Jump to content
270soft Forum

darkmoon72

Members
  • Content Count

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

darkmoon72 last won the day on March 18 2010

darkmoon72 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About darkmoon72

  • Rank
    Political Guru
  • Birthday August 18

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hartford, CT

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yet Turley, whom you cited repeatedly in this very thread, and have been telling people to read, made the argument that Trump has been impeached. What, is Turley all of a sudden not good enough now that he's contradicting you? 😀 https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/20/trump-was-impeached-a-response-to-noah-feldman/
  2. They could be gathering additional evidence or investigating additional incidents to add to the bribery charge. Maybe, maybe not. Again, not sending it to the Senate yet leaves the window open, in case they know something already and are building a solid case, suspect something but aren't sure yet, or don't have anything yet, but find something down the road. I hate to break it to you, but yes, technically Trump has been impeached. It passed the House. They could sit on it until January 2021, and he'd still be impeached. The Senate doesn't have to be involved at all. The Senate trial just hasn't started. He may not get removed from office this way, I'll grant you that. But he has the mark of "impeached president" forever now.
  3. I guess I didn't realize that's what you were advocating. I suppose the House could simply change its own rules by majority vote, but then of course they can easily just be changed back with a simple majority vote whenever it's deemed inconvenient, much like the Senate did with the filibuster of judicial nominees. A law or constitutional amendment would make the changes you're suggesting much harder to overturn.
  4. There would be legal challenges all throughout the process on the wording and timing and such. Very much like how the ERA was killed.
  5. Speculation. Heavily biased speculation. The fact that Pelosi didn't send the articles to the Senate means the door is open to file additional charges. For all we know, a separate bribery article is forthcoming.
  6. Your idea to change how impeachment works. Even if it somehow passed (no small task), there would be a court challenge, I guarantee it.
  7. I'm not privy to the strategies of the House Democrats. I don't know. There could be any number of reasons. I'm not overly concerned with the Republican defense, though. It's been pretty weak so far, and they're just going to make lots of noise no matter what.
  8. I would bet all my money on this being challenged in court, probably within 5 years.
  9. You seem to be hung up on "no actual crimes described in the impeachment articles", the same argument the Republicans are making. And you're citing legal minds to make your point. As many legal scholars have already pointed out, this doesn't really matter, and I'm just summarizing why. The intent is clear. Whether the word "bribery" or any other specific crimes are in the actual impeachment article or not is irrelevant - the intent is for them to be part of the "abuse of power" charge, and the Judiciary Committee already spelled that out for anyone who is curious. No matter how you slice it, the intent is clear, legally or politically. Republicans want to be obtuse to protect Trump. That's their only strategy. He can't be defended on the facts.
  10. Sure, it's just the legal arguments would have to be seriously considered if what you are describing was ever attempted in the United States.
  11. Any legal argument in the courts here in the US is going to go over the intent of laws as well as the precise wording. Because sometimes just the wording isn't enough to settle a dispute. Of course, many of the Republicans in the House and Senate are themselves lawyers, and they know this. They're just deliberately being obtuse to protect Trump. So like I said earlier, the 658-page report filed by the Judiciary Committee was, essentially, them stating their intent when filing articles of impeachment. One mistake people make a lot here when talking about our laws is they get too caught up on the wording, when in courts that doesn't typically matter quite as much as people think. The articles themselves could have had "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" from The Shining typed over and over, and from a legal standpoint, if you can figure out what the intent was, you're good to go.
  12. I think I understand perfectly, thanks. It's just a difficult legal argument to make, and if I have it right, it would fail in the courts here. If the President abuses his/her office and commits malfeasance, they should only be censured if there is no statutory crime involved - *not* impeached. And you'd favor a 2/3rds rule for both House and Senate in order for impeachment articles/removal to pass. Please correct me if I got any of that wrong - I'm honestly trying to summarize what I think is your position.
  13. I used to agree 100%, in fact in 2016 I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. There were some murmurings I had heard about how the Republicans had a huge oppo file on Bernie, and were dying to run against him in 2016. I dismissed that at the time as a bunch of nonsense. Great googly moogly, was I wrong.
  14. I see Sanders as nothing more than a self-promoting fraud, kind of similar to how you see Donald Trump. Thought I'd offer a different view, since there are some here who view Sanders the same way I do, and who don't neatly fit into the two categories you provided.
×
×
  • Create New...