Sounds like Baghdadi was killed or captured tonight

Discussion in 'The Slant Political Board' started by 2000Jayhawk, Oct 26, 2019.

  1. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Actually they don't get executed "with a hell of a lot more". Do some research on how many of the people convicted are based heavily on eye witness testimony.

    I did as you requested. The % of murder cases based soley on eye witness testimony? 5%. So 95% had more, so no, they DO get executed with more.


    Hell, a quick search pulled up a man convicted based on zero hard evidence and a questionable testimony from a single eye witness. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/15/carlos-texas-innocent-man-death

    Yes, let's change the whole system based on one case. Really dude?


    You have the hard evidence: transcripts, proof funding was withheld, texts and paper communications between key individuals

    I don't have it and neither you do. You have repeatedly inserted meaning and motivation into the 'evidence'. Just because you want it to meant that doesn't mean it does.


    This is about as open and shut as it gets. Even many in the GOP have largely conceded it happened by claiming the process is flawed and the action isn't impeachable (look at their witness list - how many on there are on there to refute the evidence provided by the witnesses?).

    This is so far from open and shut...are you trolling me?


    That is WAY more than enough to convict someone in a court.

    Please....
     
  2. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    I did as you requested. The % of murder cases based soley on eye witness testimony? 5%. So 95% had more, so no, they DO get executed with more.

    So they get executed based solely on eye witness testimony. Thanks for the assist.

    Yes, let's change the whole system based on one case. Really dude?


    We aren't changing the system, we're recognizing that eye witness testimony is evidence and available for convicting people. You just cited a statistic yourself.

    I don't have it and neither you do. You have repeatedly inserted meaning and motivation into the 'evidence'. Just because you want it to meant that doesn't mean it does.


    I don't have it? Trump himself released the transcript that showed he asked the President to investigate the Bidens. Staff released texts showing the back and forth and the allegation funding was held up for investigations (as well as meetings with Trump). We know the funding was held up. Do you dispute any of that?

    This is so far from open and shut...are you trolling me?

    Please....
    [\

    I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you are paying attention to the transcripts and evidence that has been produced.

    Also, what evidence do you have the people involved have political motivations and are lying under oath?
     
  3. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    @Hawker-2001

    Actually let's try this: Sondland, a person who donated $1M to Trump and was appointed by Trump, said there was a quid pro quo and he relayed that to the Ukrainians.

    Vindman, a decorated serviceman and member of the NSC, said that to get a meeting with Trump, they had to announce an investigation into the Bidens. In fact, he said "there was no doubt" it was a quid pro quo.

    The transcript released by Trump (and which witnesses said was not the full transcript) shows that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, which is really all that's needed since a quid pro quo isn't a problem.

    Which of those is a lie and 'not evidence'?
     
  4. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    So they get executed based solely on eye witness testimony. Thanks for the assist.

    Stupid.

    We aren't changing the system, we're recognizing that eye witness testimony is evidence and available for convicting people. You just cited a statistic yourself.

    Actually I cited a statistic that it is exceedingly rare for it to be used solely to convict. Which means you need more.

    I don't have it? Trump himself released the transcript that showed he asked the President to investigate the Bidens. Staff released texts showing the back and forth and the allegation funding was held up for investigations (as well as meetings with Trump). We know the funding was held up. Do you dispute any of that?

    I dispute that any of it is enough to convict...a court would tell me that. Until that happens, you don't have it.

    I'm genuinely starting to wonder if you are paying attention to the transcripts and evidence that has been produced.

    I'm paying attention...I'm just not willing to make the leaps of faith that you're evidently capable of. What this comes down to is you're willing to convict based on a new article...I on the other hand look to the courts to tell me what happened and what didn't. I think the better method is self-evident.
     
  5. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    Actually I cited a statistic that it is exceedingly rare for it to be used solely to convict. Which means you need more.

    You stated you "need a hell of a lot more" than just eye witness testimony to execute someone, then cited a statistic that it happens 5% of the time. 5% is not "exceedingly rare" and proves that people are executed for just eye witness testimony.

    I dispute that any of it is enough to convict...a court would tell me that. Until that happens, you don't have it.

    And again you fall back on, "I won't believe it until a court tells me it is enough" when you know a court can't intervene. All one has to do is follow court proceedings with a casual interest and see this is more than enough.

    I'm paying attention...I'm just not willing to make the leaps of faith that you're evidently capable of. What this comes down to is you're willing to convict based on a new article...I on the other hand look to the courts to tell me what happened and what didn't. I think the better method is self-evident.
    [/

    Actually I look at the evidence and make a decision. You on the other hand take a political process - impeachment - and say you don't want to buy-into the Constitutionally mandated process because you want the courts to decide, which you know is impossible. You've shielded yourself from having to condemn Trump by creating an impossibility to hide behind.
     
  6. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    Bumping for you Hawker. Which of these is not evidence or believable?
     
  7. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    You stated you "need a hell of a lot more" than just eye witness testimony to execute someone, then cited a statistic that it happens 5% of the time. 5% is not "exceedingly rare" and proves that people are executed for just eye witness testimony.

    I said you 'need a hell of a lot more' than just eyewitness testimony if you're going to go after the president. Trying to link that to your average murderous psychopath is weak. 5% is pretty damn rare whether you want to admit it or not; and even when it comes to the scum of the earth, 95% of the time they have more to get the conviction. If you're going to go after the leaders of the free world, an eye witness doesn't come close, not by a damn sight. You're a lawyer, I shouldn't need to explain how obvious this is.

