- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,746
- Reaction score
- 12,288
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Congress cannot file criminal charges against anyone. At the Federal level only the Justice department - an executive agency - can do that. The only tool they have is impeachment.Utter nonsense - if truly believed, criminal charges would be filed, not this political, partisan, dog and pony show whose only desired outcome is the prohibition of a future political run by Donald Trump.
Your comments add so much value to a conversation. Really.Ok, counselor. Thanks for your expert analysis <sarcasm>
You've just, in effect, supported my argument that this is simply petty politics by vengeful Democrats who can't jail Trump, although they'd love to, so they want to bar him from running for office again because they're terrified of facing him on the ballot again. but the insanity of it is that any Democrat with at least half a brain - limited group, I'll admit - knows that the impeachment trial is a farce, doomed to failure, and simply an attempt to create political ad fodder to be used against any Republican who votes against impeachment. You're being played and your tax dollars are being wasted on a Democrat political farce.In order to support your post you need to supply information as to what exactly the Justice department could prosecute Trump for and the chances for success in doing so. My understanding is that legally, the only way that Trump can be legally responsible is if it is proven that there was "intent" to cause insurrection and intent is very difficult to prove without a shadow of a doubt.
The reason why he is being impeached is so that he cannot run for office again and not because he will be put in jail. The bar for impeachment is lower than it is for a judicial guilty plea because only the opinion of 2/3's of the Senate is needed to impeach. In a court of law, 100% is needed.
By the way, you did not address what I said. If Trump is not impeached for this, what is to stop other presidents from doing the same in the last 10 weeks of their presidency.
So you think the current Justice Department can't lay charges? You think the Senate can't make charges against Trump conditional upon the approval vote of the next Attorney General?Congress cannot file criminal charges against anyone. At the Federal level only the Justice department - an executive agency - can do that. The only tool they have is impeachment.
Congress currently has no power to appoint a special prosecutor. And even if they did that person was actually appointed by and overseen by the DOJ.So you think the current Justice Department can't lay charges? You think the Senate can't make charges against Trump conditional upon the approval vote of the next Attorney General?
Are you claiming they can't appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the matter and then lay charges, if warranted? They appointed enough Special Prosecutors to investigate other nonsense and lay charges - why not this, if it's serious?
Face it - this is just political Kabuki and you're paying for it!
No, you got that wrong. Trump vowed when he took office to uphold the laws, protect the nation and uphold the Constitution. None of these are prosecutable by law or if they are, they need to be proven without a shadow of a doubt. Nonetheless, what is at stake now is not the legal aspect but the aspect of competency and of doing what you vowed to do and the entire nation is who suffers or not, depending on what you do. You cannot convict in a court of law of not keeping their vows, you cannot convict people of being incompetent and you cannot convict people of not watching out for the safety of others and if you could, you would need to prove "Intent" in doing wrong.You've just, in effect, supported my argument that this is simply petty politics by vengeful Democrats who can't jail Trump, although they'd love to, so they want to bar him from running for office again because they're terrified of facing him on the ballot again. but the insanity of it is that any Democrat with at least half a brain - limited group, I'll admit - knows that the impeachment trial is a farce, doomed to failure, and simply an attempt to create political ad fodder to be used against any Republican who votes against impeachment. You're being played and your tax dollars are being wasted on a Democrat political farce.
Anyhow, your lack of knowledge and your evident wrong opinions are not conducive to further discussion.
If Congress has no authority, what authority is being usurped?Congress currently has no power to appoint a special prosecutor. And even if they did that person was actually appointed by and overseen by the DOJ.
With regard to the DOJ the point you miss is that Congress is a coequal branch of government and it should not have to depend on another branch of government to insure its’ authority is not usurped.
Congress has no authority to appoint a special prosecutor.If Congress has no authority, what authority is being usurped?
Fact remains, this impeachment is a totally farcical partisan political charade for no legitimate purpose other that to seek vengeance against the former President's political future.
I deal with fact and reality and not with biased opinions. Fact has proven you wrong. It is a simple as that.Typical leftist dismissal of anyone who doesn't obey and promote the left's prime directives. Leftist "truth" is never to be questioned and if it is, that questioning must be dismissed and the questioner personally attacked.
You're entitled to your opinions and I'd never presume to dismiss your right/ability to disagree although I would argue your conclusions.
You initiated this "discussion" - I simply voiced an opinion and never asked you to engage - you seem to feel you harm me in some way by dismissing further discussion where, in my view, I tolerated your expression of your opinion and am not troubled one bit by your inability to continue - I'm not surprised.
I didn't realize President Biden isn't really President because, according to you, Congress hasn't been able to certify the results.Congress has no authority to appoint a special prosecutor.
The authority being usurped is Congress’ authority under the Constution to certify Presidential election results.
