One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
I don't want Trump removed from office, whether his trial is fair or not
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Jan 24, 2020 22:36:21   #
Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX
 
Cacasdad wrote:
No, your opinion doesn’t carry the same gravitas because you are a narrow minded person that chooses to just believe what you hear as long as it validates your personal narrative, as opposed to actually doing research to verify as truth that which you hear!


You need some cheese with that whine?

| Reply
Jan 24, 2020 22:49:54   #
debeda
 
Cacasdad wrote:
Why do you speak of things you know not!
I am a cable cutter, I don’t get msnbc programming, nor the smart people at Fox, Wallace, Baire, used to be Smith, Cavuto to some degree.

Narrow minded? Unlike you I actually think people that disagree with me are actually entitled to the same freedoms, and respect as I am.

You think anyone that disagrees with you has no rights, and should be kicked out of the country.

Now that’s what I call Conservatism, the fascist type of conservatism!

Criticizing the bs others believe while you are a trump sycophant is truly ironic!
And very scary for the future of America.

I just I run into you when you’re whining about the inevitable trump type democrat!
Why do you speak of things you know not! br I am a... (show quote)



| Reply
Jan 24, 2020 23:12:16   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Cacasdad wrote:
The rule of law means nothing and has no place in an impeachment, both the house investigation, and senate trial.
Impeachment actions, both investigation, and trial require only the integrity of all participants, Party Of Stupid excepted in this case, The Party Of Liars Cheats and Thieves(gop) in Congress have proven themselves, without exception, to be completely devoid on any integrity!
Seriously, dude, you are a laugh a minute. I'm getting one hell of a kick out of reading the unadulterated hogwash you post.

"The rule of law means nothing and has no place in an impeachment"?

Say what?

FYI: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land. You should be able to recognize it since you are wiping your ass with it.

There would be no impeachment process were it not prescribed in the Supreme Law of the Land. The First Rule of Law is abiding by the principles laid down in the Supreme Law of the Land.

So, if you'd like to avoid providing any further evidence that you are a damned fool, please refrain from writing your own versions, or erroneous interpretations, of what constitutes the Rule of Law. Thing is, bubba, if you want to survive, you should know how to swim before you jump into a swamp.

.
The Bouncer Bounces Biden.
The Bouncer Bounces Biden....

| Reply
Jan 24, 2020 23:19:27   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Redding, CA
 
PeterS wrote:
Blackmail is an impeachable offense. It doesn't have to be criminal to be impeachable. The man is unqualified to be president and worse, he is destroying the office that he holds. The people of this country are stupid enough to reelect him which makes impeachment an even more important tool to cleanse the office of the filth now in it.




Hey Peter,
I believe the verbiage for impeachment is "High Crimes". Also they are required to be specific.

I heard several analogies,
"I am threatened by my neighbor "

Police; what has your neighbor done to make you feel threatened ",Specifically?

"He broke the law"

Police ; what specific law did he break"?

In the case of Trump
NO CRIME AND NO SPECIFICS are even once mentioned in the articles.

Yet according to our constitution, the Senate is required to base their case on the articles that are required to have "Specific High Crimes".

Schumer, Nadler, Pelosi and the leading accuser Schiff dozens of times stated they had "Irrefutable Evidence " and not only "Irrefutable Evidence " but multiple offenses with "Smoking guns". Evidence so damning that it will prove "Trump is a "Real and Present Danger to America ".

Please name one "High Crime " according to our constitution and "Proven in the articles, also please state Specifically. Then name Specifically, what in the articles "Prove " Trump is a "Real and Present Danger "
Based on what the "team of Democrats " gave the senate, none of the above, no evidence, nothing constitutional, nothing specific.