    And again you fall back on, "I won't believe it until a court tells me it is enough" when you know a court can't intervene. All one has to do is follow court proceedings with a casual interest and see this is more than enough.

    I don't know that a court can't intervene...I only know the DOJ has refused to indict under other circumstances. Not close to the same thing.

    Actually I look at the evidence and make a decision. You on the other hand take a political process - impeachment - and say you don't want to buy-into the Constitutionally mandated process because you want the courts to decide, which you know is impossible. You've shielded yourself from having to condemn Trump by creating an impossibility to hide behind.

    If you truly think you've looked at the evidence objectively and think its a slam dunk, then you're deluding yourself. I have lawyers in my family that just roll their eyes when asked this question. One's a DA and he said he'd refuse to take that case against a normal person... but against the president? 'F'ing ridiculous' were his exact words.
     
  8. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    I said you 'need a hell of a lot more' than just eyewitness testimony if you're going to go after the president. Trying to link that to your average murderous psychopath is weak. 5% is pretty damn rare whether you want to admit it or not; and even when it comes to the scum of the earth, 95% of the time they have more to get the conviction. If you're going to go after the leaders of the free world, an eye witness doesn't come close, not by a damn sight. You're a lawyer, I shouldn't need to explain how obvious this is.

    I am a lawyer, which is why it's frustrating seeing you bastardize what the reality of the situation is. For starters, we should have a higher standard for executing someone than removing a President. Secondly, to repeat, you said it takes a hell of a lot more than just eye witnesses, then provided stats that it shows it doesn't. But independent of those, if the search you did were to look at the impeachment situation, it would be filed in the 95% category given the corroborating evidence (e.g. texts and transcript).

    And beyond that, if you're going to say more is needed than eye witnesses you are giving the President carte blanche to behave illegally so long as it's not in writing.

    I don't know that a court can't intervene...I only know the DOJ has refused to indict under other circumstances. Not close to the same thing.

    Functionally it is the same because it would be the DOJ filing the lawsuit.

    If you truly think you've looked at the evidence objectively and think its a slam dunk, then you're deluding yourself. I have lawyers in my family that just roll their eyes when asked this question. One's a DA and he said he'd refuse to take that case against a normal person... but against the president? 'F'ing ridiculous' were his exact words.
    [/

    And I'm a lawyer and have numerous lawyer friends (not surprising), several of whom clerked for judges and are federal attorneys. For starters, this isn't a judicial proceeding so saying it should be held to that standard is saying you don't want to follow the constitution. Secondly, a judge wouldn't throw it out and no good DA would refuse to take the case, unless they are not good at their job.

    To repeat, you have people who worked for Donald Trump and still work for Donald Trump saying, "he did it." He released an official transcript that clearly showed, 'he did it.' You have contemporaneous texts saying, 'he did it.' I'm beginning to think it'd be more fruitful to lay out the case and have you go point and point and say how it all adds up to an innocent Trump because the evidence is really clear.
     
  9. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    I am a lawyer, which is why it's frustrating seeing you bastardize what the reality of the situation is. For starters, we should have a higher standard for executing someone than removing a President. Secondly, to repeat, you said it takes a hell of a lot more than just eye witnesses, then provided stats that it shows it doesn't. But independent of those, if the search you did were to look at the impeachment situation, it would be filed in the 95% category given the corroborating evidence (e.g. texts and transcript).

    First off, we're not executing the huge majority of the people we're talking about here, so let's tone it down some. Yes, we should have a higher standard for murders and yes, it appears we do considering the vast majority of convictions lean on more than eye witness testimony. So you're moaning about something that is not happening most of the time. Second, no. AGAIN, since I have to type it again, I said it SHOULD take a lot more that just an eye witness TO INDICT A PRESIDENT. You then bring up murderers which I do the research to get how many were convicted based on just an eye witness and then you accuse of equating the two, which I did not do. YOU did that. So let's keep the conversation straight.

    I understand the frustration...and share it. half of what you're finding frustration with is things I didn't say.


    And beyond that, if you're going to say more is needed than eye witnesses you are giving the President carte blanche to behave illegally so long as it's not in writing.

    Not even close. It's not remotely close to carte blanche...it just needs to be more than he said, she said. That's not a high bar.

    Functionally it is the same because it would be the DOJ filing the lawsuit.

    So be it. I would call the DOJ a bunch of chickenshits then. But I'm still not going to trust a reporter to get it right when they are notoriously wrong.
     
  10. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    Let's go this way:

    1) You keep talking about judicial proceedings and what is convictable in court. Do you agree that impeachment is a political proceeding and not a judicial one?
    2) Do you agree that there are situations where a President may warrant impeachment, even if he didn't technically commit a crime?
    3) This isn't about what the reporters are reporting. The Intelligence committee has released exactly what the witnesses said, so you can read those without media interpretation. The text messages were released directly and are not 'reporting on'. And finally, the transcript was released by the WH and is again not a press interpretation.
    4) Say what you want about DOJ, but that's the policy so saying you want it in a court is again, not only an impossibility, but against at least one remedy afforded by the Constitution.
     
