Question/Poll: Executive Privilege vs Formalized Impeachment Inquiry Subpoena

[Deleted User]

let me just quote the conversation, because it speaks for itself.
"Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches." --cots

all I can do is shake my head at this point.

I just amended the post. What do you think about what I added?

slippery slope fallacy

Well, if you ever need to obtain a gun to protect yourself, your property of your family you now know you don't need the Governments permission. It's a constitutional right. Unless, you're ever in that position and don't mind being hurt, robbed and/or your family raped and possibly murdered. In that case you chose not to protect yourself and your family and then I'd just feel sorry for you having to live with that. I do understand the Liberals need to control everyone else, but I'l let you in on a little secret. You can't control me. The Government is scared of me because of this fact and that's how it should be. The Government are my servants. I'm not their bitch. They're my bitch.

See right above is you pushing a strawman. How? Your arguing that I would be in favor of removing guns, "I do understand the Liberals need to control everyone else, but I'l let you in on a little secret"
The keyword is you. As you equated me as Liberal. Meanwhile I also forgot to mention you used a red haring fallacy as well. Going off a tangent that doesn't have anything to prove the conclusion.

Now your using a strawman. Never said my argument, other than shaking my head, which that was due to you using even more fallacies. rendering the argument above null.

Who mentioned anything about your argument. You're shaking your head and I'm telling you if you ever need to defend yourself that you don't need the Governments permission. I'm trying to help you. It's nice and all you're able to identify basic thought patterns used in debating. Though, simply stating you identify one doesn't invalidate my point. "That's a stereotype. End of discussion." Yeah, doesn't work like that. Oh, I'm not legally allowed to use straws in the Communist State of Mexifornia.

So... cots, the argument is "Liberals don't support gun rights" This is the argument you made up against me, a strawman. While I had taken no position, only stating that I was shaking my head.

 

[cots]

That's fair, but at the same time, Trump's foreign policy failings have caused a lot of negative effects on the world in their own right. The US has ceded it's leadership role on the world stage to countries like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. There are genocides happening in both China and India. In South America, there's been a coup in Bolivia, likely helped along by the CIA, while large portions of the Amazon rainforest are consumed by man-made fire. In the Middle-East our Kurdish allies were betrayed and killed just so we could retreat to protect the oil, while hundreds of ISIS militants were freed. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point: any semi-moral president would have prevented these things or at the very least spoken out about them. Bad shit happens on a worldwide scale when there is no morality within the US' leadership.

Yeah, it's all Trump's fault. It hadn't rained where I live for 2 months. I blamed Trump. Then it rained with hail, which I didn't like, so I blamed Trump. My cat didn't eat all of it's food last night so I blamed Trump. Seeings as you're going to simply attack him no matter what he does regardless of how good things are going because of his policies simply because you lost the election and can't face reality I think you should seek help for your TDS.

 

[leon315]

I wish to see the 1st ever Impeachment of my life lul!!!

 

[cots]

I wish to see the 1st ever Impeachment of my life lul!!!

You'll probably get to see the House impeach him and then the Senate clear him. Seeings as the Senate has the last say in the matter Trump is most likely not going to be removed from office.

 

[leon315]

You'll probably get to see the House impeach him and then the Senate clear him. Seeings as the Senate has the last say in the matter Trump is most likely not going to be removed from office.

then only way to remove him from the office is HOPING a liberal candidate could do better in 2020!

 

[Lacius]

You'll probably get to see the House impeach him and then the Senate clear him. Seeings as the Senate has the last say in the matter Trump is most likely not going to be removed from office.

