|
Willo567 posted:So does this mean we're definitely going to war with Iran now Killing Fields 2 Tag line: "More alliances. More killing." Edit: Also the funniest thing about Ken Starr is that he had to resign because he refused to investigate multiple reports sexual misconduct and tried to sweep the problem under the rug Lote fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jun 17, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Ken Starr also had an op-ed in the Washington Post about how Trump shouldn't fire Mueller lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:A lot of people forget that Bill Clinton was impeached (or almost?) for lying to a Grand Jury. He was impeached. Impeached just means "bring charges against" not "remove from office."
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Ezra Cohen-Watnick was the guy who had the bright idea to push back by scandalizing Susan Rice's completely legitimate use of unmasking so I wouldn't dismiss his influence out of hand
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:Ken Starr also had an op-ed in the Washington Post about how Trump shouldn't fire Mueller lol One of the unfortunate consequences of Trump winning is we didn't get to see Hillary's DOJ investigate Ken Starr
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
*Comes running into the thread, out of breath* Guys! GUYS! I found something dumber than the Flat Earth stuff!  No need to thank me, just doing my job. evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/875844803455569920 The idea of little donny red-faced and shrieking at the TV is honestly the best mental image I've had all day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:No, it means there's continued infghting among Trump's merry band of fellows. A significant faction in the GOP has wanted war with Iran for a while now. Somebody in Trump and Pals trying to make it happen should surprise absolutely nobody.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Man I wish this guy wasn't a Menchesque fantasy land bullshitter b/c this would be real funny. https://twitter.com/TrueFactsStated/status/875805440461991936
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
*Appoints an impeached individual as vice president* Uh...
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Imagine if he had decided to drink (Referring to Trump) some people NEED drugs and alcohol....i mean, it couldn't have been worse than how he is now, amirite?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Easy Salmon Recipe posted:*Comes running into the thread, out of breath* Just to play this one straight, doesn't appointing a vice president not as part of an election require congressional approval?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Man, slow news week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Just to play this one straight, doesn't appointing a vice president not as part of an election require congressional approval? Unless I'm mistaken, can't you not hold a public office after you're removed from that office?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Man, slow news week. 3...2...1...
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Just to play this one straight, doesn't appointing a vice president not as part of an election require congressional approval? yep so this congress that just impeached and convicted trump is supposed to confirm him as vp? sure sounds like a trump plan coming together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Easy Salmon Recipe posted:*Comes running into the thread, out of breath* To be fair, if that happened I think my head would explode since it'd mean the same congress that removed Trump,from office just confirmed him to come back as VP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yep Also I believe convicted Impeachment also comes with 'You may not hold elected office again', doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I want to express my outrage over Castille, but the thought occurred to me, with such posts on social media would I be disqualified from serving on a jury in similar cases, or worse be able to cause a mistrial if my opinions on police came out later? Most people consider getting disqualified from jury duty a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Just to play this one straight, doesn't appointing a vice president not as part of an election require congressional approval? The pardon power explicitly excepts cases of impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Most people consider getting disqualified from jury duty a good thing. And that's what leads to lovely juries making lovely rulings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
IUG posted:Wow, I guess the enemy of my enemy is not my friend! I was shocked and relieved to learn this about myself too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Just to play this one straight, doesn't appointing a vice president not as part of an election require congressional approval? That was my first thought, too. So this assumes that a congress that voted to impeach would vote to allow that person to become VP, then, when they became president again through a slimy move, allow the "president" that facilitated all of that to become VP again as well? Oh well, no one ever accused donald cultists of being able to think straight. Evil Fluffy posted:To be fair, if that happened I think my head would explode since it'd mean the same congress that removed Trump,from office just confirmed him to come back as VP. I guess it's all part of some 9D chess double jeopardy thing to clear donald of all wrongdoing or something?  WampaLord posted:And that's what leads to lovely juries making lovely rulings. Yeah, the saying I've always heard is "Trial by jury means your case is decided by 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty." Easy Salmon Recipe fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jun 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