  11. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. That may be, but people's interpretations are colored by the context in news articles.
    4. So? I can't help what the DOJ considers policy. The judicial system is the last bastion in this country for getting at the truth. Until such time that it falls to partisanship, it's the only mechanism we have.
     
  12. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    1. So if it's a political proceeding, why do you keep wanting to attach judicial requirements?
    2. Why do you not think a President should be allowed to be removed unless they commit a crime? As we discussed before, the language of the constitution, the concurrent explanations, and court interpretation do not require an underlying crime. Are you creating your own standard for this?
    3. So? I'm not talking about how people's opinions are colored, I'm talking about what the facts actually state and enough evidence has been released to get an understanding of the situation.
    4. The reason there's a 'so' there is that it's a bit flawed to say you won't accept the Constitutionally allowed impeachment proceeding because you want it in the courts when that can't and won't happen. I personally think Presidents should be able to be prosecuted, but DOJ disagrees and besides, when talking about removal that's an impeachment process. The Senate actually holds the hearing anyway and it's overseen by CJ Roberts.
     
  13. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    1. Because of #2
    2. Yes and it's a standard you and I have discussed in the past. So don't act surprised
    3. Except 'the facts' don't live in a vacuum...they are all colored by the media....from how the news is slanted by the delivery to how the media caters to its clientele. Add on to that how notorious the media is for getting things wrong, oftentimes on purpose but just as often because they are pushing an agenda. You can say you're only looking at the facts, but its next to impossible to not take in the rest.
    4. I accept the proceeding for what it is. The Constitution says its an check on a president's tyranny...or that is the intent. It was not meant to be retaliation against a president for winning the election....which is exactly what I think this is.
    5. I'm adding this one to hear your response. We have had examples in the past of Congress pushing the checks and balances that are built into the system...the most recent ones have seen the opposing party use that opening to erode even further our system of gov't. This is another one. If this happens, impeachments will happen over and over and not because anyone is pushing the bounds of tyranny but because it's politically advantageous to do so.
     
  14. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    1&2. I guess where I have a challenge, and expressed when we discussed, is it's largely a standard you made up. The plain language shows they intended it to be for violation of the oath of office, which is why, in part, they made the process Congressional and not Judicial. Nearly every impeachment process prior (certainly Johnson's and Nixons, but even Clinton's) included charges that were not per se illegal. Hell, read Johnson's, it's practically all legal.
    3. So if the press publishes the transcript, you don't think you can read the transcript without being influenced by the press too?
    4. Do you consider a President seeking personal gain through his elected position as corrupt?
    5. But the crux of this lies in what you consider impeachable. I consider Presidential corruption to be impeachable. There are certainly levels, but what is alleged of Trump I consider to be well over the line. I have no doubt that the GOP will, if in power when there is a D President, go for an impeachment at the drop of a hat. The impeachment of Clinton was an example of how they behave and nearly every move made by Obama elicited screams of "impeachable!" from the GOP.

    The issue here is I see a President that is behaving in a manner that warrants impeachment. If the GOP uses what I consider as a legitimate process to launch illegitimate ones, then so be it - it's up to the voters to punish those misusing their position. The Ds and GOP shouldn't hide behind fear of legitimate practices being bastardized, otherwise the poor actors win.
     
  15. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    1&2. We all decide where our standards lie...you're no different. When your standards match the Constitution, you argue the Constitution...when it doesn't you argue something else. I'm no different. for it to be a violation of the oath of office, it needs to be illegal...that's my line. It's no different than what every other American does in their own mind.

    3. Yes, even me. That's why I don't trust them. It's why I rely on the judiciary

    4. Not necessarily. I only consider it wrong if it goes against what America wants. If a president gains by doing the right thing, then I have no problem with it.

    5. That's just it..."legitimate practices". I don't consider this a legitimate practice. Political parties SHOULD fear illegitimate use of legitimate political practices.

    But you hit on the real crux of the issue..."but what is alleged of Trump I consider to be well over the line." You consider the allegation to be good enough to impeach a president. Whether he actually did it is borderline irrelevant...that accusation is enough. That's not enough for me, especially in today's politically charged climate...we accuse everybody of everything anymore. Don't you think we should actually know what he did before we even consider impeachment?
     
  16. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    1&2. I actually wouldn't say that's true. Even when the 2nd Amendment discussion was taking place I was arguing things like canon would be included originally. But regardless, we can't just willy-nilly make up our own definitions because then what's the point of having a Constitution or a law? And don't get me wrong, I'm not a strict textualist as I generally believe you have to consider the intent of the authors. It's just in this instance you have a clear intent to include legal actions as impeachable, language was chosen that allows for legal actions to be impeachable, and precedent has allowed for legal actions to be impeached. Therefore making a differentiation between intent and text isn't necessary as they align.

    Saying impeachment should only be over illegal actions means completely straying from the Constitution and its implementation. One can say they think it should only include illegal actions, and therefore the Constitution should be changed, but saying it only includes illegal actions is wrong.
    3. That's an interesting take. It means you can't really ever complain or critique anything ever because the counter can simply be you're too biased due to the press. What's the point of discussing anything political if you're just going to say we're all products of the media and therefore our opinions are uninformed?
    4. Would you consider withholding aid from an ally in a fight with a foreign adversary so that ally will do the POTUS a personal political favor crossing the line? (Independent of the current situation.)
    5. The Ds were getting into the what he actually did before they launched an impeachment. If you'll remember, the Ds were loathe to launch an impeachment probe - and Pelosi took a lot of heat for it. They only 'unofficially officially' launched the investigation when enough facts were coming in to support such an inquiry. It wasn't until the whistleblower filed his report, some witnesses came forward, and Trump stupidly released the transcript confirming the account that the Ds officially launched the impeachment inquiry.