Factually, you're the one who is wrong. Unless, of course, you believe that alleged treasonous behavior, accessory to murder, etc. is suitably punished by being unable to run for elected office in the future. That's the only punishment Impeachment can impose on a former office holder. It's just politicians politically punishing politicians.I deal with fact and reality and not with biased opinions. Fact has proven you wrong. It is a simple as that.
I have proven that impeachment is the only way to accomplish the goal of punishing wrong doing by a president in a case such as this. You have not proven the opposite. That was the issue of the discussion. Your point was that the president should be tried in a court of law and not impeached. I made my point through facts and you didn't.
Then I suggest that you get the politicians to change the Constitution because our forefathers put impeachment into the Constitution to make sure that Presidents are accountable for their actions. There is nothing in the Constitution (proven this week) that Presidents cannot be impeached when already out of office. Congress is there to make sure that such people cannot run for office again. The courts cannot do that.Factually, you're the one who is wrong. Unless, of course, you believe that alleged treasonous behavior, accessory to murder, etc. is suitably punished by being unable to run for elected office in the future. That's the only punishment Impeachment can impose on a former office holder. It's just politicians politically punishing politicians.
Fact remains, if inappropriate political behavior is the charge, political punishment of a former office holder is petty and weak as well as being incredibly expensive, but that could be the motto of Democrats - "vote for us, we're the party of petty, weak and Incredibly expensive ideas".
Congress shouldn't be the one punishing the wrong doing of a former President - the courts should do that - as they did to President Clinton who, once he left office, was stripped of his law license for a period of time for the crime of committing perjury. Your country has three distinct branches of government and the competent branch to mete out punishment for such wrong doing is the judiciary. But you know, as well as everyone else on the planet, that there isn't a court in America that, would convict President Trump of the crimes he's accused of in the impeachment article. And thus, the only way Nancy Pelosi can get her pound of flesh for Trump calling her the fool she is is by rushing through impeachment and unleashing the clown show we're now witnessing.
Stupid childish argument.Lets impeach Clinton again or dig up Nixon and impeach him too.Just because he died is no excuse.
We all wish trump would testify. Why do you suppose he didn't? I'll tell you why, he is such a massive liar his lawyers know he would perjure himself.I wish Trump would testify.Then if it comes out that Pelosi planned all this at the Capitol she can be sent to Gitmo.
“Attempted usurpation of Congress authority” Better?I didn't realize President Biden isn't really President because, according to you, Congress hasn't been able to certify the results.
I never contended that impeachment wasn't a vehicle for the Congress - I contended, quite rightly, that impeachment of a former President who's left office is nothing more than vengeful politicians punishing a politician politically. You can't argue otherwise, since the only substantive outcome, even if impeachment is adopted, would be a subsequent vote to ban the former President from in the future seeking elective office. Many Democrats have stated they're delighted that Trump is the only President who's been impeached by the House twice. Delighted by further embarrassing him. And many Democrats have also stated, clearly, that the goal is to seek to prohibit Trump from running for office again - nothing substantive.Then I suggest that you get the politicians to change the Constitution because our forefathers put impeachment into the Constitution to make sure that Presidents are accountable for their actions. There is nothing in the Constitution (proven this week) that Presidents cannot be impeached when already out of office. Congress is there to make sure that such people cannot run for office again. The courts cannot do that.
and by the way, this is not about "punishing" the president. It is about protecting the nation from him ever doing this to the nation again. That is the job of Congress and not of the courts.
It really is that simple.
No need to point that out - that's because impeachment is a political vehicle to remove a person from an elected office or an appointed office.“Attempted usurpation of Congress authority” Better?
And while we’re at it I’ll also point out that people can and are impeached for behavior that doesn’t violate a criminal statute but does violate their oath of office.
You continue to push this "vengeance" thing around. I continue to say that it is more about Justice than Vengeance. Justice accomplishes many, many positive things, like preventing bad things from happening again. Vengeance accomplishes nothing but personal joy. I seriously doubt that this is about vengeance given that Congress is all about disagreements and never before have you seen any party simply use vengeance to beat the other party down.I never contended that impeachment wasn't a vehicle for the Congress - I contended, quite rightly, that impeachment of a former President who's left office is nothing more than vengeful politicians punishing a politician politically. You can't argue otherwise, since the only substantive outcome, even if impeachment is adopted, would be a subsequent vote to ban the former President from in the future seeking elective office. Many Democrats have stated they're delighted that Trump is the only President who's been impeached by the House twice. Delighted by further embarrassing him. And many Democrats have also stated, clearly, that the goal is to seek to prohibit Trump from running for office again - nothing substantive.
And you know, if you were marginally honest, the outcome of this farce is pre-ordained. A total waste of time and resources - the height of Democrat arrogance.
Trump deserves to be impeached. He deserved to be convicted and disqualified from holdinf office ever again. He shat all over his oath of office on 1/6 and he behavior before that wasn’t a whole lot better. It has nothing to do with Clinton - at least as far as I’m concerned.No need to point that out - that's because impeachment is a political vehicle to remove a person from an elected office or an appointed office.