You're probably right, but Trump is clearly guilty, so we will see.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

regardless if there is concrete evidence, but in this case all we have is "assumptions" he's guilty)

Congress has some oversight over the executive branch, but it doesn't control it nor is granted unfettered access to it. That goes both ways all around the board. Trump doesn't lose his executive powers unless he's removed from office. Trump is not going to be denied his executive powers just because someone accused him of something. Trump can deny to give them anything he wants. That's until a Court orders him to hand it over. Just because they accuse him of something doesn't mean they get to take his branch over based on simple accusations (regardless if there is concrete evidence, but in this case all we have is "assumptions" he's guilty). Seeings as Congress is not a Court of law they can get fucked. You also have to take the situation into context. It's not remotely fair. You continue to go along and support this shit while purposely choosing to ignore it's been premeditated and planned all along. You're expecting people to simply ignore the entire context surrounding the issue or probably just expect them to not be aware of the backstory, which of course the latter being dishonest, but the Liberals can't win this honestly so they have to cheat. Fuck Congress. Trump shouldn't give them shit.

Look. Just because someone excuses you of something doesn't mean you have to give into their every demand or be treated like you're guilty. This isn't #metoo where you have you life ruined over some angry women with a score to settle based on the fact that 20 years go she forced you to have sex with her and you dumped her shorty after and she can't get over it and is now accusing you of what she actually did to you thus resulting in the public getting you fired from you job. It's funny how the public courts will simply blacklist you for someone claiming you did something wrong. Well, if that's the case @Xzi molested my dog and since I am saying this is my assumption I should be allowed access to his gbatemp account without having to provide any sort of proof he actually did cause my dog to walk around crooked for a week. Sorry bud, you're only guilty after the fact you've been proven guilty.

I'm not really working on assumptions. He solicited assistance from a foreign power twice (Ukraine and China) to investigate a political opponent. I'm principled and consistent in that I supported a bipartisan congressional investigation of Biden and spoke of congress having the proper authority to oversee the executive branch. This is from our constitution you so dearly claim to support and accuse the democratic party of not adhering to. When Trump blocks congressional oversight he is in fact not adhering to the constitution yet I see no outrage from you because you work in the premise that the ends of what you desire justify the means. That breeds lawlessness and will unravel our republic. Whether or not you can swallow your pride or hatred for those that hold different political beliefs will determine if you will be willing to at least go read our constitution and reassess your position. If you still hold true to your position would you at least provide logical reasoning from US law or our constitution that would support such a position?

(Have you even read the US constitution in its' entirety within your lifetime? Fun Fact: most registered voters have not, not even speaking for most Americans.)

The whole trump is guilty/innocent is something that I think requires context - innocent until proven guilty derives from the legal principle of The Presumption of Innocence.

"Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted."

This might upset you but this isn't a criminal trial but a political one. Something that enough people aren't appreciating to motivate me to once again restate that yet again. The appearance of impropriety alone is enough for a political impeachment. However, that is at the discretion of the jurors (congressional senators). The House serves as the prosecution which will determine the evidence in which to charge articles of impeachment. During this process they certainly are not subject to any restriction under 'presumption of innocence'.

"Furthermore, the accused is not obligated to affirmatively prove his innocence or to provide exculpatory evidence. However, to provide counter-evidence or exculpatory evidence is a right that the defense may exercise in order to rebut the charges, which in turn the accusing party bears the burden of disproving"[32]."

This quote is to explain why the Bidens' involvement will be allowed to be scrutinized in a senate hearing. If it is claimed to be part of Trump's defense upon his actions then they will be allowed to provide any 'proof' as counter-evidence. I chuckle when I see people think its plain that Biden committed bribery and should be jailed but argue that Trump hasn't attempted anything improper and scream about innocent until proven guilty.

I also am amused by logic that states because democrats have insisted multiple impeachable offenses have occurred, but only until this year have committed to an impeachment inquiry that all other potential offenses are invalid or worse that this inquiry into soliciting assistance from a foreign power to investigate a political opponent doesn't matter. They have had hearings the past two weeks where alleged bribery and extortion through witness testimony was presented to the public. I have not seen ANY evidence that vindicates the President. I have seen enough to know that he can be charged for it by the house. The senate will then decide to convict or acquit.

I will conclude with this. I intend to keep a discussion that is based on logic. Let us stop with the vitrol, it provides nothing to a substantive discourse on this topic.