    And it is absolutely warranted if you believe that the facts point to a President using his political position to request a personal favor, and as leverage withholding aid from an ally in a fight with our adversary. The latter isn't necessary, but adds to the gravity of the situation. The impeachment is in part necessary because of the unmatched stone-walling conducted by the Trump administration. Congress is granted greater leeway by the courts in seeking documents, witnesses, etc. when conducting an official impeachment inquiry, and given Trump's insistence on saying "no" to everything, Congress needed that additional leverage.
     
    176 hill6, Nov 12, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  17. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    1&2. I actually wouldn't say that's true. Even when the 2nd Amendment discussion was taking place I was arguing things like canon would be included originally. But regardless, we can't just willy-nilly make up our own definitions because then what's the point of having a Constitution or a law? And don't get me wrong, I'm not a strict textualist as I generally believe you have to consider the intent of the authors. It's just in this instance you have a clear intent to include legal actions as impeachable, language was chosen that allows for legal actions to be impeachable, and precedent has allowed for legal actions to be impeached. Therefore making a differentiation between intent and text isn't necessary as they align.

    Saying impeachment should only be over illegal actions means completely straying from the Constitution and its implementation. One can say they think it should only include illegal actions, and therefore the Constitution should be changed, but saying it only includes illegal actions is wrong.

    I don't agree that the text aligns. The wording specifically states crimes..."Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". it does not say anything about non-crime-related offenses. Any interpretation out of that is not from the text. So, no, it doesn't align.

    As for setting our own standards, not only do we, SCOTUS does as well when interpreting the Constitution. Congress does it when they investigate the President and when they pass legislation. It's all interpretation.

    I am a strict textualist in a lot of circumstances and this is one of them.

    3. That's an interesting take. It means you can't really ever complain or critique anything ever because the counter can simply be you're too biased due to the press. What's the point of discussing anything political if you're just going to say we're all products of the media and therefore our opinions are uninformed?

    I would argue you have to fight it, resist it. I don't think it would ever 100% happen, but it can be minimized.


    4. Would you consider withholding aid from an ally in a fight with a foreign adversary so that ally will do the POTUS a personal political favor crossing the line? (Independent of the current situation.)

    Which line? The impeachment line? No. The proper conduct line? Yes. There are certain morals we want our representatives to live up to, but when they don't, I don't consider it enough to remove them from their office. They're human beings in a broken political system.

    If you want to talk about fixing the system, let's have that discussion. But those changes need to be normalized and applied thoughtfully...not subjectively.
     
  18. bjabrad

    bjabrad Hall of Fame
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    30,933
    Likes Received:
    7,515
    We have remedies to replace presidents who haven't committed crimes but are embarrassing. It's called elections.
     
  19. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    I don't agree that the text aligns. The wording specifically states crimes..."Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". it does not say anything about non-crime-related offenses. Any interpretation out of that is not from the text. So, no, it doesn't align.

    As for setting our own standards, not only do we, SCOTUS does as well when interpreting the Constitution. Congress does it when they investigate the President and when they pass legislation. It's all interpretation.

    I am a strict textualist in a lot of circumstances and this is one of them.

    But you're ignoring what those words meant at the time. It's like taking a politician in the 1950's talking about how gay a day it is and saying he's talking about homosexuality. Words and meanings change (not to mention legalese has specific meanings) and while you may read "crimes" and think "criminal statute", the problem is that's not what it meant at the time. "High Crimes" comes from English law and specifically is in reference to violating your oath of office (the 'crime' was abusing the trust the public placed). Do you agree we should read the words as the authors would intend them to be read?

    I would argue you have to fight it, resist it. I don't think it would ever 100% happen, but it can be minimized.


    And would you agree reading the original statements without interpretation would help minimize that?

    Which line? The impeachment line? No. The proper conduct line? Yes. There are certain morals we want our representatives to live up to, but when they don't, I don't consider it enough to remove them from their office. They're human beings in a broken political system.

    If you want to talk about fixing the system, let's have that discussion. But those changes need to be normalized and applied thoughtfully...not subjectively.
    [/\

    But what Trump is doing is beyond what is normally considered part of our broken political system - that's the point. I remember reading that Obama refused to sell his house while he was president because he feared it would be construed as unfairly preferential. Obama made mistakes as did W. and every other President. Yes, they are human, and yes our system is broken, but few have crossed this line. Nixon did, and he was impeached (though according to your standard, he shouldn't have been).

    The best way to fix a broken system is to attack the most egregious cases. A president jeopardizing an alliance and ally for a purely personal benefit is way across the line in my opinion.
     
  20. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    But you're ignoring what those words meant at the time. It's like taking a politician in the 1950's talking about how gay a day it is and saying he's talking about homosexuality. Words and meanings change (not to mention legalese has specific meanings) and while you may read "crimes" and think "criminal statute", the problem is that's not what it meant at the time. "High Crimes" comes from English law and specifically is in reference to violating your oath of office (the 'crime' was abusing the trust the public placed). Do you agree we should read the words as the authors would intend them to be read?