Jack

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 00:00:12   #
Cacasdad
 
lindajoy wrote:
Roberts has no authority because the Constitution mandates the Senate is the sole ruling decision makers by the 2/3 majority~~

No Rule of Law??? Then why have the dems argued subpoena power should be enforced if there is no rule of law?? Why are we even having an Impeachment if there is no rule of law granted by our Constitution, governing its procedures, investigations, results etc??
Impeachment is reserved for a very select group of Americans, our highest officeholders and justices. It is not designed to root out crime, for that, is the responsibility of the police and the courts -- but to root out severe abuses of power that pertain to those offices.... To confuse the issue by conflating impeachment with ordinary judicial procedures is to do a deep disservice to our Constitution.... Really??? No rule of law???It is also to denigrate the fundamental strength of the citizenry's basic devotion to the principles and practices of our American court system and you can bet your you know what the rule of law governs ~~Just to name a few things for you~~

But what about the threat that this impeachment process poses to the rule of law? This entire procedure raises questions, beginning with the independent counsel law under which it began. By establishing prosecutors with unlimited resources, whose reputations depend upon bringing down their prey, the law encourages the remorseless search for the least bit of evidence of any sort of violation, no mater how technical, in the hope that something, anything might stick...

Do you know what the rule of law principal even is???
Roberts has no authority because the Constitution ... (show quote)


The rule of law is not a principle.
In the USA rule of law begins with innocent until proven guilty.

Matters not, impeachment is not a legal matter, it is a purely political exercise.
How partisan depends on the integrity of the politicians involved. Unfortunately integrity has taken a backseat to blind party loyalty, something that affects both parties. Although at this moment it is the Republican Party that has put Party above the American constitution.

The gop over the past 25 years has been the most corrupt group since Tammany hall! It began with Newt Gingrich and his “F/U, it’s my way or the highway” bs.
That tactic ended rational debate, and has left us with the Party Of Liars Cheats and Thieves, more popularly known as the GOP/Republican party.

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 00:06:47   #
Digger47
 
Rumi, finally you describe your self accurately

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 00:36:51   #
Cacasdad
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
Hey Peter,
I believe the verbiage for impeachment is "High Crimes". Also they are required to be specific.

I heard several analogies,
"I am threatened by my neighbor "

Police; what has your neighbor done to make you feel threatened ",Specifically?

"He broke the law"

Police ; what specific law did he break"?

In the case of Trump
NO CRIME AND NO SPECIFICS are even once mentioned in the articles.

Yet according to our constitution, the Senate is required to base their case on the articles that are required to have "Specific High Crimes".

Schumer, Nadler, Pelosi and the leading accuser Schiff dozens of times stated they had "Irrefutable Evidence " and not only "Irrefutable Evidence " but multiple offenses with "Smoking guns". Evidence so damning that it will prove "Trump is a "Real and Present Danger to America ".

Please name one "High Crime " according to our constitution and "Proven in the articles, also please state Specifically. Then name Specifically, what in the articles "Prove " Trump is a "Real and Present Danger "
Based on what the "team of Democrats " gave the senate, none of the above, no evidence, nothing constitutional, nothing specific.

Jack
Hey Peter, br I believe the verbiage for impeach... (show quote)



Please excuse me but you’re just stupid!
The term “high crimes and other misdemeanors” was put in that way so they wouldn’t be limited to what a crime is or isn’t.

As for irrefutable proof, the call summary that TRUMP RELEASED to the press proves the quid pro quo. Then trumps refusal to turn over documents, and now try to stop witness testimony before the house oversight committee is absolutely obstruction of congress.

Get your proverbial head out of trumps rectum and maybe then you might actually see the truth.

I hope I live long enough to see a democrat trump so I can enjoy the whining of republicans because they didn’t tell the office of the presidency some things are not okay!!

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 01:05:01   #
debeda
 
Cacasdad wrote:
Please excuse me but you’re just stupid!
The term “high crimes and other misdemeanors” was put in that way so they wouldn’t be limited to what a crime is or isn’t.

As for irrefutable proof, the call summary that TRUMP RELEASED to the press proves the quid pro quo. Then trumps refusal to turn over documents, and now try to stop witness testimony before the house oversight committee is absolutely obstruction of congress.

Get your proverbial head out of trumps rectum and maybe then you might actually see the truth.

