Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Not surprising. This post and the amount of likes it's received are definitely indicative of how extremely far left the viewpoints are in this forum

Here’s what you’re not getting in this. It has nothing to do with “far left”. It has everything to do with people not beholden to a party and seeing things through their filtered views. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

4 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Not surprising. This post and the amount of likes it's received are definitely indicative of how extremely far left the viewpoints are in this forum

Are they, or is it more indicative of something else?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, QMany said:

It was for both.

 

"Of course, this is not to say that setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or making a phone call is always an innocent act, or is irrelevant, in cases like this one. If an official sets up a meeting, hosts an event, or makes a phone call on a question or matter that is or could be pending before another official, that could serve as evidence of an agreement to take an official act. A jury could conclude, for example, that the official was attempting to pressure or advise another official on a pending matter. And if the official agreed to exert that pressure or give that advice in exchange for a thing of value, that would be illegal." McDonnell v. US, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016).

 

"Governor McDonnell moved to vacate his convictions on the ground that the definition of “official act” in the jury instructions was erroneous. . . "  - description

 

"(3) The question remains whether merely setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling another official qualifies as a decision or action on any of those three questions or matters.  It is apparent from United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U. S. 398, that the answer is no."

 

You cited a case that held setting up a meeting is not an official act to support your proposition that Trump took a bribe because he tried to set up a meeting.  It is absurd because that means every POTUS who meets with his top donors is corrupt.  And since every Congressman does as well, you have to say that Congress passed a law that condemned themselves.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

5 hours ago, NM11046 said:

I'd take the leap and say anyone who supports him at this point is unAmerican.  

 

(and yes, I expect that will trigger people and it should.  If you are ok with this than you are not a good citizen of this country and what it stands for.  If you can read the Constitution and just say, "nah, doesn't really matter right now cuz this guy is chosen by god and we're getting stuff we like" then you are unAmerican)

Are you talking about the draft dodger or the wealth around spreader?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

"Governor McDonnell moved to vacate his convictions on the ground that the definition of “official act” in the jury instructions was erroneous. . . "  - description

 

"(3) The question remains whether merely setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling another official qualifies as a decision or action on any of those three questions or matters.  It is apparent from United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U. S. 398, that the answer is no."

 

You cited a case for that held setting up a meeting is not an official act to support your proposition that Trump took a bribe because he tried to set up a meeting.  It is absurd because that means every POTUS who meets with his top donors is corrupt.  And since every Congressman does as well, you have to say that Congress passed a law that condemned themselves.

People don't donate to campaigns to get White House meetings. Presidents aren't leveraging donations out of people simply with a WH meeting. The President can however leverage a newly elected President of a foreign country with simply a WH meeting because that newly elected President is looking for legitimacy with the US. The argument you are presenting is intellectually dishonest and you know it. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Who said I did? I support certain policies that he has brought to the forefront, but I will never hitch my wagon to a politician and support everything they do. Instead, I'll criticize where criticism is due and give credit when it's earned as well.

 

That's super weird because I'm having a hard time seeing all the critiquing of Trump amidst all the defending of Trump.  One could reasonably presume, based on your posts, that you find more to support than to criticize.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

What is your response to @BigRedBuster's post?

 

This one?

 

34 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Here’s what you’re not getting in this. It has nothing to do with “far left”. It has everything to do with people not beholden to a party and seeing things through their filtered views. 

 

I'm most definitely not beholden to any party (or individual) - however it's obvious that everyone who pays attention to politics has their own confirmation bias when looking at the situation. In the specific situation of the Trump Impeachment hearings, it's obvious that most everyone in this thread was convinced that he was guilty before he was even accused of anything. That's a problem...

Link to comment

1 minute ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

"Governor McDonnell moved to vacate his convictions on the ground that the definition of “official act” in the jury instructions was erroneous. . . "  - description

 

"(3) The question remains whether merely setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling another official qualifies as a decision or action on any of those three questions or matters.  It is apparent from United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U. S. 398, that the answer is no."

 

You cited a case for that held setting up a meeting is not an official act to support your proposition that Trump took a bribe because he tried to set up a meeting.  It is absurd because that means every POTUS who meets with his top donors is corrupt.  And since every Congressman does as well, you have to say that Congress passed a law that condemned themselves.

 

They found the jury instructions in that case erroneous and the Government's interpretation overbroad. SCOTUS held: "Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.” Pp. 13–24. They then went on to include my quote above showing applicable examples of illegality.

 

Funny, they also noted, "Section 201 prohibits quid pro quo corruption—the exchange of a thing of value for an 'official act.' " And Trump's Ambassador testified to "quid pro quo," those exact words, at his direction.

 

We have now gone full turn:

  • Deny;
  • Proven wrong;
  • Admit, but claim no QPQ;
  • Proven wrong;
  • Claim QPQ is okay. 
Link to comment
1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

In the specific situation of the Trump Impeachment hearings, it's obvious that most everyone in this thread was convinced that he was guilty before he was even accused of anything.

 

That's completely untrue.

 

But now that we have actual factual evidence, no one in this thread should deny that he is guilty. True?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That's super weird because I'm having a hard time seeing all the critiquing of Trump amidst all the defending of Trump.  One could reasonably presume, based on your posts, that you find more to support than to criticize.

 

After almost 3 years, it's probably 50/50 if I'm being honest. He's been a pretty large disappointment to me for the most part, but he has done a few things that I'd call successes. 

 

Perhaps I appear as a staunch defender of Trump because there's nothing but criticism in this forum (some warranted, some not) and I have pushed back on a few things...

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Not surprising. This post and the amount of likes it's received are definitely indicative of how extremely far left the viewpoints are in this forum

Really?? Thinking the Constitution is the law of the land and has been for hundreds of years (and everybody has obeyed it until now) and that the person sitting in the WH and their employees should as well is now a “far left” opinion?

 

I’m fine being called a lib, Its accurate. But most people here are not - they just care about the country.  If thats far left liberalism now days then welcome to the dark side folks!! 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...