-taylor-diplomat-who-texted-concerns-about-trumps-ukraine-moves-testifies-under-subpoena



What part of crystal clear confuse you???????????????


Sondland, who has also testified on Capitol Hill, responded to Taylor's text message at the time by saying, "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 6611

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LHDR wrote:
mat-ty wrote:
Wrong nitwit....Shiff has called these hearings depositions and grand jury style.....What they are doing is wrong, useless, and will absolutely backfire....
Impeachment is not a partisan event, which this clearly is. If you think the framers would approve of what's going on here you are one stupid liberal.
But I doubt you have the integrity to admit that...

I hear it took Republicans a while to come around during Nixon's impeachment. With today's testimony, it will happen. And I doubt you will admit being wrong.
PS. I also just learned what a SPOOS is.


How many times is it now that the dummyrats think they found the smoking gun..???????????????

Keep your panties on, this is going nowhere. Meanwhile trump is filling stadiums with historical attendance....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 7470
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
Now we know why Pompeo was trying to keep this guy from testifying..
SPOOS dropped 9 handles when this came out today...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-taylor-diplomat-who-texted-concerns-about-trumps-ukraine-moves-testifies-under-subpoena



What part of crystal clear confuse you???????????????


Sondland, who has also testified on Capitol Hill, responded to Taylor's text message at the time by saying, "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."



That's Sondland. Taylor had a much different account today, under oath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/diplomat-who-raised-alarm-about-withholding-aid-to-ukraine-testifies-in-impeachment-probe/2019/10/22/086fb850-f436-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 13023
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
Now we know why Pompeo was trying to keep this guy from testifying..
SPOOS dropped 9 handles when this came out today...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-taylor-diplomat-who-texted-concerns-about-trumps-ukraine-moves-testifies-under-subpoena



What part of crystal clear confuse you???????????????


Sondland, who has also testified on Capitol Hill, responded to Taylor's text message at the time by saying, "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."



Laughing Laughing Laughing

Sondland was trying to undo the text. There are multiple lines of evidence that others had informed Ukrainians that 1). The money was being held up; 2) Trump wanted an investigation of Hunter Biden and the crazy stories about the Ukranians helping Hillary; and 3). Zelensky would not be welcome to meet with Trump unless he investigated Hunter Biden. It was that chain of evidence that William Taylor objected to—and Sondland’s text cannot backspace over the history. To add to the evidence, Zelensky proposed a general promise to investigate corruption—which made sense because he was elected on an anti-corruption platform—Trump folks said that wasn’t good enough, and wrote a proposal that Zelensky wouldn’t sign.

Don’t let facts get in the way of sucking the peanuts directly out of Trump’s ass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vientomas



Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 941

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey...wink, wink, nod, non, no quid pro quo...right?

The top US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, testified Tuesday that he had been told President Donald Trump would withhold military aid to the country until it publicly declared investigations would be launched that could help his reelection chances — including into former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a copy of Taylor's opening statement obtained by CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-deposition-text-messages/index.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1040, 1041, 1042 ... 1060, 1061, 1062  Next
Page 1041 of 1062

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group