OFFTOPIC?: I am in complete agreement with Dr. Fiona hill in one aspect that republicans refuse to address due to cowardice or due to an effort to influence domestic politics. We have a president that still believes a Russian birthed narrative that Ukraine was solely behind election interference not the Russian government, that Ukraine gave the dnc server to crowdstrike. I find that a travesty, but no one speaks of it because doing so would show how little judgement is being exercised by the President regarding this matter. Just watch his latest fox -n- friends interview. It is appalling.

https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings

Donald Trump: (06:02)
It’s very interesting. They have the server, right, from the DNC, Democratic National Committee-

Brian Kilmeade: (06:07)
Who has the server?

Donald Trump: (06:09)
The FBI went in and they told them, “Get out of here. We’re not giving it to you.” They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. The FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company? Why-

Steve Doocy: (06:31)
Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?

Donald Trump: (06:35)
Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption. And I also, by the way, going back to that, why isn’t Germany putting up money? Why isn’t France putting up money? All the European nations, why aren’t they putting up? You have the European Union, and they’re benefited a lot more by the Ukraine than we are.

TLDR: Our president is either a fool or a liar. You pick. July 25th call nor the first call on April 12th have the word corruption in it. His own words Trump is looking for 'corruption' of a political opponent and he's asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden on the south lawn in front of reporters. It is the only corruption he is looking for per his own words to Zelensky and is the reason he resisted giving the aid. He is his own worst enemy, trailing closely by only his own lawyer. Ah the best people.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Further explanation of my logic: I will note for clarity that he is discussing corruption in his interview of the DNC server and both the DNC server and Biden were his topics raised in the july 25th call. To dissociate the two would require to say that both weren't topics of corruption which would be equally damning as it would say the Biden investigation is for pure political purposes. If both are under the topics of corruption as Trump asserts then they are in fact the reason he held up the aid by his own admission.

 

[Hanafuda]

You're probably right, but Trump is clearly guilty, so we will see.

Clearly guilty of rubbing your fur the wrong way. But nothing's been shown by even a preponderance, let alone any higher standard of proof. We got a parade of partisan insinuation, assumption, and feels. Democrats might vote to push it to the Senate, but then they lose control of the show, and that's probably the last thing they want.

All we can do is wait to see what happens. That is unless @Lacius is actually ...

 

[chrisrlink]

they better hold on those charges til trump is out (pretty sure some of the charges don't have statute of limitations) once a new president is in BAM hit trump with the charges so he rots in prison

 

[cots]

I'm not really working on assumptions. He solicited assistance from a foreign power twice (Ukraine and China) to investigate a political opponent. I'm principled and consistent in that I supported a bipartisan congressional investigation of Biden and spoke of congress having the proper authority to oversee the executive branch. This is from our constitution you so dearly claim to support and accuse the democratic party of not adhering to. When Trump blocks congressional oversight he is in fact not adhering to the constitution yet I see no outrage from you because you work in the premise that the ends of what you desire justify the means. That breeds lawlessness and will unravel our republic. Whether or not you can swallow your pride or hatred for those that hold different political beliefs will determine if you will be willing to at least go read our constitution and reassess your position. If you still hold true to your position would you at least provide logical reasoning from US law or our constitution that would support such a position?

(Have you even read the US constitution in its' entirety within your lifetime? Fun Fact: most registered voters have not, not even speaking for most Americans.)

The whole trump is guilty/innocent is something that I think requires context - innocent until proven guilty derives from the legal principle of The Presumption of Innocence.

"Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted."

This might upset you but this isn't a criminal trial but a political one. Something that enough people aren't appreciating to motivate me to once again restate that yet again. The appearance of impropriety alone is enough for a political impeachment. However, that is at the discretion of the jurors (congressional senators). The House serves as the prosecution which will determine the evidence in which to charge articles of impeachment. During this process they certainly are not subject to any restriction under 'presumption of innocence'.