I hope I live long enough to see a democrat trump so I can enjoy the whining of republicans because they didn’t tell the office of the presidency some things are not okay!!
Please excuse me but you’re just stupid! br The te... (show quote)


So sorry your TDS is acting up. You should up your meds

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 01:35:07   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Cacasdad wrote:
The rule of law is not a principle.
In the USA rule of law begins with innocent until proven guilty.

Matters not, impeachment is not a legal matter, it is a purely political exercise.
How partisan depends on the integrity of the politicians involved. Unfortunately integrity has taken a backseat to blind party loyalty, something that affects both parties. Although at this moment it is the Republican Party that has put Party above the American constitution.

The gop over the past 25 years has been the most corrupt group since Tammany hall! It began with Newt Gingrich and his “F/U, it’s my way or the highway” bs.
That tactic ended rational debate, and has left us with the Party Of Liars Cheats and Thieves, more popularly known as the GOP/Republican party.
The rule of law is not a principle. br In the USA ... (show quote)


Lets look at its definition~~I wasn’t looking for your opinion I asked if you even what the rule of law is<~

The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes." The term "rule of law" is closely related to "constitutionalism" as well as "Rechtsstaat", and refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule...

Or the legal law definiton~~

rule of law
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Acronyms, Wikipedia.
Related to rule of law: Separation of powers
Rule of Law
Rule according to law; rule under law; or rule according to a higher law.
The rule of law is an ambiguous term that can mean different things in different contexts. In one context the term means rule according to law. No individual can be ordered by the government to pay civil damages or suffer criminal punishment except in strict accordance with well-established and clearly defined laws and procedures. In a second context the term means rule under law. No branch of government is above the law, and no public official may act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. In a third context the term means rule according to a higher law. No written law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems.
Rule According to Law
The rule of law requires the government to exercise its power in accordance with well-established and clearly written rules, regulations, and legal principles. A distinction is sometimes drawn between power, will, and force, on the one hand, and law, on the other. When a government official acts pursuant to an express provision of a written law, he acts within the rule of law. But when a government official acts without the imprimatur of any law, he or she does so by the sheer force of personal will and power.

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 01:43:29   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Cacasdad wrote:
Please excuse me but you’re just stupid!
The term “high crimes and other misdemeanors” was put in that way so they wouldn’t be limited to what a crime is or isn’t.

As for irrefutable proof, the call summary that TRUMP RELEASED to the press proves the quid pro quo. Then trumps refusal to turn over documents, and now try to stop witness testimony before the house oversight committee is absolutely obstruction of congress.

Get your proverbial head out of trumps rectum and maybe then you might actually see the truth.

I hope I live long enough to see a democrat trump so I can enjoy the whining of republicans because they didn’t tell the office of the presidency some things are not okay!!
Please excuse me but you’re just stupid! br The te... (show quote)


Excuse me~~ Trump is not charged with having to prove he is guilty.... That falls to those charging him.. didn’t you just tell me; innocent until proven guilty??! Which you are right about~ innocent until proven guilt~~the burdon of proof falls to the accusers, not the accused~~

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 02:03:22   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Cacasdad wrote:
Please excuse me but you’re just stupid!
The term “high crimes and other misdemeanors” was put in that way so they wouldn’t be limited to what a crime is or isn’t.

As for irrefutable proof, the call summary that TRUMP RELEASED to the press proves the quid pro quo. Then trumps refusal to turn over documents, and now try to stop witness testimony before the house oversight committee is absolutely obstruction of congress.

Get your proverbial head out of trumps rectum and maybe then you might actually see the truth.

I hope I live long enough to see a democrat trump so I can enjoy the whining of republicans because they didn’t tell the office of the presidency some things are not okay!!
Please excuse me but you’re just stupid! br The te... (show quote)
You have no respect whatsoever for our Constitution, do you? You aren't even aware that you misquoted and egregiously misinterpreted the impeachment clause in Article II, Section 4, US Constitution. If, as you so foolishly present it, there are no limits "to what a crime is or isn’t" for launching the impeachment process, then the bar will be so low that every future president will be subject to impeachment for nothing more than being ticketed for running a red light. IOW, you have lowered the standards for prosecuting an impeachment of the highest officer in the nation to that of fining a drunk jaywalker.

