PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on February 02, 2020, 11:17:14 AM
-
Somehow I just don’t believe it. They (Republicans) have had ample opportunity to investigate these hoaxes but haven’t. Lindsey likes to grandstand, then do nothing.
I’ll believe it when I see it actually happen.
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/lindsey-graham-im-going-to-subpoena-sally-yates/
-
My fantasy is, during the SOTU, a hundred US Marshals storm the chamber and arrest the purveyors of the attempted coup of the POTUS.
-
My fantasy is, during the SOTU, a hundred US Marshals storm the chamber and arrest the purveyors of the attempted coup of the POTUS.
Your fantasy needs to first include a coup d'état attempt. The definition requires use of force or illegal means. No force has been used and no clear evidence of any illegality has been shown in any remotely judicial setting. Just theories.
The president would also likely be violating Article 1 Section 6 of the constitution.
-
Your fantasy needs to first include a coup d'état attempt. The definition requires use of force or illegal means. No force has been used and no clear evidence of any illegality has been shown in any remotely judicial setting. Just theories.
The president would also likely be violating Article 1 Section 6 of the constitution.
“No illegal means”? YHGTBSM
Where have you been the last 3 years?
-
“No illegal means”? YHGTBSM
Where have you been the last 3 years?
Cite the statutes that the legislators have violated and supporting evidence thereof.
-
Cite the statutes that the legislators have violated and supporting evidence thereof.
Yea Jim, your right.
Shucks, All those people are pure as the driven snow. No way any of them produced false evidence, witness tampered or weaponized federal agencies to launch unwarranted investigations or even lie to courts to get warrants.
After all, Wikipedia says it’s all baseless conspiracy. ::)
-
I think the Democrats and the Media that colluded with them approached, or even may be guilty of Sedition. Trying to remove a President with purposeful misinformation and disinformation is pretty damn close.
People have been hanged and put in front of firing squads for much less.
-
Cite the statutes that the legislators have violated and supporting evidence thereof.
Cite the high crimes and misdemeanors the President is guilty of committing.
-
Yea Jim, your right.
Shucks, All those people are pure as the driven snow. No way any of them produced false evidence, witness tampered or weaponized federal agencies to launch unwarranted investigations or even lie to courts to get warrants.
After all, Wikipedia says it’s all baseless conspiracy. ::)
YouOnlyLiveTwice was proposing the arrest of sainted legislators. It isn’t like sainted legislators have never been arrested and convicted of crimes while serving. But never to my limited knowledge were they ever arrested by order of the president. As far as I know none of the people who lied to the courts were legislators.
Being sleazy isn’t a crime, BTW, though it does appear to be a necessary characteristic needed to win elections.
-
Cite the high crimes and misdemeanors the President is guilty of committing.
He’s a mister meanie to Democrats.
At 6’ 3” (or 6’ 2”) he would be committing higher crimes than most, if he committed any.
That’s all I got.
-
YouOnlyLiveTwice was proposing the arrest of sainted legislators. It isn’t like sainted legislators have never been arrested and convicted of crimes while serving. But never to my limited knowledge were they ever arrested by order of the president. As far as I know none of the people who lied to the courts were legislators.
Being sleazy isn’t a crime, BTW, though it does appear to be a necessary characteristic needed to win elections.
The Dept of Justice falls under the Executive Branch. The President's oath is "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Defending the constitution means insuring the laws of the country are followed and carried out. So the President directs his employee, the Attorney General to enforce laws.
Back to the thread subject. If Graham and the Senate republicans have the balls to actually investigate this, then we may actually begin to see who all was behind this. But I'm not holding my breath.
We are still awaiting the Durham Investigation as well.
Any way you cut this, we have witnessed the greatest scandal this country has ever seen. And if the Senate Republicans and the DoJ don't get to the bottom of this, and bring those responsible to justice, then this episode is only going to come back with a vengeance.
-
^^^^The problem is the Media will not report on it at all, nor report on it fairly. Therefore, there will be no public knowledge, nor outcry for justice. The Media was complicit in this Coup attempt. They aren't going to report on themselves for being unethical and/or illegal.
We are now in the danger zone of a one Party Media, and possibly as demographics and corporate power shifts, a one Party country.
-
Jim is playing the same bullshit game liberals always play.
Deny, deny, obfuscate, sling bullshit and pretend that investigating crimes is a crime.
Fucking stupid approach, but the democrat playbook thru and thru,
https://www.nysun.com/editorials/speaker-pelosis-extraordinary-bitterness/90995/
-
I think the Democrats and the Media that colluded with them approached, or even may be guilty of Sedition. Trying to remove a President with purposeful misinformation and disinformation is pretty damn close.