    I do...the problem is you don't. You ignore the meaning behind the words in the 2nd amendment on multiple occasions. You have also forsaken in the past historical context to make a point, ie Thomas Jefferson and slavery...'Indian Massacres'...Columbus. But now when its in your favor, you think we should follow what the authors meant?!

    I agree we should follow as close as we can what the authors meant. But I also think you're interpreting what the authors meant, which strays away from the strict definition. If you read the whole text, it cites specific actions, all of which are crimes, but when it comes to 'high crimes', it's referencing things that AREN'T crimes? That doesn't make any sense. I recognize the origination of the phrase, but that doesn't automatically dictate the meaning behind the words. And given the context of the document, I think it leans more toward crimes than not.

    But even if it did imply what you say, you still need to make the argument that what he did, "abused the trust the public placed". Which is a stretch.

    I would argue you have to fight it, resist it. I don't think it would ever 100% happen, but it can be minimized.


    But what Trump is doing is beyond what is normally considered part of our broken political system - that's the point. I remember reading that Obama refused to sell his house while he was president because he feared it would be construed as unfairly preferential. Obama made mistakes as did W. and every other President. Yes, they are human, and yes our system is broken, but few have crossed this line. Nixon did, and he was impeached (though according to your standard, he shouldn't have been).

    Wrong. Nixon committed a crime...conspiracy to commit Burglary or something along those lines. But back to Trump, I don't see where he did anything 'beyond' what other presidents have. You keep trying to make it into more than it is, but that doesn't make it so.

    The best way to fix a broken system is to attack the most egregious cases. A president jeopardizing an alliance and ally for a purely personal benefit is way across the line in my opinion.

    The best way to fix a broken system is with legislation that clearly defines what is expected, what is not, and what the consequences are...and then applying them to all. What you're trying to do is apply a standard that didn't exist before and apply it to this one situation. That is a subjective application and has no place here, IMO.
     
  21. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    I agree we should follow as close as we can what the authors meant. But I also think you're interpreting what the authors meant, which strays away from the strict definition. If you read the whole text, it cites specific actions, all of which are crimes, but when it comes to 'high crimes', it's referencing things that AREN'T crimes? That doesn't make any sense. I recognize the origination of the phrase, but that doesn't automatically dictate the meaning behind the words. And given the context of the document, I think it leans more toward crimes than not.

    Actually I'm not randomly interpreting what they meant, I'm going with the actual language of the time and what they chose. And the fact they cite specific acts then go with "high crimes and misdemeanors" is evidence they didn't want it to be strictly criminal acts. Why? "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art. Do you really think the framers wanted Presidents impeached for misdemeanors, but not grossly violating the responsibility of their office?

    It's obvious from the way the Constitution was drafted, as laid out by the right wing Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/publications/w...y-broad-scope-constitutions-impeachment-power


    The short of it is they originally wanted to put "maladministration" in that part for those Presidents that betray the oath of office or subvert the Constitution. That was considered too vague, so they settled on "high crimes and misdemeanors". How is that less vague? Because the legal dictionary utilized by the framers described it as: "mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment. This is usually punished by the method of parliamentary impeachment."

    In short, violating the trust and oath of office.

    But even if it did imply what you say, you still need to make the argument that what he did, "abused the trust the public placed". Which is a stretch.


    So when you vote for a President, you consider part of the trust you are placing in them to use the office to subvert US interests in the name of personally helping the person sitting in the Oval Office?

    Wrong. Nixon committed a crime...conspiracy to commit Burglary or something along those lines.

    Actually he was never directly tied to the burglary. His 'crime' was the cover-up of the break-in. It was akin to impeaching Trump for Russia.

    But back to Trump, I don't see where he did anything 'beyond' what other presidents have. You keep trying to make it into more than it is, but that doesn't make it so.


    Show me a similar situation. Last time you cited scandals but they were scandals around the handling of a situation, not scandals of the personal kind, like here.

    The best way to fix a broken system is with legislation that clearly defines what is expected, what is not, and what the consequences are...and then applying them to all. What you're trying to do is apply a standard that didn't exist before and apply it to this one situation. That is a subjective application and has no place here, IMO.[/

    It is subjective because it's political and not strictly criminal. That's why the framers left it to Congress and not the courts. It was intended as an out to protect the nation from Presidents who behaved in a manner that jeopardized the nation, the office, or the government. The framers were smart enough to know we couldn't legislate every contingency, so they gave Congress a power to wield when the security of the nation/government was at stake.
     
  22. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Actually I'm not randomly interpreting what they meant, I'm going with the actual language of the time and what they chose. And the fact they cite specific acts then go with "high crimes and misdemeanors" is evidence they didn't want it to be strictly criminal acts. Why? "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a term of art.

    Actually you are randomly interpreting what they meant...and just coincidentally to a definition that fits your argument...curious. You're really reaching here.


    Do you really think the framers wanted Presidents impeached for misdemeanors, but not grossly violating the responsibility of their office?


    Yes.


    So when you vote for a President, you consider part of the trust you are placing in them to use the office to subvert US interests in the name of personally helping the person sitting in the Oval Office?

    I consider part of the trust to be whatever methods are needed within the law to achieve our goals. I don't agree that Trump has violated that or subverted US interests. You're the one making that leap.