If these are the rules, jack, then Republicans will not be whining next time a "democrat" becomes POTUS, they will impeach the sucker for farting in a crowded room.


Every president in our history has, to one degree or other, abused his power and obstructed congress. These are the charges brought against our president, they are ill-defined, unsupported with facts, devoid of reason, and would never be admissible in a normal court of law.

Back in 1787, during the Constitutional Convention, one of the most hotly debated issues was the removal of federal government officials through the impeachment process. The removal of a president (and other certain officers) was not a trivial matter. Two Virginians, George Mason and James Madison, had a rather intense debate over what should constitute grounds for removing a president from office.

Treason and Bribery were a given, and Mason proposed adding the idea of "maladministration". Madison immediately pointed out that "maladministration" was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

Madison proposed replacing the idea of "maladministration" with "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials.

Now, read carefully how Madison worded the impeachment clause (Article 1, Section 4, US Constitution):

shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or OTHER high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The word "OTHER" means that any and all high Crimes and Misdemeanors are as serious as Treason and Bribery and must be held to the same high standard.

What the Nazi Pelosi/Dipschitt/Na Na Nadler crime cabal has done, without following the Article V process for amending the Constitution, is they have shamelessly, brazenly, illegally amended Article 1, Section 4, of the US Constitution and lowered the bar to "maladministration" - and in the eyes of leftist progs, the fact that President Trump is still alive is "maladministration".

What we are witnessing today, folks, is a mob of maniacal malcontents and ideological idiots who actually believe that congress has plenary power over the Executive branch and that congress is running the country.

.



| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 02:20:00   #
Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
You have no respect whatsoever for our Constitution, do you? You aren't even aware that you misquoted and egregiously misinterpreted the impeachment clause in Article II, Section 4, US Constitution. If, as you so foolishly present it, there are no limits "to what a crime is or isn’t" for launching the impeachment process, then the bar will be so low that every future president will be subject to impeachment for nothing more than being ticketed for running a red light. IOW, you have lowered the standards for prosecuting an impeachment of the highest officer in the nation to that of fining a drunk jaywalker.

If these are the rules, jack, then Republicans will not be whining next time a "democrat" becomes POTUS, they will impeach the sucker for farting in a crowded room.


Every president in our history has, to one degree or other, abused his power and obstructed congress. These are the charges brought against our president, they are ill-defined, unsupported with facts, devoid of reason, and would never be admissible in a normal court of law.

Back in 1787, during the Constitutional Convention, one of the most hotly debated issues was the removal of federal government officials through the impeachment process. The removal of a president (and other certain officers) was not a trivial matter. Two Virginians, George Mason and James Madison, had a rather intense debate over what should constitute grounds for removing a president from office.

Treason and Bribery were a given, and Mason proposed adding the idea of "maladministration". Madison immediately pointed out that "maladministration" was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

Madison proposed replacing the idea of "maladministration" with "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials.

Now, read carefully how Madison worded the impeachment clause (Article 1, Section 4, US Constitution):

shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or OTHER high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The word "OTHER" means that any and all high Crimes and Misdemeanors are as serious as Treason and Bribery and must be held to the same high standard.

What the Nazi Pelosi/Dipschitt/Na Na Nadler crime cabal has done, without following the Article V process for amending the Constitution, is they have shamelessly, brazenly, illegally amended Article 1, Section 4, of the US Constitution and lowered the bar to "maladministration" - and in the eyes of leftist progs, the fact that President Trump is still alive is "maladministration".

What we are witnessing today, folks, is a mob of maniacal malcontents and ideological idiots who actually believe that congress has plenary power over the Executive branch and that congress is running the country.

