Quantcast
The US Politics |OT|

Forums - Politics Discussion - The US Politics |OT|

jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

1). Imagine withholding all the evidence and then saying prove it. 

2). That's a minor technicality and using it as your entire defense is foolish.

3). You don't need to take it to court.  Congress has the sole power of impeachment and in the US vs Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege does not have priority over an impeachment proceeding.

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. You're innocent til proven guilty and if the Ukraine government is saying they had no idea aid was witholded you can't prove a quid pro quo.

2. Thats proper procedure and them not doing it comes across as rushed.

3. Oh okay if that's the case then I do see the case for impeachment under obstruction of justice.

1). That doesn't absolve someone of the crime though.  And why hold back thousands of documents and prevent the entire executive branch from testifying if you aren't guilty?

2). I'll have to look further into what they should have done.

3). And just for the record, the House did ask the courts about the subpoenas.  They said it's not our jurisdiction.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
jason1637 said:
 

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. 

 

That's quite inaccurate.  You can have cases of sexual assault even if the victim denies it ever happened or insists it was consensual, such as statutory rape.  You can have cases of regular assault (such as a barfight) where the victim can claim that nothing happened but the bartender, owner, server, bouncer or whoever presses charges.  Many times, where an assault takes place is enough to supersede any claims that the assault victim makes.

That's not an opinion.  That's just how the law works.  It's a matter of record, I'm afraid, even in West Korea.  It is to your peril if you test this out for yourself.

But this is not a case of assault, so your insights into the legal system weren't applicable anyway.  This is something else entirely, and the existing evidence is certainly strong enough to stand on its own merits.  If the President of Ukraine wishes to testify, well, West Korea's kangaroo court probably wouldn't allow it.  Beloved Leader's collaborators clearly don't want any more witnesses to go on record.  



SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. You're innocent til proven guilty and if the Ukraine government is saying they had no idea aid was witholded you can't prove a quid pro quo.

2. Thats proper procedure and them not doing it comes across as rushed.

3. Oh okay if that's the case then I do see the case for impeachment under obstruction of justice.

1). That doesn't absolve someone of the crime though.  And why hold back thousands of documents and prevent the entire executive branch from testifying if you aren't guilty?

2). I'll have to look further into what they should have done.

3). And just for the record, the House did ask the courts about the subpoenas.  They said it's not our jurisdiction.

I do think it's very sketchy how the Trump admin was trying to keep things under lock and not complying with Congress and impeachment for obstruction does nakes sense but there's no solid evidence for impeachment for the quid pro quo since Ukraine is saying they didn't know about the withheld aid.



jason1637 said:

I do think it's very sketchy how the Trump admin was trying to keep things under lock and not complying with Congress and impeachment for obstruction does nakes sense but there's no solid evidence for impeachment for the quid pro quo since Ukraine is saying they didn't know about the withheld aid.

According to the Pentagon, Ukraine did ask about the aid.  And on the same day as the infamous phone call, no less.  So they knew the whole time that it was being withheld.

And here is Ukraine's deputy foreign minister saying they knew it was held up.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Due to the large amount of new posts here, I assume that the impeachment is discussed in this thread rather than in its dedicated spinoff.

I want to congratulate US-Americans for having a justice system where the majority in the government can comfortably block the presentation of evidence and the attendance of witnesses without being guilty of obstruction of justice.

Who were the people who made those rules and what were they thinking?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Due to the large amount of new posts here, I assume that the impeachment is discussed in this thread rather than in its dedicated spinoff.

I want to congratulate US-Americans for having a justice system where the majority in the government can comfortably block the presentation of evidence and the attendance of witnesses without being guilty of obstruction of justice.

Who were the people who made those rules and what were they thinking?

Racist, sexist old white men. They were prolly too occupied killing, raping and enslaving Natives and Africans and stealing land to flesh out all their "rules"



 

Dems - Dr Evil & crew
Reps (Trump & Melania) - Powers & girl
Impeachment transition delay - "Unnecessarily slow dipping mechanism"



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Anyone else getting whiplash?

https://youtu.be/-AEzA4avnxs



jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

1). Imagine withholding all the evidence and then saying prove it. 

2). That's a minor technicality and using it as your entire defense is foolish.

3). You don't need to take it to court.  Congress has the sole power of impeachment and in the US vs Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege does not have priority over an impeachment proceeding.

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. You're innocent til proven guilty and if the Ukraine government is saying they had no idea aid was witholded you can't prove a quid pro quo.

2. Thats proper procedure and them not doing it comes across as rushed.

3. Oh okay if that's the case then I do see the case for impeachment under obstruction of justice.

This vid should give you a better understanding based on a few of your points. Different arguments with different justifications. It's not clear that either side is right or wrong, more that they are both simply using the tools and influence available to them, which isn't purely one sided.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

TallSilhouette said:

Anyone else getting whiplash?

https://youtu.be/-AEzA4avnxs

I watch Tucker Carlson, the host of the biggest show on Fox News, and he demolishes John Bolton repeatedly. Probably one of the few hosts on MSM to expose Bolton for the piece of shit he is. I can't think of any other TV host on any other channel who has made it their job to actively expose the neocons. 

This is one of many examples:

So yeah, if Trevor wanted to make an honest point, he'd at least give some credit for Tucker. A missed chance for Trevor to pretend that he actually cares.