    Actually he was never directly tied to the burglary. His 'crime' was the cover-up of the break-in. It was akin to impeaching Trump for Russia.

    He was never directly tied because he resigned and was pardoned. It's not remotely close to Trump and Russia. Try again.

    Show me a similar situation. Last time you cited scandals but they were scandals around the handling of a situation, not scandals of the personal kind, like here.

    So the Monica Lewinsky scandal wasn't personal? But then I don't consider investigating a political opponent to be personal either...it's political. And there are a host of examples there.


    It is subjective because it's political and not strictly criminal. That's why the framers left it to Congress and not the courts. It was intended as an out to protect the nation from Presidents who behaved in a manner that jeopardized the nation, the office, or the government. The framers were smart enough to know we couldn't legislate every contingency, so they gave Congress a power to wield when the security of the nation/government was at stake.

    The framers set it up that way with the assumption that Congress would us it to protect the country...not punish a president for winning an election. Given that ship has sailed...the next best thing is objective legislation.
     
  23. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    So you choose to ignore the facts around the history of the phrase, the definition at the time, and the crafting of the language at the time. What's the point of even discussing this if you are simply going to ignore facts because they don't fit your narrative?
     
    183 hill6, Nov 12, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  24. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    I'm not ignoring the facts...I'm refuting your interpretation of the facts....your application of the facts.

    I was going to make a smartass remark here, but instead, I'll ask you the same question..."What's the point of even discussing this if you are simply going to ignore facts because they don't fit your narrative?", because you do it too. Again, "Thomas Jefferson and slavery...'Indian Massacres'...Columbus." You repeatedly ignore historical context when its inconvenient.
     
  25. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    You are ignoring facts. Do you disagree that the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was not directly related to criminal acts but to the administrative acts of the President? Namely, whether they were acting in violation of their oath of office? I posted a long historical document detailing the history of the phrase and meaning at the time. You haven't responded to it.

    If you admit 'high crimes and misdemeanors' does not relate solely to criminal acts, we can move onto the other topics.
     
  26. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    I"m not ignoring anything. I recognize that the possible intention behind the term was not solely criminal acts. But you also need to recognize that the context that its in within the document concentrates almost solely on criminal acts. That's a significant distinction...one that you ignore.

    And you continue to ignore my point about you selectively using historical context based on whether it helps your argument or not.
     
  27. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    I haven't ignored the accompanying language.
    The founders are listing what they consider impeachable offenses. Included in those impeachable offenses are two types of criminal acts: treason and bribery. Both are crimes related to the President's execution of his position. Treason means the P is acting directly against US interests, and bribery means they are selling their seat. Those are directly related to how they behave as President so they fit with "other high crimes and misdemeanors." The fact they are criminal is immaterial as the founders are wanting to include acts that threaten the nation or the office, which is why they chose a term of art that is is specifically related to that and is broader than mere criminal acts. Saying they only wanted criminal acts means completely ignoring the entire phrase.

    As for your claim of changing standards, I haven't addressed them for two reasons: one, I'm not sure what you are specifically referencing and from what discussion (you can do a search and link to the discussion), and two, it's not germane to what the founders intended on this topic - it's a diversionary attempt.
     
    187 hill6, Nov 13, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  28. bjabrad

    bjabrad Hall of Fame
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    30,933
    Likes Received:
    7,515
    Would’ve been pretty simple for them to insert the language “violates the oath of office.”
     
  29. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    Considering we are discussing criminal vs non-criminal acts with regard to the impeachment process, I consider it not only material but on point.

    Regardless, this is a moot point. Your original question was what I consider impeachable and what I don't. While I'm aware of the historical context and supposed intent of the founders, I choose where to draw the line; and I draw it at criminal acts.
     
  30. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    That's fine, and as I stated you can have that opinion but A) it means Nixon wouldn't have been impeached, B) your desire to see it prosecuted by the courts means no President will ever be impeached, and C) even if you think it should be criminal acts, the Ds are well within precedent and what's legal pursuing this.
     
  31. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    I've never once refuted that what they're doing is legal...I have and continue to refute what the motivation is behind doing it...which sets a dangerous precedent.

    I don't agree that no President will ever be impeached. The stance the DOJ has taken is easily reversed, especially if they're told to do it by the next president.
     
  32. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    But think through that logically. Do you think a President is going to say, "I want my DOJ to change their policy so they can prosecute me."? You may get a high minded President to do it, but if there is a corrupt President there's no way he's letting his AG keep a policy that allows for prosecution. You think there's any chance in hell Trump would allow Barr do it? That's why the framers wanted it to be a balance of power issue and not the Executive having to investigate and prosecute its boss.

    Not to mention, if you try to go through the courts, it will take FOREVER. The Mueller investigation itself took, what, 18 months? That would mean, if the DOJ decided to prosecute for obstruction of justice, they would take that investigation and draw up a court case. The court case itself will last forever because of challenges to every little step. Whatever the court decided would be appealed, then that appeal would eventually reach the Supreme Court. Assuming you reach the Supreme Court during the proper timing and don't have to wait a year, they make the final decision - or remand back to lower courts. That SC decision, likely 4-5 years after the start of the investigation, would then kick off the impeachment process, which can take up to a year.