.
You have no respect whatsoever for our Constitutio... (show quote)


Great post, let's hope it penetrates his thick skull, he's giving me a headache in mine. Now I see what our teachers and professors have been up to. Brainwashing, instead of teaching. We sure better put civics back in the classroom. I knew this stuff was being pushed but not to this extent.

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 08:46:59   #
4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
You have no respect whatsoever for our Constitution, do you? You aren't even aware that you misquoted and egregiously misinterpreted the impeachment clause in Article II, Section 4, US Constitution. If, as you so foolishly present it, there are no limits "to what a crime is or isn’t" for launching the impeachment process, then the bar will be so low that every future president will be subject to impeachment for nothing more than being ticketed for running a red light. IOW, you have lowered the standards for prosecuting an impeachment of the highest officer in the nation to that of fining a drunk jaywalker.

If these are the rules, jack, then Republicans will not be whining next time a "democrat" becomes POTUS, they will impeach the sucker for farting in a crowded room.


Every president in our history has, to one degree or other, abused his power and obstructed congress. These are the charges brought against our president, they are ill-defined, unsupported with facts, devoid of reason, and would never be admissible in a normal court of law.

Back in 1787, during the Constitutional Convention, one of the most hotly debated issues was the removal of federal government officials through the impeachment process. The removal of a president (and other certain officers) was not a trivial matter. Two Virginians, George Mason and James Madison, had a rather intense debate over what should constitute grounds for removing a president from office.

Treason and Bribery were a given, and Mason proposed adding the idea of "maladministration". Madison immediately pointed out that "maladministration" was so vague that it would threaten the separation of powers. Congress could remove any president it disagreed with on grounds of “maladministration.” This would give Congress complete power over the executive.

Madison proposed replacing the idea of "maladministration" with "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials.

Now, read carefully how Madison worded the impeachment clause (Article 1, Section 4, US Constitution):

shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or OTHER high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The word "OTHER" means that any and all high Crimes and Misdemeanors are as serious as Treason and Bribery and must be held to the same high standard.

What the Nazi Pelosi/Dipschitt/Na Na Nadler crime cabal has done, without following the Article V process for amending the Constitution, is they have shamelessly, brazenly, illegally amended Article 1, Section 4, of the US Constitution and lowered the bar to "maladministration" - and in the eyes of leftist progs, the fact that President Trump is still alive is "maladministration".

What we are witnessing today, folks, is a mob of maniacal malcontents and ideological idiots who actually believe that congress has plenary power over the Executive branch and that congress is running the country.

.
You have no respect whatsoever for our Constitutio... (show quote)



| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 09:15:42   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Redding, CA
 
Cacasdad wrote:
Please excuse me but you’re just stupid!
The term “high crimes and other misdemeanors” was put in that way so they wouldn’t be limited to what a crime is or isn’t.

As for irrefutable proof, the call summary that TRUMP RELEASED to the press proves the quid pro quo. Then trumps refusal to turn over documents, and now try to stop witness testimony before the house oversight committee is absolutely obstruction of congress.

Get your proverbial head out of trumps rectum and maybe then you might actually see the truth.

I hope I live long enough to see a democrat trump so I can enjoy the whining of republicans because they didn’t tell the office of the presidency some things are not okay!!
Please excuse me but you’re just stupid! br The te... (show quote)




Stupid?
Look who apparently has not read and understood the constitution......the accuser of stupid, is. Withholding documents and witnesses is presidentially constitutional, called executive privilege because the founder's didn't want Congress to have powers that would create a puppet executive branch.
Stupid people that argue with Schiff on this must be stupid because neither Schiff nor themselves are applying the president's constitutional rights.
Perhaps get your proverbial head out of your own rectum.
Your fifth grade insults reveal your lack of IQ, social skills, ability for debate decorum.
But then, one cannot argue with ignorance.......

| Reply
Jan 25, 2020 09:21:33   #
promilitary
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Better Trump than any of the leading Democrats.



It will be Trump......so far the Dems don't have anybody.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.