CayceG Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 In the context, the full quote is: Quote "Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be President Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it." So "take her out" tracks with "get her out tomorrow," meaning remove her from the country/recall her. I'm all about this whole thing being grounds for Trump's removal, but the conspiracy to have an ambassador killed just isn't reasonable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 This was really good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Am I the only one that A) has heard the truth repeatedly and understand what the President did, and B) is absolutely sick of hearing it over and over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 That’s kind of why I liked that speech. It was sort of like we all know what he did, we know he is guilty, now the question is are we going to do the right thing? I mean of course not, but it was a good speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 I don’t find either of the articles worthy of removing a president for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, sblfilms said: I don’t find either of the articles worthy of removing a president for. Please, do tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, osxmatt said: Please, do tell. Neither is a crime or like a crime, and both things have remedies either in the statute or via the courts which weren’t utilized. Obviously impeachment is naturally political but the constitution makes the purpose known that it’s there for the most serious of matters. This doesn’t rise to that level in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Wasn't it ruled that Trump withholding the funds from the Ukraine was illegal which makes it a crime? Not to mention his repeated obstruction. And is there any questions that Trump is corrupt and fundamentally unfit for the office he holds in temperament and knowledge of the office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 11 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Neither is a crime or like a crime, and both things have remedies either in the statute or via the courts which weren’t utilized. Obviously impeachment is naturally political but the constitution makes the purpose known that it’s there for the most serious of matters. This doesn’t rise to that level in my view. What entity would be the prosecuting party in the courts? Because the notion that it would be the DoJ is OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Just now, SFLUFAN said: What entity would be the prosecuting party in the courts? That's why that standard and sentiment is such bullshit. You say the President can only be impeached if he commits a crime, but then argue that if The President does something illegal, it's not a crime. So basically what folks who argue this are saying is that The President is above the law. Which makes him a Dictator... or a King. THIS President is unlawful, incompetent, immoral, petty and possibly demented. But NOPE... not impeachable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 wait we are doing the it’s not a crime thing here like that matters even if true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 20 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Neither is a crime or like a crime, and both things have remedies either in the statute or via the courts which weren’t utilized. Obviously impeachment is naturally political but the constitution makes the purpose known that it’s there for the most serious of matters. This doesn’t rise to that level in my view. The President is a king then. That's what this comes down to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 13 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said: Wasn't it ruled that Trump withholding the funds from the Ukraine was illegal which makes it a crime? Not to mention his repeated obstruction. And is there any questions that Trump is corrupt and fundamentally unfit for the office he holds in temperament and knowledge of the office. The statute requires the executive to notify congress of why they withheld the funds within a certain time period, but the statute provides the remedy for that and congress didn’t exercise that remedy. “Obstructing congress” is also not a crime and see below in my answer to Wade about the remedy for not complying with Congress. The last sentence is neither here nor there in regards to the point I made, which is that I don’t find these particular articles to be worthy of removing a president even though I think Trump specifically has no business being President 10 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: What entity would be the prosecuting party in the courts? Because the notion that it would be the DoJ is OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO. The obstruction of congress charge is based on the administration withholding evidence and instructing potential witnesses not to comply with subpoenas. The congress has lawyers to argue their case in court. They filed lawsuits to compel testimony and documents and withdrew them. If the executive thinks they don’t have to do something the congress says they do, the courts are the remedy for that dispute. 