"Furthermore, the accused is not obligated to affirmatively prove his innocence or to provide exculpatory evidence. However, to provide counter-evidence or exculpatory evidence is a right that the defense may exercise in order to rebut the charges, which in turn the accusing party bears the burden of disproving"[32]."

This quote is to explain why the Bidens' involvement will be allowed to be scrutinized in a senate hearing. If it is claimed to be part of Trump's defense upon his actions then they will be allowed to provide any 'proof' as counter-evidence. I chuckle when I see people think its plain that Biden committed bribery and should be jailed but argue that Trump hasn't attempted anything improper and scream about innocent until proven guilty.

I also am amused by logic that states because democrats have insisted multiple impeachable offenses have occurred, but only until this year have committed to an impeachment inquiry that all other potential offenses are invalid or worse that this inquiry into soliciting assistance from a foreign power to investigate a political opponent doesn't matter. They have had hearings the past two weeks where alleged bribery and extortion through witness testimony was presented to the public. I have not seen ANY evidence that vindicates the President. I have seen enough to know that he can be charged for it by the house. The senate will then decide to convict or acquit.

I will conclude with this. I intend to keep a discussion that is based on logic. Let us stop with the vitrol, it provides nothing to a substantive discourse on this topic.

OFFTOPIC?: I am in complete agreement with Dr. Fiona hill in one aspect that republicans refuse to address due to cowardice or due to an effort to influence domestic politics. We have a president that still believes a Russian birthed narrative that Ukraine was solely behind election interference not the Russian government, that Ukraine gave the dnc server to crowdstrike. I find that a travesty, but no one speaks of it because doing so would show how little judgement is being exercised by the President regarding this matter. Just watch his latest fox -n- friends interview. It is appalling.

https://www.rev.com/blog/donald-tru...-trump-interviewed-after-impeachment-hearings

Donald Trump: (06:02)
It’s very interesting. They have the server, right, from the DNC, Democratic National Committee-

Brian Kilmeade: (06:07)
Who has the server?

Donald Trump: (06:09)
The FBI went in and they told them, “Get out of here. We’re not giving it to you.” They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. The FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company? Why-

Steve Doocy: (06:31)
Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?

Donald Trump: (06:35)
Well, that’s what the word is. That’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call if you know. I mean, I asked it very point blank because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption we’re looking for. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there’s this kind of corruption? When you look at my call, I said corruption … I think he said it to me. He’s looking. He got elected on the basis of corruption. And I also, by the way, going back to that, why isn’t Germany putting up money? Why isn’t France putting up money? All the European nations, why aren’t they putting up? You have the European Union, and they’re benefited a lot more by the Ukraine than we are.

TLDR: Our president is either a fool or a liar. You pick. July 25th call nor the first call on April 12th have the word corruption in it. His own words Trump is looking for 'corruption' of a political opponent and he's asked Ukraine and China to investigate Biden on the south lawn in front of reporters. It is the only corruption he is looking for per his own words to Zelensky and is the reason he resisted giving the aid. He is his own worst enemy, trailing closely by only his own lawyer. Ah the best people.

So you spent all that time writing to simply state if the Democrats think he's guilty of something that's enough to impeach him regardless if there's any evidence. Yeah, well, that's wrong. The basis for this thread and your poll is to justify taking away powers from the Executive Branch because another branch accused them of something. Seeings as their accusations are without merit you now would support them manipulating the system and changing the rules.

So, we're watching a football game. Your team you made a bet on is losing. Suddenly in the 3rd quarter your team's coach wants to change the rules of the game to make it so the team with the less touchdowns wins and you would support this so now you're on Twitter advocating we change the way NFL games are played. Dude, your team is losing because they suck. Get over it. If per say we did make a bet, you lost it and you refused to pay up, well, then you'd be in a world of hurt my friend.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Clearly guilty of rubbing your fur the wrong way. But nothing's been shown by even a preponderance, let alone any higher standard of proof. We got a parade of partisan insinuation, assumption, and feels. Democrats might vote to push it to the Senate, but then they lose control of the show, and that's probably the last thing they want.