Fact remains, it's a political farce that does nothing but satisfy the vengeful needs of a Democrat base. It's a prime example of what's wrong with politics in the US today - it's all about hating the other side and nothing about what's best for the country and for the people government is supposed to serve.
Ever since Republicans dared to impeach pervert Billy Boy, Democrats haven't shut up about impeaching Republican Presidents.
I didn't claim it had anything to do with Clinton, other than the simple fact that since the Clinton impeachment all Democrats spew on a regular basis is "impeach, impeach, impeach". If you can't elect a President, impeach the one that does get elected. During Bush II, impeachment was a regular cry from Democrats. During Trump, practically before he arrived in Washington, Democrats were beating the impeachment drums. It's basically all they've got in the way of opposition.Trump deserves to be impeached. He deserved to be convicted and disqualified from holdinf office ever again. He shat all over his oath of office on 1/6 and he behavior before that wasn’t a whole lot better. It has nothing to do with Clinton - at least as far as I’m concerned.
So, are you saying that bad deeds should go unpunished? That people in power should not be accountable? That if you are in a position to do something that you should just forget it and let others take care of it?I didn't claim it had anything to do with Clinton, other than the simple fact that since the Clinton impeachment all Democrats spew on a regular basis is "impeach, impeach, impeach". If you can't elect a President, impeach the one that does get elected. During Bush II, impeachment was a regular cry from Democrats. During Trump, practically before he arrived in Washington, Democrats were beating the impeachment drums. It's basically all they've got in the way of opposition.
You believe Trump should be impeached - personally, I don't care - never liked Trump and have always thought, as my posts here have noted, that the Republicans made a big mistake by nominating Trump, a lifelong Democrat, as their Presidential nominee and as a conservative viewing things from a distance, I'm not unhappy he's gone even though Joe Biden is a poor excuse of a replacement.
You'll never, however, win the argument that this impeachment was a political farce from start to finish and had nothing to do with protecting the nation and everything to do with protecting Democrats and satisfying the rabid base.
You claimed - unless I misread you - that the Democrats have had a hardon to impeach a Republican since Clinton - who btw I thought should have been removed from office for lying to Congress. Clinton’s crime pales in comparison to what Trump has done so that might give a clue as to why I wanted to see him impeached and foreclosed from ever having a position in government ever again - hell his ass belongs in prison as far as I’m concerned. But then I quaintly think people in positions of power should be held to a higher standard then the rest of us.I didn't claim it had anything to do with Clinton, other than the simple fact that since the Clinton impeachment all Democrats spew on a regular basis is "impeach, impeach, impeach". If you can't elect a President, impeach the one that does get elected. During Bush II, impeachment was a regular cry from Democrats. During Trump, practically before he arrived in Washington, Democrats were beating the impeachment drums. It's basically all they've got in the way of opposition.
You believe Trump should be impeached - personally, I don't care - never liked Trump and have always thought, as my posts here have noted, that the Republicans made a big mistake by nominating Trump, a lifelong Democrat, as their Presidential nominee and as a conservative viewing things from a distance, I'm not unhappy he's gone even though Joe Biden is a poor excuse of a replacement.
You'll never, however, win the argument that this impeachment was a political farce from start to finish and had nothing to do with protecting the nation and everything to do with protecting Democrats and satisfying the rabid base.
I don't disagree with anything you've posted here - My point was related to the thread topic- I agreed it was nonsense and counter productive to any feigned desire by Democrats to move on from Trump and "unite".You claimed - unless I misread you - that the Democrats have had a hardon to impeach a Republican since Clinton - who btw I thought should have been removed from office for lying to Congress. Clinton’s crime pales in comparison to what Trump has done so that might give a clue as to why I wanted to see him impeached and foreclosed from ever having a position in government ever again - hell his ass belongs in prison as far as I’m concerned. But then I quaintly think people in positions of power should be held to a higher standard then the rest of us.
I never contended that impeachment wasn't a vehicle for the Congress - I contended, quite rightly, that impeachment of a former President who's left office is nothing more than vengeful politicians punishing a politician politically. You can't argue otherwise, since the only substantive outcome, even if impeachment is adopted, would be a subsequent vote to ban the former President from in the future seeking elective office. Many Democrats have stated they're delighted that Trump is the only President who's been impeached by the House twice. Delighted by further embarrassing him. And many Democrats have also stated, clearly, that the goal is to seek to prohibit Trump from running for office again - nothing substantive.
And you know, if you were marginally honest, the outcome of this farce is pre-ordained. A total waste of time and resources - the height of Democrat arrogance.
I contended, quite rightly, that impeachment of a former President who's left office is nothing more than vengeful politicians punishing a politician politically.
And you know, if you were marginally honest, the outcome of this farce is pre-ordained. A total waste of time and resources - the height of Democrat arrogance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?