6 minutes ago, stepee said: wait we are doing the it’s not a crime thing here like that matters even if true 1. it is true, read the AOI and show where the crime is. 2. I’m only giving my personal standard for what I find to be a reason to remove the president, regardless of whether they can be. You can remove the President for any reason if you have the votes. Just now, mclumber1 said: The President is a king then. That's what this comes down to. You’ll need to be more specific in regards to what you mean as this makes no sense in regards to what I wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 In any event, I am not displeased in the least that this has laid bare the fundamentally broken nature of the American political and governmental apparatus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 @sblfilms - OK, you were referring to a civil rather than a criminal action then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/19/trumps-lawyers-shouldnt-be-allowed-use-bogus-legal-arguments-impeachment/?outputType=amp This explains it better than I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 If Congress appropriates funds the president isn't allowed to play around with it. Even though that is actually a crime there's no way it needs to be to warrant removal. Additionally the president only has a small window of things he isn't required to make available for oversight. Using presidential power to obstruct oversight is also very worthy of removal. The president is subject to oversight and doesn't get to just decide that he's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, stepee said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/19/trumps-lawyers-shouldnt-be-allowed-use-bogus-legal-arguments-impeachment/?outputType=amp This explains it better than I can. The argument by Trumps lawyers are different than mine. They are saying it’s constitutionally invalid because there is no crime, I explicitly said you can impeach and remove a president for any reason. But whether you can is different from whether you should. I don’t think these particular articles warrant removal based on what they actually allege. 8 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: @sblfilms - OK, you were referring to a civil rather than a criminal action then. Obviously. The AOIs don’t even allege a criminal action occurred. They just say he was a naughty boy, and certainly he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 minute ago, Anathema- said: If Congress appropriates funds the president isn't allowed to play around with it. Even though that is actually a crime there's no way it needs to be to warrant removal. Additionally the president only has a small window of things he isn't required to make available for oversight. Using presidential power to obstruct oversight is also very worthy of removal. The president is subject to oversight and doesn't get to just decide that he's not. Impounding funds is absolutely legal. There is a process for how it is to be done. The administration didn’t follow the process, and congress didn’t follow the remedy laid out in the relevant statute. The courts are the arbiter of disagreements between the executive and the legislature. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stepee Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The argument by Trumps lawyers are different than mine. They are saying it’s constitutionally invalid because there is no crime, I explicitly said you can impeach and remove a president for any reason. But whether you can is different from whether you should. I don’t think these particular articles warrant removal based on what they actually allege. Obviously. The AOIs don’t even allege a criminal action occurred. They just say he was a naughty boy, and certainly he is. Ok, since you mentioned the crime part, I wanted to make sure. Your opinion is your opinion, we just disagree and that’s fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 If a president can obstruct Congress without Congress impeaching, then Congress can't exercise their oversight roles. Isn't the case where Obama and Holder didn't give documents to Congress under subpoena still making its way through the courts? If if takes months to years to get courts to settle disputes, and that's the only way, then our system can't function. The executive and legislative branch are supposed to have an understanding that they comply with each other as co equal branches. The executive is behaving like it is above the legislative branch. The legislative branch is being shit on and the remedy isn't the courts. The constitution gives the legislative branch its own authority to take action. Given the quantity of subpoenas that Trump has ignored, I think this beyond qualifies for removal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Boy, I don’t know what a president should be impeached over if not this. Jeez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Impounding funds is absolutely legal. There is a process for how it is to be done. The administration didn’t follow the process, and congress didn’t follow the remedy laid out in the relevant statute. Considering the particulars (holding funds for personal electoral gain) I don't see how impeachment is inappropriate. This wasn't an oopsie, it was a corrupt violation of the highest order. Removal is appropriate if no lesser remedy is effective. 6 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The courts are the arbiter of disagreements between the executive and the legislature. End of story. That is really not the end of story considering it's not even a citation. The House has oversight of the executive, there's nothing that says they require the court's agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Man, it's almost as if the deliberate vagaries of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" and a system largely dependent on unspoken agreements of normative behavior might not have been the greatest ideas upon which to found a framework of governance, amirite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, Massdriver said: If a president can obstruct Congress without Congress impeaching, then Congress can't exercise their oversight roles. Isn't the case where Obama and Holder didn't give documents to Congress under subpoena still making its way through the courts? If if takes months to years to get courts to settle disputes, and that's the only way, then our system can't function. The executive and legislative branch are supposed to have an understanding that they comply with each other as co equal branches. The executive is behaving like it is above the legislative branch. The legislative branch is being shit on and the remedy isn't the courts. The constitution gives the legislative branch its own authority to take action. Given the quantity of subpoenas that Trump has ignored, I think this beyond qualifies for removal. The courts being slow to act is certainly a problem that needs its own fix! In the case you are talking about, it actually is very pertinent to the current discussion because the fight was actually about the specific issue of whether or not the courts are the place to settle records request disputes. The DOJ has long held that they aren’t, which is a wild notion. Spoiler alert: the DOJ was wrong! 