obsrvr524 wrote:The only words anyone testified to being left out had no effect on the substantive content and no one proclaimed contrary.
obsrvr524 wrote:In fact such higher level securing had become his practice immediately after discovering prior leaked conversations with Mexico and Australia (no doubt from Vindman and the like).
obsrvr524 wrote:The US electoral college is what prevents such default slavery and protects a number of non-racial minorities from power mad users (Socialists urbanites). The founders had already calculated that issue.
Carleas wrote:Your defense of the Electoral College is interesting, but I won't engage with it here. My only point with respect to the vote is that "most people who voted voted for someone else".
Carleas wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:The only words anyone testified to being left out had no effect on the substantive content and no one proclaimed contrary.
I don't think this is so, though this is related to the point you make throughout your post about biased interpretations. The Democrats didn't need the removed language to believe what they believe, because they see the rest as sufficient. The Republicans see references to Biden and Burisma as legitimate in the context of routing out international corruption. But in Bayesian terms, more discussion of Biden/Burisma (and the decision to remove those references over the protest of some people on the call) should cause us to update our priors about the President's motives on the call.obsrvr524 wrote:In fact such higher level securing had become his practice immediately after discovering prior leaked conversations with Mexico and Australia (no doubt from Vindman and the like).
This is at odds with the Administration's own explanation of how it ended up in a secure server, which claimed that it was put there by mistake, i.e. it did not belong there. It could not have been both normal practice and a mistake.obsrvr524 wrote:The US electoral college is what prevents such default slavery and protects a number of non-racial minorities from power mad users (Socialists urbanites). The founders had already calculated that issue.
Your defense of the Electoral College is interesting, but I won't engage with it here. My only point with respect to the vote is that "most people who voted voted for someone else".
Carleas wrote:We finally have the Articles of Impeachment. These match my expectation: they're short and easy for the average voter to understand, they don't touch actual policy decisions, and the accused conduct is problematic enough that they justify removing a President. They'll go to Senate, Trump will be acquitted, and the Democrats will turn them into slogans that they will hammer in every forum, every debate, every ad, every opportunity they have to paint Republicans as corrupt, self-interested, anti-American, etc.
I think it's a good play, though they elide Trump's worst sins.
Urwrongx1000 wrote: I only wish I had more experience and knowledge of past impeachments [...] I believe that this impeachment is the most corrupt and unjust in US history.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Without extensive Constitutional Law knowledge, I'm guessing that you can't impeach the President for "anything you want". You need to file a charge. And it ought to be criminal. And it ought to be a High Crime, meaning, explicitly illegal.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:there is no charge
obsrvr524 wrote:I will take that to be as close to a concession as ever to be expected on this discussion board.
obsrvr524 wrote:That is a confession to wanting to "divide the country" by once again refusing the results of a judicial system and demanding retribution and corrosive, country defeating internal resistance. Obviously you do not believe in courts...
obsrvr524 wrote:1) abuse of power - obvious hypocrisy from the Left and entirely political, easily tossed out of a real court.
obsrvr524 wrote:2) obstruction of congress - not even a real thing but easily resolved in a real court which the Left refused merely because of political agenda timing.
Carleas wrote:You seem to be saying that you know that you don't have enough information to be very confident in this belief.
Carleas wrote:It doesn't. Read Hamilton and Madison and others on the standard for impeachment. Read the report on impeachment prepared during the Nixon years. Read any number of legal scholars who substantially agree that a "high crime or misdemeanor" does not mean a criminal act under the laws passed by congress.
Also note that you agree that Clinton acted criminally but shouldn't have been impeached for it. This is the same point in the other direction: impeachable conduct does not need to be criminal, and criminal conduct does not need to be impeachable.
Re: needing to file a charge, I recently learned that Andrew Johnson was impeached before the house had even drafted the Articles of Impeachment against him.
Carleas wrote:There are two.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:You're wrong on this matter [that impeachable offenses need to be "explicitly illegal"]
Jonathan Turley wrote:...
a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven.
...
The word “other” reflects an obvious intent to convey that the impeachable acts other than bribery and treason were meant to reach a similar level of
gravity and seriousness (even if they are not technically criminal acts).
...
As I have stressed, it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power.
...
As I stated from the outset of this controversy, a president can be impeached for abuses of power.
...
Carleas wrote:But there is a countervailing danger, one of not punishing acts that undermine the institutions of law. As Turley notes, if the allegations are proven, then it can absolutely be grounds for impeachment. The question is somewhat subjective: have the allegations been proven? To hand-waive again at Bayesian reasoning, it depends on your priors. Turley isn't making the case that nothing like what the Democrats are saying is anything like what constitute grounds for impeachment, he's saying that we should be careful, have a high standard for proof, and not rush to judgement on a significant decision that will shape the future of the country.
Carleas wrote:He's not arguing that the allegations aren't impeachable, he's arguing that the evidence so far doesn't establish the alleged acts. But if you're a bit more worried about the state of the union after another year of a Trump presidency, and you're a bit less worried about future presidents doing so many possibly impeachable things, and find the accusing witnesses a bit more credible than the few defenders who chose to show up, you can take Turley's points as good and coherent and well-argued and important -- and still conclude that this impeachment should proceed.