    So, if you really want this to be a judicial and DOJ issue, you're looking at longer than a President's term for it to come to finality. Think about it this way, there is evidence Trump committed a crime in the Ukraine. For the full investigation, criminal proceeding, appeals, and impeachment, you're looking at it being moot as, assuming Trump wins, it'll be finalized after his second term.
     
  33. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    If that's what it takes to get it right, then so be it. We're evidently ok with an investigation taking 18 months on something we knew was BS within 1-2...but trying a president for a crime take 5 years and you're hedging?
     
  34. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    Because it completely undermines the purpose impeachment is included in the Constitution. If a President is seen as undermining their position and hurting the nation, starting a process that will take longer than their term as president means they get their full term to continue to hurt the nation. The founders wanted a way to remove a President should it be needed without A) relying on the President to allow it through executive branch prosecutions (they knew that was a non-starter), B) gave Congress a means for balancing an unbalanced Executive, and C) could quickly be achieved to minimize executive damage. (For an extreme example: if you have a President selling state secrets and revealing top secret information to enemies in exchange for personal gifts, donations, or help with his business, you don't want to let the President continue doing it for his entire presidency. You want to cut him off as quickly as you can before he has completely undermined the country's security. (And by the way, that wouldn't likely be illegal so there wouldn't be a judicial out.))

    This process is proceeding exactly as was intended and it revolves around corruption and subverting of national issues to personal ones. It's precisely the type of case the founders would have seen as valid, whether you think it rises to removal or not.

    I'm not going to bite on your Mueller junk.
     
    194 hill6, Nov 15, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2019
  35. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    The problem is this, "If a President is seen as undermining their position and hurting the nation,". ANY political position could be framed as undermining their position or hurting the nation....it's so vague as to lose all meaning. I think Obama's condemnation of the police hurt our nation...should we have tried to impeach him over it?! I believe the Dems moving on impeachment over a ridiculous conversation with Ukraine is political manipulation, nothing more. Which is why I oppose the impeachment process so much...I think they're using it to try and beat him next year...they don't give a damn whether he's corrupt or not.

    Wouldn't that be treason? At a minimum its violation of national security laws... how is that not HIGHLY illegal?
     
  36. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    There is a difference though in hurting the nation - an ill-advised war hurts the nation - and doing so in a way that is corrupt or shows gross incompetence that is not an outlier.

    For Ukraine, the reason many - myself included - consider it impeachable is because he's using his position of power for purely personal gains. Let's draw a parallel, take Benghazi. What would your response have been if we found out the reason there was diminished security at the compound was because Obama withheld it until the State Department secured him a land deal that was for him personally. He would give the Libya Embassy funding for security only if they did something that stood to make him millions. Would you consider that impeachable?

    As for the example I gave, as every conservative stated during the Mueller report, treason technically states it has to be undermining the nation to a power that we are at war with (I personally disagree, but regardless). We aren't at war with China or Russia (I don't believe we are technically at war with anyone currently) so it would be okay. And the President has the power to declassify everything (as conservatives pointed out when Trump accidentally revealed classified information) so he can give up our state secrets.

    But let's say it is illegal, under the scheme you have laid out, the President will have to be tried and convicted before being impeached. As pointed out, that will take years, at which point the situation will likely be moot as the damage will be done (and most likely his term over).
     
    196 hill6, Nov 17, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2019
  37. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    There is a difference though in hurting the nation - an ill-advised war hurts the nation - and doing so in a way that is corrupt or shows gross incompetence that is not an outlier.

    But Trump has demonstrated neither. I agree there's a difference...that difference hasn't shown up in this situation yet.


    For Ukraine, the reason many - myself included - consider it impeachable is because he's using his position of power for purely personal gains. Let's draw a parallel, take Benghazi. What would your response have been if we found out the reason there was diminished security at the compound was because Obama withheld it until the State Department secured him a land deal that was for him personally. He would give the Libya Embassy funding for security only if they did something that stood to make him millions. Would you consider that impeachable?

    Except it's not for personal gain...it's for political gain. Having Biden investigated is a political motivation...personal would be as your example had it...a land deal or something that benefited him personally.


    As for the example I gave, as every conservative stated during the Mueller report, treason technically states it has to be undermining the nation to a power that we are at war with (I personally disagree, but regardless). We aren't at war with China or Russia (I don't believe we are technically at war with anyone currently) so it would be okay. And the President has the power to declassify everything (as conservatives pointed out when Trump accidentally revealed classified information) so he can give up our state secrets.

    “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The 'or' in that phrase means it doesn't have to be during a war.


    But let's say it is illegal, under the scheme you have laid out, the President will have to be tried and convicted before being impeached. As pointed out, that will take years, at which point the situation will likely be moot as the damage will be done (and most likely his term over).

    If the president did it then the damage, by definition, has been done. Whether it takes 5 minutes or 5 yrs, the damage has been done. How come when it was the Russian investigation, you were all gung ho about it taking as long as it takes, but in this instance, it sounds like the fact that it would take time to convict him, that we shouldn't do it?!
     
  38. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    But Trump has demonstrated neither. I agree there's a difference...that difference hasn't shown up in this situation yet.

    Except it's not for personal gain...it's for political gain. Having Biden investigated is a political motivation...personal would be as your example had it...a land deal or something that benefited him personally.

    That's a distinction without a difference. He's having Biden investigated so it helps his reelection campaign. You can say it's political, but the ultimate benefit is for Trump's reelection campaign which is political, but also personal. It's like saying in my previous example it wasn't personal, but business.