All we can do is wait to see what happens. That is unless @Lacius is actually ...

Is that moron that tries to hide his hatred for the country behind a dry personality and improper logic replying to this thread? I did stop ignoring Xzi, but @Lacius is on a whole other level of stupid. I'm sure he agrees Trump is guilty before being proven guilty. If that's the fact it just goes to show he's not that smart and doesn't operate in reality. It really makes me ask myself what type of psychoactive substances are these tempers are using.

Edit:

It also seems the less Liberal bias main stream media news site NBC (they are pro-Liberal, but have some editors that work within the confines of reality) has posted about the non-Democrat voters and the Republicans that see through this shit show (and how this is very bad for the Libtards). https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...orced-error-sobering-consequences-ncna1089871 .

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

So you spent all that time writing to simply state if the Democrats think he's guilty of something that's enough to impeach him regardless if there's any evidence. Yeah, well, that's wrong. The basis for this thread and your poll is to justify taking away powers from the Executive Branch because another branch accused them of something. Seeings as their accusations are without merit you now would support them manipulating the system and changing the rules.

So, we're watching a football game. Your team you made a bet on is losing. Suddenly in the 3rd quarter your team's coach wants to change the rules of the game to make it so the team with the less touchdowns wins. Dude, your team is losing because they suck. Get over it.

I invite you to read the rest as you aren't correct in interpreting what I wrote. Go line by line if needed but the point is you are asserting an incorrect framing of what an impeachment inquiry and subsequent trial is and that what I attempted to do is inform you that it is a political trial not a criminal one. That makes a stark difference in how it can operate, the founders did not specify in great length how impeachment is to be conducted. The historical precedents of impeachment is the best we have available to us.

It might be that you aren't old enough to remember the Clinton impeachment from start to finish but I did and it was thoroughly explained and presented during the inquiry phase before the articles of impeachment were served that congress has the power to oversee the executive branch. Were they wrong? Did republican congress overreach in your opinion? Why did the courts side with them? You must look at history properly if you are going to assert anything on how our government is structured. This isn't about football teams, the fact that you see it in that partisan manner is blinding you to ask questions and make informed decisions. I'd give you more credit that you are informed if you presented more fact with your statements.

Below is a brief history of Clinton invoking executive privilege and he lost in court. It is noteworthy that Nixon tried the same and it also was overturned in court. I'm not talking about taking away something the executive branch has held through history in impeachments, it appears it would be something that doesn't hold in impeachments. Care to discuss with historical evidence that would state otherwise?
---
The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege on fourteen occasions. In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first president since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a federal judge ruled that Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

Later, Clinton exercised a form of negotiated executive privilege when he agreed to testify before the grand jury called by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr only after negotiating the terms under which he would appear. Declaring that "absolutely no one is above the law", Starr said such a privilege "must give way" and evidence "must be turned over" to prosecutors if it is relevant to an investigation.
---

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'll post a source that is easy to read on the matter. I would encourage all who are interested in earnest discussion to peruse this. Obama lost a case during 'fast and furious' as well just fyi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

 

[cots]

I invite you to read the rest as you aren't correct in interpreting what I wrote. Go line by line if needed but the point is you are asserting an incorrect framing of what an impeachment inquiry and subsequent trial is and that what I attempted to do is inform you that it is a political trial not a criminal one. That makes a stark difference in how it can operate, the founders did not specify in great length how impeachment is to be conducted. The historical precedents of impeachment is the best we have available to us.

It might be that you aren't old enough to remember the Clinton impeachment from start to finish but I did and it was thoroughly explained and presented during the inquiry phase before the articles of impeachment were served that congress has the power to oversee the executive branch. Were they wrong? Did republican congress overreach in your opinion? Why did the courts side with them? You must look at history properly if you are going to assert anything on how our government is structured. This isn't about football teams, the fact that you see it in that partisan manner is blinding you to ask questions and make informed decisions. I'd give you more credit that you are informed if you presented more fact with your statements.