Carleas wrote:Urwrongx1000 wrote:Without extensive Constitutional Law knowledge, I'm guessing that you can't impeach the President for "anything you want". You need to file a charge. And it ought to be criminal. And it ought to be a High Crime, meaning, explicitly illegal.
It doesn't. Read Hamilton and Madison and others on the standard for impeachment. Read the report on impeachment prepared during the Nixon years. Read any number of legal scholars who substantially agree that a "high crime or misdemeanor" does not mean a criminal act under the laws passed by congress.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 65, 439--45 wrote: there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparitive strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
.
.
too often the leaders, or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction; and on this account can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those, whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 65, 439--45 wrote:The Convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust [impeachment]. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing will be least hasty in condemning that opinion; and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 65, 439--45 wrote:It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or in other words of preferring the impeachment ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body; will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement, strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share in the inquiry?
US Constitution Article II, Section 4 wrote:Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Carleas wrote:Also note that you agree that Clinton acted criminally but shouldn't have been impeached for it. This is the same point in the other direction: impeachable conduct does not need to be criminal, and criminal conduct does not need to be impeachable.
Re: needing to file a charge, I recently learned that Andrew Johnson was impeached before the house had even drafted the Articles of Impeachment against him.
Can do (again)...Carleas wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:That is a confession to wanting to "divide the country" by once again refusing the results of a judicial system and demanding retribution and corrosive, country defeating internal resistance. Obviously you do not believe in courts...
Draw me out the syllogism where what I said entails wanting to divide the country.
..and the Democrats will turn them into slogans that they will hammer in every forum, every debate, every ad, every opportunity they have to paint Republicans as corrupt, self-interested, anti-American, etc.
I think it's a good play...
Carleas wrote:And what does this have to do with the courts?
Carleas wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:1) abuse of power - obvious hypocrisy from the Left and entirely political, easily tossed out of a real court.
Using the powers of your office to solicit foreign interference in an election by withholding military aid is a legitimate problem. Do you disagree? I'm not asking if you think that's what Trump did, I'm asking if you think that that is a misuse of the powers of the office.
Carleas wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:2) obstruction of congress - not even a real thing but easily resolved in a real court which the Left refused merely because of political agenda timing.
We agree that obstruction of justice is a thing, right?
Carleas wrote:and that interfering to make witnesses unavailable to a court is obstruction of justice?
Urwrongx1000 wrote:military intervention if necessary, to re-establish the Democratic process
Urwrongx1000 wrote:... you and your [sic] ... you and yours ... Your entire party ...
obsrvr524 wrote:it appears at the moment that you have not [read Federalist 65]
obsrvr524 wrote:"Impeachment by the House" is merely a request for impeachment by the Senate.
obsrvr524 wrote:Your first claim was that they "have to" paint a narrative that would certainly divide your country.
obsrvr524 wrote:Well I guess that it is revealing of your nature to say that.
obsrvr524 wrote:Justice means that everyone has rights that must be protected
Carleas wrote:'Obstruction of justice' is about obstructing 'the justice system'
Carleas wrote:Just so we're, you're conceding the non-criminal abuse of power is legitimate grounds for conclusion, yes? That question is settled, now that your own witness backs what I've been telling you since page 1?
Carleas wrote:The United States is not a democracy.
Carleas wrote:You're equivocating on 'justice' here. Yes, one sense of justice is this philosophical sense. But pleading Plato's Republic to a court isn't likely to get you very far. 'Obstruction of justice' is about obstructing 'the justice system'. Obstruction of justice is preventing the courts from doing their thing ('justice' in this sense is related to the 'judicial' in 'judicial branch', and to 'justiciable' in 'non-justiciable'). Again, these are technical terms that have both technical and colloquial meanings.
obsrvr524 wrote:I will accept your use of "impeachment" ONLY if you concede that impeachment, in your use, means only that a formal accusation has been made. Impeachment, much like "indictment", has nothing to do with guilt.
The US House charges the official with a crime. It is up to the US Senate to convict or acquit. This is similar to a person being indited for a crime but then being acquired in court. The US Senate IS a/the court. And you might also want to keep in mind that it is up to the Senate as to whether the accused can run for office in the future.
obsrvr524 wrote:I have to ask if you approve of the Democrats "doing whatever they have to..." instead of accepting the judgement? You stated "I think it is a good play", implying that you are complicit with their lack of civility and justice.
obsrvr524 wrote:Your use of the word "court" seems too plebeian. A court is any place where evidence is offered up for judgement. It has nothing to do with procedures and it does not merely apply to criminal, civil, or common law judiciaries.
obsrvr524 wrote:The justice system in the US includes the Bill of Rights, for example.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Quoteworthy and embarrassingly wrong.
Carleas wrote:In that sense, the United States is not and was never intended to be a democracy in the sense you have appealed to.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users