advertisement


Trump Part 18

Status
Not open for further replies.
As they say, the reporter in question has a masters degree from Cambridge in International Affairs whilst Pompeo just happens to have a world map sitting around without the names of any nation whatsoever on it. Then suggests this remarkably intelligent lady pointed at Bangladesh. It would be hilarious were it not so dangerous - as it is playing to the ignorance of the Trump base.

If we are going to talk about naive political assessments/predictions, i'd like to submit the above.

By remarkable coincidence, now twenty past eight in the UK, CNN have just had a professor in politics from Harvard making exactly the same point that I was making - about the risk to the GOP. He must be so naive....

I have no idea who you are "Vuk" but you appear here to be doing a "Pompeo" yourself. Is there the possibility of you answering the questions posed or would you prefer to question integrity with personal attacks?
 
Last edited:
I have no idea who you are "Vuk" but you appear here to be doing a "Pompeo" yourself. Is there the possibility of you answering the questions posed or would you prefer to question integrity with personal attacks?

sorry, but you seem to be avoiding "the spirit" of the discussion. something does not have to be explicitly referenced in the constitution to be considered an impeachable offense. there was actually talk of impeaching some of the bushies for lying the nation into war and it wasn't dismissed on the grounds you are imagining, but simply because of corrupt establishment politics. obama's public "excuse" was wanting to look forward (or something like that). the reality was probably protecting pelosi and others who had played along.

Marjorie Cohn

professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild.

FROM INTERVIEW WITH AMY GOODMAN:
"... Well, Nancy Pelosi resisted for many, many months mounting impeachment, an impeachment proceeding in the House. And there are many different grounds that he could have been impeached for: violation of the emoluments clause, corruption and war crimes, as you said, most recently killing Soleimani in violation of the U.N. Charter, in violation of the War Powers Resolution."

Law Professor: Trump Could Also Have Been Impeached for War Crimes, Assassinations & Corruption
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/24/donald_trump_senate_impeachment_trial
 
Does not the eleventh amendment grant sovereign immunity against the federal impeachment of any public official or citizen in the case of charges being made by a foreign nation or body?

As I, as an outsider I admit, understand it, the Constitution allows for Federal prosecution of the crimes of treason, high crimes and misdemeanours, the violation of the Constitution, bribery and corruption and/or the abuse of the trust of the people.

It does not seem to allow for any accusations from foreign powers as Federal jurisdiction would I assume not apply in such cases..
 
Does not the eleventh amendment....

who talks likes that?

anyhow, i'm going to side with the law prof on this one. maybe you want to get in touch with her or the bar association and express your grave concerns, dear sir.
 
who talks likes that?

anyhow, i'm going to side with the law prof on this one. maybe you want to get in touch with her or the bar association and express your grave concerns, dear sir.

Which law prof Vuk? The naive one concerned for the GOP going forward for overtly covering up high crimes and demeanours? The ones claiming that there are no legal precedents for the administration's actions or the ones suggesting that Trump acted personally and illegally in the obstruction of justice (through ordering the defiance of House subpoenas) under Federal Law?

Alternatively, are you suggesting the one that you quote is the sole arbiter of the truth?

Have you ever read the eleventh amendment out of interest? Or indeed seen the context? I will save you the time dear fellow

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

A justifiable position if nothing else Vuk - I do hope you would agree. As indeed are the legal precedents if you would care to investigate them over the past 170 years.Given that a President, any Military Commander or indeed any Government decision maker is representing the United States when making a policy decision, they are immune from Federal impeachment in doing so.

Again, as far as I know, the War Powers Resolution of '73 is designed to prevent a sitting POTUS from unilaterally declaring war against another sovereign state - nothing more, nothing less. Corruption would come under the Constitution and has already been covered and that is part of the impeachment - as is the emolument clause as he sought to profit from his office.

Your Marjorie has a habit of criticising American overseas war crimes it would seem - no doubt with some justification. It would also appear however that she has yet to succeed in convincing anyone to even bring a Federal case against any public servant for acting in that fashion. Do you get where I am coming from?
 
Given that a President, any Military Commander or indeed any Government decision maker is representing the United States when making a policy decision, they are immune from Federal impeachment in doing so.

I would take the view that a 'high crime or misdemeanor' is undefined, and therefore is whatever those involved think it is. There is no textual limit on what may be an impeachable offense.

In claiming broad 'immunity' from impeachment for those deciding 'policy' for the United States, you are taking the gnostic magical view that a secret meaning, known only to the enlightened, gives a bit of the Constitution irresistible power. In fact, as we are seeing right now, even the plainest and most obvious meaning of the Constitution has only the power that the powerful of the moment agree it should have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vuk
I would take the view that a 'high crime or misdemeanor' is undefined, and therefore is whatever those involved think it is. There is no textual limit on what may be an impeachable offense.

In claiming broad 'immunity' from impeachment for those deciding 'policy' for the United States, you are taking the gnostic magical view that a secret meaning, known only to the enlightened, gives a bit of the Constitution irresistible power. In fact, as we are seeing right now, even the plainest and most obvious meaning of the Constitution has only the power that the powerful of the moment agree it should have.

i am rarely impressed, but that is a very impressive summary of the situation (not to mention TKO).
 
I was actually going to post "He's writing a book so i am pretty sure we will know soon" yesterday which would have secured my status as the Trump greenseer.
 
not at all. i just threw out one example. perhaps a bit of projection going on here.

Would you care to throw out another?

Would you care to answer the question as to why CNN are giving blanket coverage to the proceedings without loss of revenue whilst you are able to make assertions that there is no one taking any interest? Based on five minutes a day?

I'm struggling to award your comments any degree of credibility as it stands Vuk.
 
chickens coming home to roost

for all of those who chastised max for suggesting trump may be more of a peace candidate, but then went on to encourage full-throttle militaristic, anti-russian hillary xenophobia, here is something to think about..

(i do really mean "think about". when i present a video or article here it doesn't mean i agree 100%, but that there is something in it worth considering.)

 
"When Trump briefly paused this Ukrainian military aid". Dear God, Mate is so deeply disingenuous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top