Below is a brief history of Clinton invoking executive privilege and he lost in court. It is noteworthy that Nixon tried the same and it also was overturned in court. I'm not talking about taking away something the executive branch has held through history in impeachments, it appears it would be something that doesn't hold in impeachments. Care to discuss with historical evidence that would state otherwise?
---
The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege on fourteen occasions. In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first president since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a federal judge ruled that Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

Later, Clinton exercised a form of negotiated executive privilege when he agreed to testify before the grand jury called by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr only after negotiating the terms under which he would appear. Declaring that "absolutely no one is above the law", Starr said such a privilege "must give way" and evidence "must be turned over" to prosecutors if it is relevant to an investigation.
---

I don't care what happened with Clinton. You clearly stated that impeachment is a political process that requires no evidence to be presented. They only evidence the Democrats need is the assumption of guilt. You're saying this because you want to limit the powers of the executive branch (change the rules of the game) because your attempts are failing. I've already stated that Trump is within his rights not to do anything the Democrats in the House are demanding of him. If and when a court orders him to turn over any papers he would be legally required to do so. I realize you don't like the game that you tried to rig, have cheated in and are losing. Tough shit. You guys simply suck at whatever you try to do. The Executive Branch has it's Executive Powers thus providing the President with them regardless if Congress or the Senate don't like it. Seeings as you say it's okay for Congress to strip the Executive Branch of its powers just because they are accusing the President of something is not how it works. It wouldn't work that way if he was actually guilty (which, he isn't because he hasn't been proved to be so). The President has his powers until he's no longer President and he's not guilty of anything until he's proven to be guilty. I wonder would you support Trump stripping the House of it's powers based on an accusation based on assumptions he can't prove? There's checks and balances for a reason. Sorry, you can't rig the entire Government. We're not under socialism yet.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Trump is within his rights

Show me the precedent that supports trump during an impeachment inquiry to exert executive privilege in preventing witnesses and documents from not coming forth. If you know of something that supports his case I'm asking for it.

 

[cots]

Show me the precedent that supports trump during an impeachment inquiry to exert executive privilege in preventing witnesses and documents from not coming forth. If you know of something that supports his case I'm asking for it.

He's not required to legally do anything the House demands of him. He's making his own precedent. Besides, there's no concrete law that requires one to even follow precedents. I support him because of the nature of the inquiry and the history behind it. If and when an actual court with legal authority orders Trump to comply with their request he's in his right to not give Congress anything. If he then refuses the court order I would disagree with him, but as of right now what I think he's doing is perfectly fine. Under no circumstances should one branch of the Government be able to strip the other branch of its powers. They choose to work together on whatever they choose to work together on. As far as I'm concerned the "checks and balances" and working just fine. Until the Liberals actually rip up the Constitution and replace our way of life with socialism we are still a Democratic Republic. So act like it.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

There's checks and balances for a reason.

This might help inform you and others

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

He's not required to legally do anything the House demands of him. He's making his own precedent. I support him because of the nature of the inquiry and the history behind it.

So you admit he has no ground to stand on historically but you think it's different because? you don't like it? you don't feel its fair? feelings don't come into play when it comes to legal precedent which is what the courts will use first and foremost in making a consideration. How is this different?

Under no circumstances should one branch of the Government be able to strip the other branch of it's powers.

How does historical precedent stand on that? Is the executive branch losing its power or is it actually overstepping its boundaries and impeding on congressional oversight? Historical evidence implies when exerted in an impeachment inquiry it is overturned in the courts. If you can review Nixon and Clinton's impeachment and observe a difference in the exertion of executive privilege that is notable please share with us.

There's checks and balances for a reason. Sorry, you can't rig the entire Government. We're not under socialism yet.

As far as I'm concerned the "checks and balances" and working just fine. Until the Liberals actually rip up the Constitution and replace our way of life with socialism we are still a Democratic Republic. So act like it.

