Sign in to follow this  
Emmanuel Goldstein

Impeachment witch hunt.

Recommended Posts

AOC on Twitter displaying her genius on a daily basis:

Well, it’s official: Republicans are now arguing that the US isn’t (& shouldn’t be) a democracy. This is what they believe. From lobbyists writing their bills to sabotaging our civil rights, the GOP works to end democracy.

In reality, we have to grow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Congressman Hakeem Jeffries just made an impassioned speech about how the "founders did not want a king. . .they wanted a democracy." Sorry, Hakeem, they HATED the idea of a democracy, they wanted a REPUBLIC.

 

I would point out that congress does not need a "reason" to impeach a president.  The process is that the house determines by whatever rules or process they want to being articles of impeachment.  It is then up to the Senate to determine if the president is to be removed or not.  By law the removal of a president requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

Recently there have been two Presidents impeached; Nixon and Clinton.  When the impeachment was sent to the Senate for Nixon - there never was a vote because Nixon resigned.  For Clinton there never was a vote because those wishing to remove the president never had enough votes so the vote never happened.

I do not know what the Democrats are currently doing beyond holding secret hearings and leaking whatever they wish and withholding whatever they wish from the citizens.  We cannot say they are breaking any rules because they have not made any any formal charges.  I guess that they can say what they will.  If the constituents of those Democrats do not like what their representatives are doing they can elect new representatives.  If they approve they can reelect them.  We have an election coming up.  If the American people want a change or want to continue - they will have that say.

As for my personal opinion - those that align behind political parties got us into this mess and it does not appear either party looks to change anything they are currently doing.  I have lost faith that we will vote ourselves out of any problems - or if we do that it will last beyond the next election.  I agree with Will Rogers - by time congress agrees to do anything it will most likely make whatever they are fixing - worse.  During my lifetime our government has made everything it touches worse - and of course there is likely to be an exception - but that is exactly the problem - that any exception is by some stroke of unplanned chance - an exception.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I would point out that congress does not need a "reason" to impeach a president. 

You keep saying this... but it is only partially correct,

The Founding Fathers did not consider anyone "Above the Law"   However the Executive Office as part of its checks and balances is charged with "Enforcing the Laws" which puts the Executive Officer (aka President) kind of above the law in practice.  So as part of the checks on the Executive Office is the ability of Congress to Impeach... Or in other words Congress can Enforce the Laws on the President through the impeachment process.

Its whole purpose is to make sure the President is not "Above the Law" and therefore they do need a "reason" some kind of serious law breaking.

Having said that impeachment is a political process, and technically all they need are the votes for it to happen.  It can be weaponized...  But a party that chooses to weaponize the impeachment process (or any other political process) needs to be very careful.  Because it does not take long for the political tides to turn.  The process they choose to weaponize to their own end soon finds its way into the hand of the opposition party who will then have precedent for using it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

AOC on Twitter displaying her genius on a daily basis:

Well, it’s official: Republicans are now arguing that the US isn’t (& shouldn’t be) a democracy. This is what they believe. From lobbyists writing their bills to sabotaging our civil rights, the GOP works to end democracy.

In reality, we have to grow it.

AOC shows off her sweet moves.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Traveler said:

During my lifetime our government has made everything it touches worse - and of course there is likely to be an exception - but that is exactly the problem - that any exception is by some stroke of unplanned chance - an exception.

On a routine basis my life and our business are touched by either: govt. city planning departments, building/permit officials and OSHA.
If we played by every rule they produced we would be utterly crippled as a functioning business, to the point of almost non-existence. Call any of them out on double standards, rules that contradict, inspectors who don't know building code, etc. - they simply rotate officials.

Sorry, rant, now, over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The process they choose to weaponize to their own end soon finds its way into the hand of the opposition party who will then have precedent for using it

Even more dangerous for them is that if a President is removed from office in a manner that most people (yes, especially independents moderates) consider partisan and overreaching, then they may punish the perpetrators in the next election cycle.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

lol aoc

I wonder if she knows her only purpose in the public eye is to make Nancy Pelosi more appealing.

She’s moving the Overton window.  The Dems are very good at this, and we dismiss this sort of stuff at our peril.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a Republic and a Democracy.  I believe it is called a Democratic Republic.  Or as John Adams would put it a representative Democracy.

