1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Trump Part 18

Discussion in 'off topic' started by kendo, Oct 10, 2019.

  1. Roger Adams

    Roger Adams Well-Known Member

    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.

    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: Jan 25, 2020
  2. Yank

    Yank Bulbous Also Tapered

    Roger Adams likes this.
  3. vuk

    vuk \o/ choose anarchy

    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.

    "... 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
  4. Roger Adams

    Roger Adams Well-Known Member

    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..
  5. vuk

    vuk \o/ choose anarchy

    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.
  6. Yank

    Yank Bulbous Also Tapered

    Every Sky Sports announcer?
  7. Roger Adams

    Roger Adams Well-Known Member

    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

    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?
  8. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

  9. DonQuixote99

    DonQuixote99 pfm Member

    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.
    vuk likes this.
  10. Yank

    Yank Bulbous Also Tapered

    He doesn't suffer a free press well. Give them a second term and before long they'll shut out, or be shut out by, all the press save Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars.
    DonQuixote99 likes this.
  11. vuk

    vuk \o/ choose anarchy

    not at all. i just threw out one example. perhaps a bit of projection going on here.

    a wild guess would be the old kasper****** account. another would be some kind of sophisticated "chat bot".
  12. vuk

    vuk \o/ choose anarchy

    i am rarely impressed, but that is a very impressive summary of the situation (not to mention TKO).
  13. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    People who when ordering a beer say "a flagon of your finest ale please, barkeep" and wear hats like Terry Pratchett.
  14. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    I think we should hear what Mr Bolton has to say. <popcorn at ready>
  15. vuk

    vuk \o/ choose anarchy

    the senate agreed and i didn't receive a new york times breaking news notice?
  16. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    Haven't they all got an advanced copy of his book?
  17. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    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.
  18. Roger Adams

    Roger Adams Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. vuk

    vuk \o/ choose anarchy

    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.)

  20. matthewr

    matthewr spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld

    "When Trump briefly paused this Ukrainian military aid". Dear God, Mate is so deeply disingenuous.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice