
horncyclist
-
Posts
1961 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by horncyclist
-
-
Things are gonna get ugly. Democrats need to keep investigating everything. I don't know if it will matter but Trump will do whatever he can to get reelected and democrats have to at least try to keep him in check.
-
Fast and furious! Drink!
-
And Mr. Armstrong couldn't bother shaving this morning. Too busy rehearsing his "But Clinton" I guess.
-
And can Gym put on a fucking jacket.
-
1 minute ago, sachick said:
I wish someone would mention the 66 million votes for Clinton when they mention the overturning the vote of 63 million Americans.
It wouldn't matter if he got 129 million votes. Impeachment is there to remove an elected president. That's the point. Fuck all these guys.
-
2
-
-
All of this is outrageous, but the "This is undermining the 63 million [less than Hillary by the way] who voted for him" takes the cake. Are they arguing that you can't impeach any President that was elected? Then why the fuck is it in the constitution. That plus lie after lie after lie.
-
This is the only acceptable response to this. The GOP has no credibility on any issues, climate least of all. Bless the little hearts of these young people.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:
SIAP
Oh yeah, censure, that's gonna send a message.
Cowards. You swore an oath.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Those second choice numbers look really good for Warren.
-
On 12/8/2019 at 12:06 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:
It's just absolutely shocking how clueless these statements are. Sure, in a two party system, it may be natural to have a conservative party and a liberal parties, or two parties split on other policy or ideological grounds. So long as the members of each party have the country and its people's interests at heart, then sure, we need two parties. We do not need the GOP as it exists today, and I think it's beyond repair. We need a candidate that will crush it and the treason it stand for. And I still think Biden, given his history and weaknesses, loses to Trump. God help us.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Red meat for the Qanon tards probably
It'll just give them something to spin and distract from the impeachment. How about the timing of this? And Barr once again intervening to help spin what was supposed to be a non-partisan review. Just remember this shit.
-
6 minutes ago, LABEVO said:
It isn’t naivety about working across the aisle. Establishment Dems don’t want the status quo to change.
Yes. And the status quo have us President Donald J. Trump. This is why Biden or Buttigieg cannot be the nominee and would be a disaster if elected. You have an opportunity to save our government and society and build a future. There's only two candidates willing to do that.
-
4
-
-
4 hours ago, troph said:
there is very little you stand for that I disagree with, maybe nothing. I suspect we would find difference on what powers are granted to the feds and maybe the scope of the bill of rights and the 14th, I'm guessing, maybe. but other than that, I see nothing objectionable. I'm about as vocal of a democrat now as one can be. I think an argument can be made that the party most closely aligned with your ideals is the Democratic party. that seems shocking, but fair and impartial justice? hello Trump. strong national defense seems part and parcel with national security, hello Putin and Trump. Fiscal restraint? government deficits under Trump, wow. maybe the power of the federal government, maybe that's where Republicans win you back, wait, Trump shouldn't be subject to checks and balances, executive privilege is a broadly applied privilege that means he can do what he wants, wait that's not going to fly either. not sure your home, and you've already said it, but there's no way you can be a Republican with those values.
This is interesting discussion. I'd add on national defense that it's important to distinguish a strong national defense from high defense spending. I'd imagine if you got rid of all the bloat and corruption between the Pentagon and military-industrial complex, you'd have a much stronger national defense. It's yet another example of the hypocrisy of the republican party. They've manipulated all these proclaimed values and principles that are central and dear to our nation and used them to enrich themselves. Look at Fed Soc, privatization policies, regressive tax cuts. The list goes on and on. I don't know how anyone who believes in anything--other than selfish greed--could support the republican party today.
-
3
-
-
15 minutes ago, triplehorn said:
This post and your previous one last page make a case for drawing out the impeachment process indefinitely in order to act a seatbelt on ongoing Trump criminality. Look what happened the day after the Mueller testimony to Congress last summer- Trump was emboldened to extort the Ukrainian president to influence the 2020 election in broad daylight. Handing the case over to the Senate now for acquittal would be a similar green light.
