acknowledgeurma wrote:
This article brings up some reasons why hearings s... (
show quote)
It's not hard to determine how the Brookings Institute leans. The arguments in the article might have some merit if they weren't all based on politically motivated accusations that have not been substantiated legally. If absurdity can be used to halt our democratic process, and if the republicans commit to it the way democrats have, we might as well shut down DC and start over.
acknowledgeurma wrote:
This article brings up some reasons why hearings s... (
show quote)
What precisely are those "mounting personal liabilities" Mr Trump is facing. How would the SCOTUS rule that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I suggest the framers would be offended by your presumption of guilt.
padremike wrote:
What precisely are those "mounting personal liabilities" Mr Trump is facing. How would the SCOTUS rule that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I suggest the framers would be offended by your presumption of guilt.
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypothetical issues, like:
(from the article)
Whether a president can use the pardon power to shield himself from criminal liability;
Whether a president can be charged with obstructing justice;
Whether a president can defy a subpoena for testimony;
Whether a president can be criminally indicted;
Whether a president can unilaterally fire a special counsel without cause; and
Related civil matters involving a president’s personal interests.
It's amazing to me that we've been able to appoint 113 justices to the USSC without answering these questions, but now they matter??
acknowledgeurma wrote:
I suppose you were equally disturbed when Republicans stalled votes on President Obama's appointments?
The Republicans did it within Senate rules, exactly as Democrats in power did under a GOP POTUS. It was sleasy, but within the rules.
Here is what will prevent Cancer ever growing in your body ! Drink one oz of organic vinegar and you may add one oz of natural honey into 6 oz of filter water everyday the rest of your life !
McConnell said when asked by the news media about this quote that he was talking about Obama's stated policies and goals. Exactly what I thought when I heard him say it. Unlike some people I tried to vet Obama before I voted. He was a little known Senator with hardly any accomplishments. Before that, a community organizer. After listening to the faux president articulate what he stood for I wanted him to fail also. His stated goals: (Have to give him credit, he didn't lie) Universal healthcare, more government control, infringe upon 2nd amendment rights, redistribution of wealth, and lead the war on terror from behind while apologizing for the US all over the world. You may have been all for that. Many are. I am not. Neither was McConnell. So, it was no secret you're just being a typical arrogant liberal with your snide comments.
acknowledgeurma wrote:
And what context was that? The context of him saying something in secret that he wanted to keep secret?
Fit2BTied wrote:
It's not hard to determine how the Brookings Institute leans. The arguments in the article might have some merit if they weren't all based on politically motivated accusations that have not been substantiated legally. If absurdity can be used to halt our democratic process, and if the republicans commit to it the way democrats have, we might as well shut down DC and start over.
I'm not sure what argument you are making... Are you saying, that only people who see no bias, are allowed to ask for a judge to recuse?
And how is any decision made regarding government not political?
padremike wrote:
What precisely are those "mounting personal liabilities" Mr Trump is facing. How would the SCOTUS rule that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I suggest the framers would be offended by your presumption of guilt.
I would suggest that you have a misunderstanding of the role of "presumption of innocence" in our legal system.
Do the police arrest people because they presume they are innocent?
Do prosecutors prosecute because they presume the defendant is innocent?
We hope that judges and jurors will presume the defendant is innocent, until proven guilty beyond the amount of doubt required for the class of crime.
As a private citizen, I may presume anything I want. If I am assigned the public office of juror, I am required to suppress the effects of any of my presumptions (e.g. why bring to trial, one who is innocent).
I think, in our system, a juror is not even supposed to consider their own personal knowledge of the case, but rely only on information presented at trial.
acknowledgeurma wrote:
I would suggest that you have a misunderstanding of the role of "presumption of innocence" in our legal system.
Do the police arrest people because they presume they are innocent?
Do prosecutors prosecute because they presume the defendant is innocent?
We hope that judges and jurors will presume the defendant is innocent, until proven guilty beyond the amount of doubt required for the class of crime.
As a private citizen, I may presume anything I want. If I am assigned the public office of juror, I am required to suppress the effects of any of my presumptions (e.g. why bring to trial, one who is innocent).
I think, in our system, a juror is not even supposed to consider their own personal knowledge of the case, but rely only on information presented at trial.
I would suggest that you have a misunderstanding o... (
show quote)
Actually, you confirmed in your reply that you do not believe a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Given what you believe true this Wednesday, is President Trump guilty of any charges of which he is accused?
Fit2BTied wrote:
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypothetical issues, like:
(from the article)
Whether a president can use the pardon power to shield himself from criminal liability;
Whether a president can be charged with obstructing justice;
Whether a president can defy a subpoena for testimony;
Whether a president can be criminally indicted;
Whether a president can unilaterally fire a special counsel without cause; and
Related civil matters involving a president’s personal interests.
It's amazing to me that we've been able to appoint 113 justices to the USSC without answering these questions, but now they matter??
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypot... (
show quote)
What exactly are you unclear about, regarding these issues?
Perhaps, because all our previous presidents have not been as remarkable as President Trump, these question have not come up?
Super Dave wrote:
The Republicans did it within Senate rules, exactly as Democrats in power did under a GOP POTUS. It was sleasy, but within the rules.
Hey, if you don't like the rules, change them - if you can. It all depends on how the power lies. Might makes the rules.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.