We are also a Constitutional Republic or a Constitutional Democracy...as being seen by whichever side of the paper one leans towards.  Or we could make it more complex as it being a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

There are laws and rules that go to ballot to be voted by pure democratic vote, there are laws that are put into place by representatives only...and the wrench in the system is that these can all currently be overturned by a Judiciary.  Thus, even with Democracy and a Republic, we have a branch which is not truly representative of the people nor elected by them in the higher echelons of decision making.  Thus, we have the Constitution.

As a whole, those who claim it is a Democracy are correct, those who claim it is a Republic are correct, but we are not exactly a Pure Republic nor a Pure Democracy in either direction...yet.

The US is unique in many ways, with the Constitution being a defining document which has led the US and been an example for many others to follow.

 

PS: Something I stumbled upon while thinking on this...Aristotle may have actually considered our system an Oligarchy or considered as such.  Democracy was one where representatives were chosen by lot (random drawing among the eligible) whilst it may also be inferred similarly in part that if it was done by general election, it would be an oligarchy instead (with certain families or individuals of influence remaining in power indefinitely as the ruling caste).

Something of a little trivial interest in consideration of what we currently consider democracy vs. oligarchies. 

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It's a Republic and a Democracy.  I believe it is called a Democratic Republic.  Or as John Adams would put it a representative Democracy.

Technically it is a Federal Republic.

Quote

Aristotle may have actually considered our system an Oligarchy

The best term for our current system is probably a Kleptocracy.

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the geopolitical stage, we're also a waning hegemony, an empire in decline, and for a few short decades after the fall of the USSR, the world's only superpower. 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

On the geopolitical stage, we're also a waning hegemony, an empire in decline, and for a few short decades after the fall of the USSR, the world's only superpower. 

Not quite... 

MAGA is quite successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 3:20 PM, estradling75 said:

You keep saying this... but it is only partially correct,

The Founding Fathers did not consider anyone "Above the Law"   However the Executive Office as part of its checks and balances is charged with "Enforcing the Laws" which puts the Executive Officer (aka President) kind of above the law in practice.  So as part of the checks on the Executive Office is the ability of Congress to Impeach... Or in other words Congress can Enforce the Laws on the President through the impeachment process.

Its whole purpose is to make sure the President is not "Above the Law" and therefore they do need a "reason" some kind of serious law breaking.

Having said that impeachment is a political process, and technically all they need are the votes for it to happen.  It can be weaponized...  But a party that chooses to weaponize the impeachment process (or any other political process) needs to be very careful.  Because it does not take long for the political tides to turn.  The process they choose to weaponize to their own end soon finds its way into the hand of the opposition party who will then have precedent for using it

The point is that the law (constitution) is not a separate entity with power to act.  Laws are only as good as those that enforce them.   For example - current efforts to make any requirements on how impeachments investigations move forward (in secret from public view and without dew process) is being redefined by the majority party in the house.  You seem to imply that those that take power unto themselves will suffer the objections of the people - but as we nee in Hong Kong and throughout history - such thinking is seldom the case.  It is much more likely that the people will suffer from those the take power.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 3:55 PM, NeedleinA said:

On a routine basis my life and our business are touched by either: govt. city planning departments, building/permit officials and OSHA.
If we played by every rule they produced we would be utterly crippled as a functioning business, to the point of almost non-existence. Call any of them out on double standards, rules that contradict, inspectors who don't know building code, etc. - they simply rotate officials.

Sorry, rant, now, over.

I understand from a couple of my own business investments.  One is much better off playing the game and finding ways to get government officials to interpret the law in your favor.  Sometimes it can be done without paying for the favor - rather by acts of kindness and pleading for mercy.  But such efforts of cooperation break down when one party intends harm against the other (as per Democrates and Republicans). 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 5:20 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Even more dangerous for them is that if a President is removed from office in a manner that most people (yes, especially independents moderates) consider partisan and overreaching, then they may punish the perpetrators in the next election cycle.