Pelosi/House are doing both. They're advancing articles of impeachment based on the House Intel investigation into the Trump/Zelensky bribery scheme right now. Meanwhile there are 6 different House committees doing impeachment inquiries and a lot more hanging in he courts to build on what they've got. Have we heard from all 6 yet ? nope. Has Pelosi stated a timeline for a full House vote to impeach? nope. Conceivably the House Judiciary committee could vote on articles of impeachment re Ukraine bribery scheme without progressing to full House floor vote. Again, they're doing both and it's smart. Nothing is lost with their current tactics and yet they maintain options.
I think the best approach is probably to move forward with articles but continue the lower key investigations in hopes that it keeps him check. The founders never envisioned a Senate majority favoring party over the Constitution.
-
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:
I agree that Trump's arguments resisting subpoeanas are without precedent, and therefore essentially baseless. They also have never been considered by the courts before, so they aren't baseless to the point of frivolity. They're just losers, bad arguments.
Now, for the sake of objectivity, a party who is subpoenaed, including the President, and third parties affected by the subpoena, have the right to challenge that subpoena. That's pretty fundamental. They even have the right to advance terrible arguments, that aren't frivolous, in opposition to subpoenas.
So, while what Trump is doing is uncooperative, even obstructIVE, it isn't obstruction of justice, the crime.** Absent the time pressure posed by the election, it would be wise to let the McGahn case and others play out and get those witnesses on the record. It's not NECESSARY, but it would be wise.
The timing here is pretty unfortunate. The Dems have to proceed on a semi-incomplete record if they're going to do this before the election.
**That said, I think it would be fair to have an article of impeachment that the President has obstructed the proper function of government at every turn relating to any investigation of his actions in a way unprecedented in the history of the United States.
I think we're generally in agreement. The timing sucks but Trump has left democrats no choice. And, despite the obstruction, I think the evidence is compelling enough to move forward. Only big thing I see missing are the full details behind withholding of the aid but even with that most of the key ones are there. Democrats met their burden and Republicans (so far) have put forward no defense.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:
Yeah, I don't really understand why folks are ok with the President's actions. Hypothetically, the next time a disaster hits (Texas, Florida, California, etc), how would you like the President to ask a governor for a favor in return for the aid? What if the favor included looking the other way on carcinogens in your cities' drinking water that was put there due to environmental hazards by companies? Or the announcement that the state of Texas was opening an investigation into Beto and corruption? Once you've allowed a foot in the door, the mob isn't going to suddenly end their racket, and when one mob is eliminated, another branch moves in.
Yep, and once the traitors in the Senate clear him, Trump will be emboldened. I fully expect more soliciting of foreign interference in our election. He'll do anything to win and knows there are no consequences. He will be King.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:
Hmm, I guess there is a limit to the number of quotes you can make in one post. I think I might have a way around this.
Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDershFeldman mistakenly says the Constitution defines bribery. Where? It defines treason, but not bribery
Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDershProfessor Turley is correct that impeaching a president for demanding judicial review of Congressional subpoenas would undercut our system of checks and balances.
Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDershProf Feldman is wrong in suggesting that the courts have no role to play in deciding whether Congressional subpoenas are subject to claims of executive privilege in the context of impeachment.
Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDershProf. Carlin defines bribery to include “ bad practices.” That would be unconstitutionally vague and dangerous.
Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDershThe expert witnesses should be cross examined by opposing counsel instead of just being thrown softballs by counsel on their side. Cross examination is essential to test witnesses. Otherwise the witnesses are just lecturing about their preexisting views.
Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDershWhat a waste of time and resources to have no cross examination of hostile expert witnesses. What a missed opportunity to press witnesses instead of throwing them softballs. Why no cross examination?
Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDershThe open ended criteria for impeachment proposed by the Democratic experts are dangerous and place Congress above the law. That’s why the Framers demanded specific criteria that sound of crime, rather than “abuse of office.”
Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDershThe Republicans should have challenged Professor Feldman’s assertion that “abuse of office" is a constitutional basis for impeachment. These words do not appear in the Constitution and such vague criteria were rejected by the Framers.
Alan Dershowitz
?Verified account @AlanDershThe Democratic witnesses have wrongly said that Congress cannot move forward because President Trump has resisted Congressional subpoenas. Of course they can. Simply go to court and get a judicial order.That is the proper course, not impeachment for invoking separation of powers
Trump is making baseless arguments. Democrats should not have to go to court to prove that when time is of the essence. It's not that hard.