Sir, you keep spouting socialism in relation to this impeachment but I think you grossly misunderstand the term and I'm embarrassed for you. Please use a dictionary before using words you aren't familiar with. Its hard to pursue discourse when one isn't not sure the other participant doesn't know what he's talking about in relation to simple terminology.

 

[cots]

This might help inform you and others

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

So you admit he has no ground to stand on historically but you think it's different because? you don't like it? you don't feel its fair? feelings don't come into play when it comes to legal precedent which is what the courts will use first and foremost in making a consideration. How is this different?

How does historical precedent stand on that? Is the executive branch losing its power or is it actually overstepping its boundaries and impeding on congressional oversight? Historical evidence implies when exerted in an impeachment inquiry it is overturned in the courts. If you can review Nixon and Clinton's impeachment and observe a difference in the exertion of executive privilege that is notable please share with us.

Sir, you keep spouting socialism in relation to this impeachment but I think you grossly misunderstand the term and I'm embarrassed for you. Please use a dictionary before using words you aren't familiar with. Its hard to pursue discourse when one isn't not sure the other participant doesn't know what he's talking about in relation to simple terminology.

Legal precedents aren't the de facto method for going about legal proceedings. They are more of a rough draft. One can challenge such precedents thus creating their own. So they are more out an outline of how things should be done. What's precedent are we setting allowing a premeditated impeachment effort to take place following previous attempts rooted in the simple fact the Democrats don't like Trump? Seeings as the Liberals value ones feelings over facts or logic you can understand how my personal feelings go along with the facts, but I'm not a Liberal so I'm not putting my personal feelings before logic and fact. Trump doesn't have to do anything Congress is asking of him. Until a court orders him to turn over any documents he doesn't have to. Just a Congress doesn't have to take orders from Trump.

As per your socialism jab. Socialism would destroy our 3 branch system. You simply follow the one Government rule. We probably wouldn't even be allowed to legally be having this debate under socialistic rule as depending on what stance the Government took on the issue your or I would be jailed for not agreeing with whatever that may be. We'd have to agree and we'd also have to be not using certain words - you know the words being outlawed. I don't see the Liberal obsession with trying to hide or rewrite history. Those who don't learn from it are doomed to repeat it, but that's exactly what they want. They want to adopt an old ass backwards way of Government that has a guarantee failure rate of 110%. Hong Kong is fighting for Democracy while in the USA Liberals are fighting to destroy it.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

As per your socialism jab. Socialism would destroy our 3 branch system. You simply follow the one Government rule.

Is anyone here advocating dissolving the three branches? If anything on historical precedent you have an executive branch overstepping to emulate an authoritarian style of government by denying congressional oversight which was overruled by the courts.

Legal precedents aren't the de facto method for going about legal proceedings. They are more of a rough draft. One can challenge such precedents thus creating their own.

I agree a precedent can be challenged, it usually is most effective in civil cases. I'm skeptical that there is anything different from Trump when examining Clinton and Nixon's impeachments. I've yet to hear anything concrete.

premeditated impeachment effort

This isn't concrete. It could be argued this is further support for the need for impeachment... as Lindsey Graham said, of a political cleansing of the office. So this is a matter of perspective as democrats have lodged a long and running list of impeachable offenses. Just because a few bad actors have been given a megaphone in an internet age doesn't equate to an entire concerted effort of the congressional house to impeach the president. The house took but only one other vote in 2017 to commence an impeachment, we discussed this already in a previous thread but you continue to persist this misinformed narrative. History is not on your side of this argument. If there was a concerted effort there would have been a majority of democrats supporting impeachment back in 2017 rather than against it.

"On December 6, 2017, Rep. Al Green introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump. Green introduced the resolution as a privileged motion and it was voted on the same day. As expected the resolution did not move forward, losing by 364–58 with all Republicans and most Democrats voting in favor of tabling the resolution, i.e. to kill the resolution."