1 minute ago, Anathema- said: Considering the particulars (holding funds for personal electoral gain) I don't see how impeachment is inappropriate. This wasn't an oopsie, it was a corrupt violation of the highest order. Removal is appropriate if no lesser remedy is effective. That is really not the end of story considering it's not even a citation. The House has oversight of the executive, there's nothing that says they require the court's agreement. Presidents do all sorts of things for personal electoral gain. They are politicians. This is why committing a crime is an important differentiator to me. Bribing somebody for personal electoral gain would be a good example of something that I would take issue with. The House doesn’t have unfettered access to all things the executive does. Literally nobody believes that. And the courts are where you settle disputes between the two. 1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said: Man, it's almost as if the deliberate vagaries of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" and a system largely based on unspoken agreements of normative behavior might not have been the greatest ideas upon which to found a system of governance, amirite? The founders made a lot of...bad decisions, let’s be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The founders made a lot of...bad decisions, let’s be honest. I'd argue that any "good" ones that they made were purely accidental. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The courts being slow to act is certainly a problem that needs its own fix! In the case you are talking about, it actually is very pertinent to the current discussion because the fight was actually about the specific issue of whether or not the courts are the place to settle records request disputes. The DOJ has long held that they aren’t, which is a wild notion. Spoiler alert: the DOJ was wrong! The courts will remain slow. That's not a realistic remedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: I'd argue that any "good" one that they made was purely accidental. The book “Miracle at Philadelphia” is a great title for something that covers in detail how the constitution was crafted. That we made it this far as a semi-functional nation with such a document as our guiding light is indeed miraculous. 1 minute ago, Massdriver said: The courts will remain slow. That's not a realistic remedy. It is the actual remedy though. And it didn’t use to be this way. Certainly the modern executive branch uses this shift to their advantage, but in the “what do I think should happen” context of this discussion...fixing that is what I think should happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 I will freely admit that of all the things to possibly impeach the Imbecile for, a scandal involving Joe Biden's degenerate fail son and a country that has no business existing in the first place ranks really, REALLY low on my hit list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 24, 2020 Author Share Posted January 24, 2020 If the courts are so slow maybe we should vastly expand the courts at all levels so that we can fully realize the right to a speedy trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 You know what? Considering what passes a lot of the time for "justice" in this country, it may not be such a bad thing that the courts are slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 24, 2020 Author Share Posted January 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: You know what? Considering what passes a lot of the time for "justice" in this country, it may not be such a bad thing that the courts are slow. Obviously we would need a wholesale revamp of the severity of punishment, public defender offices, and the root causes of poverty, but I'll never pass up the opportunity to pack the courts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 SCOTUS should at least move to non-En Banc work so they can take more cases, particularly for cases that don’t have major constitutional ramifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 45 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: Man, it's almost as if the deliberate vagaries of what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" and a system largely dependent on unspoken agreements of normative behavior might not have been the greatest ideas upon which to found a framework of governance, amirite? I don't think it was vague to the people who wrote that language. Listen to Schiff explain it. It's things you'd have to have the office to be able to do. 34 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The book “Miracle at Philadelphia” is a great title for something that covers in detail how the constitution was crafted. That we made it this far as a semi-functional nation with such a document as our guiding light is indeed miraculous. It is the actual remedy though. And it didn’t use to be this way. Certainly the modern executive branch uses this shift to their advantage, but in the “what do I think should happen” context of this discussion...fixing that is what I think should happen No, because you're insisting that DOJ deal with executive malfeasance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.