gregday posted:My brain keeps wanting to make OAN into ONAN which is probably more accurate. "N O F A P P I N' " The pepes got him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
OhDearGodNo posted:A lot of people forget that Bill Clinton was impeached (or almost?) for lying to a Grand Jury. About a blow job. They wanted to impeach a Democrat President as revenge for Nixon, right? It was the first time they held the House with a Democratic President and they immediately started looking for crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:And that's what leads to lovely juries making lovely rulings. Maybe they(and me) should have gotten more $ per day, and not have to waste ssssssooooo many hours waiting doing mostly nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:They wanted to impeach a Democrat President as revenge for Nixon, right? It was the first time they held the House with a Democratic President and they immediately started looking for crimes. They wanted to impeach him for not being a Republican. That was around the time the GOP really started to bring out the big guns in regards to weaponizing procedure. That was Newt's legacy, in the end; exploit every possible rule you can in every way you can. In their eyes anybody that both isn't a Republican and has any amount of power or influence is doing something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:They wanted to impeach him for not being a Republican. That was around the time the GOP really started to bring out the big guns in regards to weaponizing procedure. That was Newt's legacy, in the end; exploit every possible rule you can in every way you can. In their eyes anybody that both isn't a Republican and has any amount of power or influence is doing something wrong. After Reagan, they started to see the Presidency as just THEIRS. Theirs by right of just being Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:IANAL, but my understanding is that most lawyers are barred by their professional code of conduct from arguing that a jury should simply ignore the law. It's a great way to piss off the judge and your peers, and might be grounds for your State Bar to pull your license. There are already plenty of avenues for a competent lawyer to make emotional appeals to the jury in hopes of swaying them. Of course, if the defendant is acting pro se, they can always make that case!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:And that's what leads to lovely juries making lovely rulings. Everybody in the legal profession--practicing lawyers, professors, etc.--loving hates juries and thinks they're worthless. They're allowed to exist because of the constitution, but if legal academics could rewrite the constitution they'd get rid of juries in a heartbeat
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah I think you could probably get a charity going that gave money to the families of people killed by police. The kind of people who support that basic humanity won't be unwilling to donate if the dead person was really bad. The family probably needs the help even more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
so any chance of Saturday Night Massacre redux, tomarrow?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:Everybody in the legal profession--practicing lawyers, professors, etc.--loving hates juries and thinks they're worthless. They're allowed to exist because of the constitution, but if legal academics could rewrite the constitution they'd get rid of juries in a heartbeat Maybe if attorneys and prosecutors had less contempt for jurors, they'd get better jurors. I've been called to jury selection twice and dismissed once for being in graduate school and once for having a ph.d. My reading of those situations was that they agreed that my skill set would be a disadvantage to them, even though they were on opposite sides of the case. I drat well would have done my best to reason through each of those cases (if I were selected and they had gone to trial) and felt that I was doing my duty as a citizen. Instead they probably got a bunch of idiots they felt comfortable manipulating and confusing with half-assed sophistry and bad statistics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:so any chance of Saturday Night Massacre redux, tomarrow? With Trump, all things are possible
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Juries are a garbage relic of a bygone era. Yeah, I went there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:Everybody in the legal profession--practicing lawyers, professors, etc.--loving hates juries and thinks they're worthless. They're allowed to exist because of the constitution, but if legal academics could rewrite the constitution they'd get rid of juries in a heartbeat What would it be instead, just the judge's decision?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:so any chance of Saturday Night Massacre redux, tomarrow? I mean, the way he's taken his presidency so far, it'd only be appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:so any chance of Saturday Night Massacre redux, tomarrow? I doubt it, which means it will happen, because that's how this presidency has gone: anytime I predict Trump's not that stupid, welp, the Good Lord makes a fool of me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:Juries are a garbage relic of a bygone era. How do most other countries work? Individual judges then tribunals or w/e for bigger stuff/appeals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:50
|
|