Here's a hypothetical to help. As things stand, Trump got caught and so they stopped what they were doing. What if he hadn't gotten caught? What if the pressure is ongoing and Zelensky is moving towards an announcement. Democrats suspect it but they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because the key witnesses, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry and Pompeo are being blocked from testifying. Should democrats have to wait for the courts, as more damage is done in that case? No. And there's no reason they should have to wait now. It's entirely up to Congress--not the courts-- to decide what is impeachable and they shouldn't have to wait for the courts to say the obstruction is based on baseless claims. That's ridiculous, against the plain language of the Constitution, and impracticable.
-
12 minutes ago, Rougarou said:
Seriously!? I’d like to see ol Donny Trump try to wiggle out of this all the while engage in the exact same thing that has got his neck in a noose
As soon as the Senate clear him, why shouldn't he just call up Zelensky and say "oh yeah, you remember that favor...and oh we do a for you...well, we're holding up the aide again, please announce the investigation." Let's all be clear what's at stake here. If the republicans prevail, we're saying that Trump or any president, can do this--and worse--without consequence."
-
31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Anything short of articles of impeachment is just stalling now.
-
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:
OK, let's run with that. Professor Gerhardt was just on CNN and he clearly believes there is no specified role of the courts in impeachment proceedings. He cites the language of the Constitution as evidence, with an emphasis on the word "sole":
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
So how do two scholars differ so widely on that simple point of fact?
It's a legal question, not a fact question. And scholars disagree. I don't know enough about this area or Turley's views to weigh in, but it strikes me as odd to suggest that the courts must weigh in to determine if Congress can pursue a given basis of impeachment. That is counter to the Consitution giving Congress the sole power of impeachment, and with similar questions, the Courts have typically stayed out it, citing a prudential doctrine of avoiding what they refer to as "political questions." Beyond that, I can't really critique Turley's views, though I'm sure the other scholars disagreed yesterday and explained why. As others have said, the democrats not calling a conserative legal scholar that would have sided with them was a mistake. The media seems to be reporting this as another partisan divide, and it's not that. Turley's views would be a small minority among legal scholars.
-
23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:
As expected, the biggest reaction to yesterday's hearings among my right wing acquaintances is outrage over Karlan's ill-advised example of the nobility clause when discussing limits on a President's allowed behavior. It's as if nothing else happened during that very long day on the Hill. They take their talking points like good soldiers and run with them. No critical thought, no reflection.
I would think any American who is truly curious and concerned would at the very least wonder how 4 constitutional scholars at elite universities couldn't reach unanimous agreement on a standard for impeachment, regardless of whether they think Trump reached that bar. I'm curious. I find it fascinating. Professor Turley might just be a political hack, but I owe it to myself to dig in a little deeper and determine if that's actually the case, and not just a simple way to dismiss his testimony. The very fact that he took the opposite tack in the Clinton impeachment hearings tells me he probably is just a hack, but it still bears scrutiny.
Turley's biggest disagreement wasn't about the standard for impeachment. He admitted that it did not have to be a crime and that a quid-pro-quo withholding foreign aid or an official act to compel an investigation of a political opponent would be impeachable. He disagreed that democrats had sufficiently met their burden of proving that, and that they should wait on the courts to compel the witnesses to testify and the Whitehouse hand over documents. He also said that Congress not letting the courts decide it was an abuse of power. The problem with both of those lines of thinking is that it ignores the baselessness of Trump's arguments for withholding EVERYTHING. And that, even though the arguments are baseless, Trump could use the courts to run out the clock. Considering part of the offense is inviting foreign interference in the 2020 election, it seems reasonable that democrats would want to move before that election, even if there is evidence still out there that they could eventually get. Democrats have also put together a really strong case, despite the obstruction.
-
3
-
-
What a child. Bring on President Warren, please.
-
2
-
-
Don't care if already posted. Sure there's a lotnof this goes on. Hope Trump gets word of it.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:
Harris is out.
Link?
impeachment inquiry hearings thread
in Cloak Room
Posted