What your are missing is that the weaponizing of any political process is for the express purpose of keeping other political interest from having power.  Once weaponizing of power has been accomplished; seldom in history can the oppressed political interest return the favor without resorting to bloodshed or at least the same evil practice - which will always result in blood shed (which is why Satan inspired it in the first place).   Usually good Christians cannot justify the collateral damage of the innocent - especially women and children.  So, like the expression in so many movies depicting good verses evil - compassion is the weakness of the good - especially good Christians. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox news has an excellent article on impeachment - here is the link:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/impeachment-question-trump-andrew-mccarthy

and a quote:

Quote

The “impeachable offense” question comes down to whether a president’s alleged misconduct amounts to “high crimes and misdemeanors.” On this, the Framers believed they had a legal definition, although one more elastic than those that define offenses in the penal code. As Hamilton put it in “Federalist 65,” high crimes and misdemeanors are offenses that:

"...proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they chiefly relate to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

The process of impeachment is not jurisprudence by intent but rather "POLITICAL" and to be carried out entirely in the congress.  The House defines the articles of impeachment (by a majority) and the Senate (by determines if the president is removed - by 2/3 majority).

Republicans are complaining that rules of justice are not being followed - they are wrong.  The Democrats control the House and can produce the articles of impeachment by what-ever means they will.  But impeachment cannot be moved to the Senate until the House has voted on the articles.

It is my opinion that the Republicans should shut up and let the Democrats do what they will.  If and when that articles are presented to the Senate (where Republicans have control) they could hold public hearings under their control and make public what they will - first cross examining the Democrat's witnesses and then calling their own witnesses.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is my opinion that the Republicans should shut up and let the Democrats do what they will.

Good analysis, but there is the issue of timing.  One side wants the peak of impeachment harm to occur in Sept/Oct/Nov of 2020.  The other side either wants it either a) over and done with before the election, or b) pushed until after the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Good analysis, but there is the issue of timing.  One side wants the peak of impeachment harm to occur in Sept/Oct/Nov of 2020.  The other side either wants it either a) over and done with before the election, or b) pushed until after the election.

The Democrats will do whatever they wish in the House with no effort to appease any Republicans.  It will be partisan in the House regardless of any Republican effort.

The idea that the Democrats want the process of impeachment to continue (including in the Senate)  into the 2020 presidential campaign (requiring any Senate Democrat running for president to be absent from active campaigning) would be politically unwise for their party - let alone the country.  The only thing worse than turning over impeachment to the Senate during the 2020 presidential campaign would be to fail to reach any impeachment articles to be turned over to the Senate in over a year of the House committee efforts.   

In short I am suggesting that the Republicans allow the Democrats all the rope needed for them to hang themselves on this as their primary issue - for running the government or their presidential campaign.

 

The Traveler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping that eventually people will start to say "shut up about how your opponent is worse and start telling us why you're worth voting for."

Partisan impeachment attempts on a President who's eligible for another term are pretty much the pinnacle of mudslinging efforts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NightSG said:

I'm hoping that eventually people will start to say "shut up about how your opponent is worse and start telling us why you're worth voting for."

Partisan impeachment attempts on a President who's eligible for another term are pretty much the pinnacle of mudslinging efforts. 

Wait, are you saying that congresscritters are using the power of their office to dig up dirt on a rival 2020 candidate? I'm told that's an impeachable offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that our divinely inspired founders intended that the removal of an elected official from office either have sufficient support from all elected officials (a simple majority in the house - which was intended to represent the interest of all citizens and not party - and then a 2/3 majority of the Senate which was intended to represent the interest of individual states to insure that minority interests are not denied contribution) or left to the citizens to determine who represents them in the next election.

Sometimes it seems to me that the efforts to bring diversity to the table is a hidden agenda to do the opposite.  That is to harmonize the entire population to a single expression of political diversity.   The key to peace is not to destroy diversity but to find means to allow different ideas to flourish in their place and those that are like minded to have a place to mingle one with another.

To me this is the great mercy of G-d.  To allow those that believe and desire what they will to have a place to exercise their desire without interfering with those that desire something different.

For me - it would be a hell to have to live forever under a president like president Trump.  But it would be a deeper hell to have to live under a president touting the platform of any of the "running for president" Democrats.  It is my hope that - with few exception - when Jesus comes to establish a era of peace that the current politicians be removed and denied their say in how the population should be governed.  I am done with the idea that those that do the least harm should govern.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this