People have been hanged and put in front of firing squads for much less.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
-
Cite the high crimes and misdemeanors the President is guilty of committing.
Well, what he was charged with:
25 CFR § 11.448 - Abuse of office.
18 CFR § 73.1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant and/or
18 CFR § 73.1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
Everyone except hardcore democrats think the witness charges are bogus. The Abuse of office charge is borderline and minor if it exists.
-
I think the Democrats and the Media that colluded with them approached, or even may be guilty of Sedition. Trying to remove a President with purposeful misinformation and disinformation is pretty damn close.
People have been hanged and put in front of firing squads for much less.
I think you have a warped notion of what sedition means. Did they incite revolt or violence to overthrow the government? Because if they did, I missed it.
Granted, I have been super busy at work lately, but I don't think I missed it.
-
If only we could toss out all the people in the swamp that abused their office...
-
Well, what he was charged with:
25 CFR § 11.448 - Abuse of office.
ok, I'll ask the stupid question, 25 CFR § 11.448 is:
"LII Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) Title 25. Indians Chapter I. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Subchapter B. LAW AND ORDER Part 11. COURTS OF INDIAN OFFENSES AND LAW AND ORDER CODE Subpart D. Criminal Offenses Section 11.448. Abuse of office."
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.448)
Note the "BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS"...
So why was the President charged with 25 CFR § 11.448?
-
Well, what he was charged with:
25 CFR § 11.448 - Abuse of office.
18 CFR § 73.1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant and/or
18 CFR § 73.1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
Everyone except hardcore democrats think the witness charges are bogus. The Abuse of office charge is borderline and minor if it exists.
Article 1 was Abuse of Power, not Abuse of Office.
Article 2 was Obstruction of Congress.
None of those laws were cited in the Articles of Impeachment. And none of the laws cited correlate with the Articles of Impeachment.
The democrats tried to ram the impeachment through based upon nothing. Had they actually correlated laws with the articles, they may have had some traction. They didn't.
They cited "Abuse of Power" because the President exercised his constitutional authority granted him. They cited "Obstruction of Congress" because they didn't want to follow the constitution and seek a incremental remedy.
In other words, they had nothing. And the acquittal on Weds will prove it.
-
ok, I'll ask the stupid question, 25 CFR § 11.448 is:
"LII Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) Title 25. Indians Chapter I. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Subchapter B. LAW AND ORDER Part 11. COURTS OF INDIAN OFFENSES AND LAW AND ORDER CODE Subpart D. Criminal Offenses Section 11.448. Abuse of office."
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.448)
Note the "BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS"...
So why was the President charged with 25 CFR § 11.448?
For insulting Elizabeth Warren?
-
I apologize, wrong chapter...yes, that only applies to Indian Affairs. I've done that before, I should know better.
5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain
-
I apologize, wrong chapter...yes, that only applies to Indian Affairs. I've done that before, I should know better.
5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain
The Trump legal team addressed this, and shot it down because it does not apply to the case, or the articles.
-
The Trump legal team addressed this, and shot it down because it does not apply to the case, or the articles.
The president's legal team offered an opinion slanted toward their client, just like the House Managers offered an opinion slanted against the president.
The question was what statue was involved, not his guilt or innocence of that statue. The Democrats have accused him of personal enrichment, but named it using the more general "abuse of power" because that was a specific impeachable crime that Hamilton addressed in Federalist 65. It is doubtful many would have agreed that personal enrichment would be impeachable. Their strategy to call it something undoubtedly impeachable while using a relatively minor statue did not work.
Barring something they cannot ignore breaking in the next 2 days, the Senate will almost certainly vote on Wednesday to acquit him of all charges.
-
I think you have a warped notion of what sedition means. Did they incite revolt or violence to overthrow the government? Because if they did, I missed it.
Granted, I have been super busy at work lately, but I don't think I missed it.
Sedition as defined as Incitement of resistance to, or insurrection against lawful authority. Also, CONDUCT or SPEECH inciting people to rebel against the authority of a State. It says nothing about violence. Did you miss the Democrat/Media collusion doing exactly that?
Maybe you are the one that has a warped notion. ::)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition
-
The question was what statue was involved, not his guilt or innocence of that statue. The Democrats have accused him of personal enrichment, but named it using the more general "abuse of power" because that was a specific impeachable crime that Hamilton addressed in Federalist 65. It is doubtful many would have agreed that personal enrichment would be impeachable. Their strategy to call it something undoubtedly impeachable while using a relatively minor statue did not work.
Thus, no statutes were involved or invoked, and no charges were made.
