Due Process - What a concept!

Discussion in 'Offtopic Lounge' started by JCinPA, Nov 16, 2019.

  1. JCinPA, Nov 16, 2019

    JCinPA

    JCinPA Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2019
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    135
    Gender:
    Male
  2. The Midnight Skulker, Nov 16, 2019

    The Midnight Skulker

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    4,066
    Likes Received:
    4,275
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Idaho, USA
    As a rule I do not bother to read the political diatribes from the regulars, but I made an exception in your case because you have been gone a while and IIRC this is your first one.
    Adam Schiff is conducting the equivalent of a preliminary hearing to determine if there is sufficient reason to believe a crime has been committed, the only difference being the status of the defendant and where what happens next happens. Such hearings do not determine guilt; that only occurs if the case goes to trial, at which time all the things that Mr. Schlichter claims Trump is being denied will be made available. IOW Trump will get his due process.

    Of course the article takes the, IMHO, ludicrous position that the rights of "we the people" are being denied due process. I submit that, quite to the contrary, our rights are being protected! "We" elected a President who swore to protect and follow the Constitution of our country, but may be ignoring it. If that is so then "we" need to be given the opportunity to correct "our" mistake or change the form of government we have, not have a new form imposed upon "us".
    I had to laugh at this one. Trump has basically admitted requesting assistance with his 2020 campaign from a foreign country, claiming there is nothing wrong with that. Heretofore such behavior was, at the very least, frowned upon by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, and may actually have been illegal. (In all fairness, I have to confess that the closest I could come to finding official support for illegality was 5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain, but as I read it, it specifically excludes the POTUS and VPOTUS. Nevertheless, I believe the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution is generally interpreted to include any personal benefit derived form holding office, not just financial gain.) I view the current proceedings as an effort to decide if Trump, hence the POTUS, is a "special case" as he claims.
     
    #2
    yacraps likes this.
  3. Grizzoola, Nov 16, 2019

    Grizzoola

    Grizzoola Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,538
    Likes Received:
    523
    Yes, & I think the question is whether or not the POTUS is above the law. To exempt him from indictments, unlimited exercising of executive privileges,etc., is nonsense. No one can be above the law, including the president. I hope due process will result in that determination.
     
    #3
  4. JCinPA, Nov 17, 2019

    JCinPA

    JCinPA Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2019
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    135
    Gender:
    Male
    Mmmmmmk. You two geniuses go into the same category as Von Duck. I don't normally respond to your kind of sophistry and double standards, but since you deigned to reply to me, I figured turnabout was fair play.

    You're only concerned about Republicans being above the law, in your view the law does not even apply to Democrats, they operate completely outside it. I realize I'm making an assumption here, so feel free to comment on your thoughts about the Hillary campaign financing and pushing the Steele Dossier being OK, or how her deleting 33,000 subpoenaed emails, bleach-bitting her servers, and smashing her phones is OK, how Biden's infamous bragging about getting Victor Shokin fired is OK. Would love to hear your thoughts on those. Biden is probably going to be out of the election because of that (we can only hope). He's a grifter in the Clinton mold, albeit a minor grifter compared to the masters.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

    The military aid was not mentioned in EITHER of the two phone call transcripts, and Zelensky was unaware of any delay in aid until a month after the July 25 phone call. The contortions Shiff has gone through to hobble Republican participation in these hearings is so egregious you'd be marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks if the tables were turned. All this sanctimony you exhibit over strict application of the laws is ludicrous when you hear all the quotes and tweets and texts about impeaching Trump (see link) from day one after his inauguration. Actually from before his inauguration.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/whis...2017-coup-has-started-impeachment-will-follow

    All the partisanship in the Mueller investigation which was exposed, and the big nothingburger it turned out to be, immediately followed by Quid pro Quo argument (now dropped, there was none), immediately followed by the "bribery" talk, the fact that the vote for impeachment hearings was unanimously along party lines (except for 2 Democrat defectors), and prominent Democrats now admitting the impeachment show is all about preventing Trump from getting elected again in 2020--you guys still preaching the Dems are protecting us from a rogue president looks like a mental disorder.

    Seriously, this is definitely a political tribal issue, not much point in "arguing" it, and I hate to resort to ad hominem, but if you can STILL protest that the Democrats' pursuit of Trump is actually an attempt to protect "The Constitution" after all of this, either you're stupid, or you're being disingenuous and you think we're stupid enough to buy that. Which is clearly what the Dems running these impeachment hearings think. It's not going to work.

    witness.jpg
     
    #4
    yacraps likes this.
  5. JCinPA, Nov 17, 2019

    JCinPA

    JCinPA Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2019
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    135
    Gender:
    Male
    Awesome! Hat tip to yacraps

     
    #5
    yacraps likes this.
  6. Grizzoola, Nov 17, 2019

    Grizzoola

    Grizzoola Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,538
    Likes Received:
    523
    See, this is the problem w/ you people: I criticize Trump for actions exceeding a pres. should have, trying to be above the law. This question, far as I know, has come up w/ only one prev. pres., Richard Nixon. Why is it w/ you Republicans, that you try stretching the envelope of our govt. into contortions?

    BTW, if any Democrat were up to this same thing, I'd be saying the same thing! No person, Democrat or Republican, or whatever, can be permitted to exempt himself or herself from the limits the FFs put on the presidency. Nixon & Trump want to be kings, the very thing the FFs seeked to avoid in the Constitution: monarchy.
     
    #6
    The Midnight Skulker likes this.