    “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The 'or' in that phrase means it doesn't have to be during a war.


    I don't disagree, again this was the conservative argument and not necessarily one I agree with. The argument, which is debatable, is that the "or" divides the two options during a war - either directly warring with the US or giving aid and comfort to those warring with the US.

    But regardless, you might have a hard time defining, say, France or Turkey or Ukraine or Russia as our enemies in a court of law. What constitutes an enemy is definitely debatable.

    If the president did it then the damage, by definition, has been done. Whether it takes 5 minutes or 5 yrs, the damage has been done. How come when it was the Russian investigation, you were all gung ho about it taking as long as it takes, but in this instance, it sounds like the fact that it would take time to convict him, that we shouldn't do it?!
    [

    So if a President is consistently giving away our state secrets you're fine with them staying in power until their term runs out? It doesn't have to be a massive dump of data, it can be meted out over the course of time as either the President A) gets access to it, or B) secures benefits in exchange.

    As for your question, the reason I was fine with the Mueller report taking time was because that was the investigation, not the impeachment. Investigations should be afforded the time necessary to get the information to understand the situation. Once bad acts are uncovered, we shouldn't just sit around and afford the actor the means to continue doing them. We should move swiftly to minimize the impact of future damage (or punish for especially egregious acts).
     
  39. Hawker-2001

    Hawker-2001 All-American
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    14,147
    Likes Received:
    1,534
    Location:
    Kansas...land of milk and honey
    That's a distinction without a difference. He's having Biden investigated so it helps his reelection campaign. You can say it's political, but the ultimate benefit is for Trump's reelection campaign which is political, but also personal. It's like saying in my previous example it wasn't personal, but business.

    It's a distinction WITH a difference....one that makes all the difference. Campaigns, by definition, are political, not personal. And political motivation has been driving decisions since the day the Constitution was passed. You may not like it, but that's how our gov't works.

    I don't disagree, again this was the conservative argument and not necessarily one I agree with. The argument, which is debatable, is that the "or" divides the two options during a war - either directly warring with the US or giving aid and comfort to those warring with the US.

    But regardless, you might have a hard time defining, say, France or Turkey or Ukraine or Russia as our enemies in a court of law. What constitutes an enemy is definitely debatable.

    I don't think its debateable at all...it's English. A court doesn't need to define who's an enemy or ally...they only need to define if the President handed over information in violation of the law.

    So if a President is consistently giving away our state secrets you're fine with them staying in power until their term runs out? It doesn't have to be a massive dump of data, it can be meted out over the course of time as either the President A) gets access to it, or B) secures benefits in exchange.

    I am not, but before a president gets impeached we need to be damn sure he's actually doing it and not just being harassed by a bunch of partisan hacks. If he's doing it, we need to get him out asap, but Due Process still applies last I heard. So unless you're in favor of kangaroo courts and mob justice, I don't see another alternative.


    As for your question, the reason I was fine with the Mueller report taking time was because that was the investigation, not the impeachment. Investigations should be afforded the time necessary to get the information to understand the situation. Once bad acts are uncovered, we shouldn't just sit around and afford the actor the means to continue doing them. We should move swiftly to minimize the impact of future damage (or punish for especially egregious acts).

    The irony is the impeachment is moving based on no investigation. The Russian Collusion investigation took 18 months, but this Ukrainian thing didn't even have an investigation to speak of but you're okay with trying to remove a sitting president based on it.
     
  40. hill6

    hill6 Senior
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    5,528
    Likes Received:
    501
    It's a distinction WITH a difference....one that makes all the difference. Campaigns, by definition, are political, not personal. And political motivation has been driving decisions since the day the Constitution was passed. You may not like it, but that's how our gov't works.

    So if Trump withheld funding to Ukraine until they gave his company land to build a hotel you'd say that's just business and there's nothing personally beneficial to Trump? He was asking for an investigation into his rival that benefits him personally because it increases his chance of reelection. Would you consider your job something that's personal to you?

    I don't think its debateable at all...it's English. A court doesn't need to define who's an enemy or ally...they only need to define if the President handed over information in violation of the law.

    Except we're talking about treason, and the plain English of what is written specifically says it has to be an enemy.

    As for handing over information, as I mentioned the President has the power to declassify anything, so you're left with your treason argument.

    I am not, but before a president gets impeached we need to be damn sure he's actually doing it and not just being harassed by a bunch of partisan hacks. If he's doing it, we need to get him out asap, but Due Process still applies last I heard. So unless you're in favor of kangaroo courts and mob justice, I don't see another alternative.


    What do you think the impeachment process is? That's due process - that's the entire point of how it's set up.

    The irony is the impeachment is moving based on no investigation. The Russian Collusion investigation took 18 months, but this Ukrainian thing didn't even have an investigation to speak of but you're okay with trying to remove a sitting president based on it.
    [

    WTF do you think they are doing right now? There was evidence the President did something impeachable from both a whistleblower's account, and the President's own release of a transcript. The House began investigating and more and more information began to come in implicating the President. So the House formally launched the impeachment inquiry where they are going through the process of investigating what all took place. At the end they vote on whether he should be impeached or not. If he is, it goes to the Senate for further investigation and a 'trial' overseen by the Chief Justice.
     

Share This Page