Well, what he was charged with:
25 CFR § 11.448 - Abuse of office.
18 CFR § 73.1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant and/or
18 CFR § 73.1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
-
Sedition as defined as Incitement of resistance to, or insurrection against lawful authority. Also, CONDUCT or SPEECH inciting people to rebel against the authority of a State. It says nothing about violence. Did you miss the Democrat/Media collusion doing exactly that?
Maybe you are the one that was a warped notion. ::)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition
Firstly, speech is not sedition, so we must be talking about actions. See John Adams and the Sedition Act for proof.
The Democrats did something authorized under the Constitution. It's recognized that what they did is a political, even a partisan act. But their action was against a Man, not against the government.
Going back to Federalist 65 again, because Hamilton was talking about impeachment and wrote this in his second paragraph.
... They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
So I ask again, where was the sedition? What action was done to overthrow the United States of America?
-
Thus, no statutes were involved or invoked, and no charges were made.
That was for the Senate to decide. Abuse of power is a general charge involving a wide range of statues. No doubt they hoped to uncover a cascading chain of evidence during the Senate trial where one charge could lead to another charge and so on.
Obviously they failed.
Best thing they could do now would be to go back to the House, complete their investigation and come back to the Senate with strong evidence and specific charges. But they still won't get 20 Republicans to flip. We knew that before and we know that now.
-
That was for the Senate to decide.
Nope. The House has the power of impeachment. The House was responsible to investigate, then draft the articles with the appropriate laws violated. They failed, miserably. Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley went into this extensively.
The House managers were hoping to get the senate to complete their investigation and find charges for them. Again, according to the constitution and constitutional scholars, this was never the intent of the constitution.
-
Nope. The House has the power of impeachment. The House was responsible to investigate, then draft the articles with the appropriate laws violated. They failed, miserably. Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley went into this extensively.
The House managers were hoping to get the senate to complete their investigation and find charges for them. Again, according to the constitution and constitutional scholars, this was never the intent of the constitution.
The Constitution doesn't say what the limits of a trial are. It says the Senate has the sole power of trying the impeachment. I've made that same argument before, but I knew it was weak when I said it. Nobody challenged me on it.
The trial is whatever the Senate says it is, they are not bound by the precedent of the legal system. If testimony leads in a particular direction, they are not restricted from exploring that just because it strays outside the "boundaries" of the House's charges. That is probably another reason Schiff named the more general "Abuse of Power", so it could encompass a wide range of things.
Now one limit is that they cannot introduce new charges, but if testimony uncovers a bunch of new crimes, they can consider that evidence and vote on removing the president (or other officer) based solely on the original charge because of extenuating circumstances. They don't need to add charges.
-
The Constitution doesn't say what the limits of a trial are. It says the Senate has the sole power of trying the impeachment. I've made that same argument before, but I knew it was weak when I said it. Nobody challenged me on it.
The trial is whatever the Senate says it is, they are not bound by the precedent of the legal system. If testimony leads in a particular direction, they are not restricted from exploring that just because it strays outside the "boundaries" of the House's charges. That is probably another reason Schiff named the more general "Abuse of Power", so it could encompass a wide range of things.
Now one limit is that they cannot introduce new charges, but if testimony uncovers a bunch of new crimes, they can consider that evidence and vote on removing the president (or other officer) based solely on the original charge because of extenuating circumstances. They don't need to add charges.
I suggest you go back and rewatch (and reread) what Dershowitz and Turley have successfully argued. Your argument is exactly what the House Managers attempted, and we see where that got them.
Hell, even Murkowski saw through it. THAT is saying something.
-
Firstly, speech is not sedition, so we must be talking about actions. See John Adams and the Sedition Act for proof.
The Democrats did something authorized under the Constitution. It's recognized that what they did is a political, even a partisan act. But their action was against a Man, not against the government.
Going back to Federalist 65 again, because Hamilton was talking about impeachment and wrote this in his second paragraph.
So I ask again, where was the sedition? What action was done to overthrow the United States of America?
The Democrats and the Media were attempting to incite the overthrow of a sitting President using false information. Sedition.
-
-
This may turn out to be a bi-partisan acquittal.
-
This may turn out to be a bi-partisan acquittal.
I saw Manchin on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. He was hard on Trump, but also said there has never been a purely partisan impeachment. He spoke in favor of censure as a mechanism for the Senate to join in admonishing Trump on a bipartisan basis.
I suspect he will vote to acquit.
-
It might not be a bad thing if Congress spent their time admonishing President Trump. At least it would keep them from enacting even more irrational laws...
-
The Democrats and the Media were attempting to incite the overthrow of a sitting President using false information. Sedition.
Like I said, bad definition. The country is much bigger than one man. It is dangerous to think outherwise