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h658

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And in good faith to show I intended and in correct context applied authoritarian style of government since I pointed out your incorrect use of socialism:

"Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive."

This is one of the four major tenants of authoritarianism.

 

[cots]

And in good faith to show I intended and in correct context applied authoritarian style of government since I pointed out your incorrect use of socialism:

"Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive."

This is one of the four major tenants of authoritarianism.

I would agree with this if Trump was trying to take over Congress or remove their powers. Seeings as Congress is trying to remove him from office and is doing a piss poor job at it so they want to limit his powers to possibly gain an upper hand your example doesn't jive. Your claim that this entire impeachment effort wasn't premeditated is also invalid. There's ample evidence many of the Democrats planned it, from the PAC's they started around when Trump took office, the previous failed attempts, the fact the Whisterblower's lawyer (the entire reason we're in this inquiry) openly admitted to planning a coup, the many high ranking politician or wealthy billionaires calling for his removal and the Liberals population call and support for the entire mess. The Liberal public called for impeachment from day one after they LOST the election. Sorry Libtards, you did lose. There's no question it was planned from the get go.

The Democrats still refuse to admit they lost the election and instead of working with Trump on issues they've been using the Liberal court system to fight him on almost everything he tries to do. The funny part is that he's overturned and won most of those cases they've brought against him (not in the lower courts original rulings, but in proceeding rulings, you know, the ones CNN won't report on) and he's actually living up to most of his campaign promises (which is rare for any President regardless of party affiliation). Trump was elected beyond all odds and contrary to what the Liberals would have you think he's doing great and things even with the Democrats constantly trying to shut him down on almost everything he tries to do. He's going to beat this impeachment effort and of course the Democrats still won't admit defeat, but it's okay because we all know they are sore losers who can't even win at the games they're cheating in.

I wonder come 2021 after he is still in office if we'll be discussing yet another impeachment effort brought up by the Democrats on this very same forum.

 

[Lacius]

Clearly guilty of rubbing your fur the wrong way. But nothing's been shown by even a preponderance, let alone any higher standard of proof. We got a parade of partisan insinuation, assumption, and feels. Democrats might vote to push it to the Senate, but then they lose control of the show, and that's probably the last thing they want.

All we can do is wait to see what happens. That is unless @Lacius is actually ...

View attachment 187826

My personal feelings about Trump are irrelevant.

Trump held up Ukraine aide because he wanted to investigate a Biden conspiracy theory, harming the interests of the United States and advancing his own political agenda. Everything about this has been corroborated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

So you spent all that time writing to simply state if the Democrats think he's guilty of something that's enough to impeach him regardless if there's any evidence. Yeah, well, that's wrong. The basis for this thread and your poll is to justify taking away powers from the Executive Branch because another branch accused them of something. Seeings as their accusations are without merit you now would support them manipulating the system and changing the rules.

So, we're watching a football game. Your team you made a bet on is losing. Suddenly in the 3rd quarter your team's coach wants to change the rules of the game to make it so the team with the less touchdowns wins and you would support this so now you're on Twitter advocating we change the way NFL games are played. Dude, your team is losing because they suck. Get over it. If per say we did make a bet, you lost it and you refused to pay up, well, then you'd be in a world of hurt my friend.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Is that moron that tries to hide his hatred for the country behind a dry personality and improper logic replying to this thread? I did stop ignoring Xzi, but @Lacius is on a whole other level of stupid. I'm sure he agrees Trump is guilty before being proven guilty. If that's the fact it just goes to show he's not that smart and doesn't operate in reality. It really makes me ask myself what type of psychoactive substances are these tempers are using.

Edit:

It also seems the less Liberal bias main stream media news site NBC (they are pro-Liberal, but have some editors that work within the confines of reality) has posted about the non-Democrat voters and the Republicans that see through this shit show (and how this is very bad for the Libtards). https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...orced-error-sobering-consequences-ncna1089871 .

Trump's guilt has been demonstrated.