|
Ogmius815 posted:You’re looking at it the wrong way though. It isn’t like what makes something impeachable is that it’s sufficient bad, and family separation is less impeachable because it ranks lower on the “badness scale” than the Ukraine Affair. Impeachment is for a particular kind of bad thing. More specifically, "high crimes and (high) misdemeanors" was a term from English law that specifically meant the misuse of office for personal gain. It doesn't correlate to any specific crime. Clinton broke the law in lying under oath about his affair with Lewinsky, but it shouldn't have been impeachable because it didn't involve the security of the state or any betrayal of his office. Most of the Presidents have had extramarital affairs and lied about it publicly, just not under oath. At least that's what was intended when it was put into the Constitution. As Jerry Ford put it, an impeachable offense is ultimately whatever a majority of the House agrees on.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I changed my mind about impeachment when the facts of the Ukraine Affair became clear. That’s what most people do, change their positions and beliefs in response to the facts. This is called flip flopping. You are never supposed to learn or change!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I changed my mind about impeachment when the facts of the Ukraine Affair became clear. That’s what most people do, change their positions and beliefs in response to the facts. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/519093/ objectively false. but it's a story people like to tell themselves. and those can change people's minds. tell them a story- like, say, one about how someone who's older, and richer, and with a fancy title, and therefore fundamentally -better- than them says that it's a good idea now... ...that can get the kind of person who knew fifteen seconds ago impeachment was a monstrous error being pushed by ignorant children to say "well actually it was always a good idea." "And the only real mistake was saying so before I, personally, was comfortable saying it." sure, it's logically incoherent, but it preserves the ego. over time, that same need to preserve his self esteem means he talks himself into thinking that by opposing impeachment, he was actually supporting it, and much better than those ignorant children who supported it before him did! ever read that great line from 1984 about how the hatred the Party commanded could be turned on and off like a blowtorch?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:This is called flip flopping. You are never supposed to learn or change! remember that part earlier in the thread where the Impeachment Expert was proclaiming actually Rashida e. Tlaib, autocorrect, saying we should impeach the president was still bad, because the fact we should impeach the president was not made apparent to him until his betters yielded to her on this point the words "learn" or "change" are not applicable to any part of this program
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
earlier we were talking about how people could and maybe are justifying removing Trump while also claiming that The Left et al still aren't correct and are also abusing their station so i guess it's cool seeing it play out in this thread too
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:More specifically, "high crimes and (high) misdemeanors" was a term from English law that specifically meant the misuse of office for personal gain. It doesn't correlate to any specific crime. That doesn't really match up with with Wikipedia's discussion of the phrase, though obviously Wikipedia could be off here. They say the "high crimes" were simply offenses that were enabled by the office - personal benefit wasn't a necessary component: quote:"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[6] A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes. Using the authority of the office to order crimes against humanity, or commit war crimes, or any number of other terrible things would all fit nicely into that definition (as they should, because gently caress putting up with ongoing crimes against humanity because "that's not what impeachment is for"). E: I'm no expert, though - maybe there's a better source?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
It should probably give Americans pause that the Republicans stood up and outright stated in their closing remarks that they would be retaliating vindictively for this in any future governments. I don't really see how you negotiate with ideological terrorists bent on the destruction of your nation, but  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
Stickman posted:E: I'm no expert, though - maybe there's a better source? Not actually joking: contrasting the Turley paper I linked upthread with Turley’s recent testimony isn’t a bad overview of the positions one could take.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I will say that the “Dems wanted to impeach since day one” argument has certainly been bolstered by foolish statements which took a cavalier attitude toward impeachment. Like “we’re going to impeach the motherfucker.” Impeachment is serious business. We did have valid and serious reasons to impeach before trump got elected though, if we had had the guts to dig into it at all: "In October 2016, shortly before the presidential election, Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in hush money to deny that she had an affair with Trump a decade earlier in 2006.[52][53][54] Trump's spokespersons have denied the affair and accused Daniels of lying.[55][56] On behalf of his client, Cohen denied the existence of an affair between Trump and Daniels,[57] but he later stated: "In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford."[58]" https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ArxJ16shKULFf6z
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Wow, I shared this on Facebook (my dad is a conservative preacher, most of my family is very strongly Christian, and I have a few friends from my old red state who are the same) because I thought they would at least engage and have a meaningful conversation on how this all fits into good Christian teachings, and the responses were "I'll wait to hear what Franklin Graham says" "CT has long been a left wing mag" "Sounds like someone should remember 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'" ...like, appeals to Christianity from BILLY GRAHAM'S MAGAZINE don't even work. There's no getting through. I'm starting to feel the despair coming on now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:...like, appeals to Christianity from BILLY GRAHAM'S MAGAZINE don't even work. There's no getting through. I'm starting to feel the despair coming on now. Our very own Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 20 years is going to be loving lit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:remember that part earlier in the thread where the Impeachment Expert was proclaiming actually Rashida e. Tlaib, autocorrect, saying we should impeach the president was still bad, because the fact we should impeach the president was not made apparent to him until his betters yielded to her on this point Hey I post on my phone but at least I know how to use capital letters and punctuation. Also, none of that is inconsistent. As I pointed out, when Tlaib said “impeach the motherfucker” in January, there were not public facts supporting impeachment. Now there are. You may be a leaf on the winds of ideology, but don’t project that onto me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Hey I post on my phone but at least I know how to use capital letters and punctuation. do you believe the emoluments clause is a thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Wow, I shared this on Facebook (my dad is a conservative preacher, most of my family is very strongly Christian, and I have a few friends from my old red state who are the same) because I thought they would at least engage and have a meaningful conversation on how this all fits into good Christian teachings, and the responses were Don't know your particular situation, but maybe wait for it. Might take time. Let it simmer some, but add some spices to the edges every now and then, and stir a bit andtaste again. Good gumbo doesn't happen all at once. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Hey I post on my phone but at least I know how to use capital letters and punctuation. Normally I’d say that you hadn’t been paying attention if you thought that there were “no public facts” warranting Impeachment before the Ukraine mess. But it’s you...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:in January, there were not public facts supporting impeachment. Ogmius815 posted:You may be a leaf on the winds of ideology, but don’t project that onto me. delicious. the way you can tell there were no public facts supporting impeachment in January is that if there had been, one of those damned uppity socialists would have been right, while Ogmius was wrong. and the universe is not structured such that this can be the case. genuinely arguing that Donald Trump did nothing wrong until Ukraine, to own the libs. no ideology here, kids.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Hey I post on my phone but at least I know how to use capital letters and punctuation. "The first reports of an alleged 2006 affair between Trump and Daniels (for which Daniels took a polygraph test) were published in October 2011 by the blog The Dirty and the magazine Life & Style.[3][4] Around the same time, Daniels talked about the alleged affair with the gossip magazine In Touch Weekly, which chose not to publish the interview after Cohen threatened to sue the magazine.[5] On January 12, 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in October 2016, a month before the election, to stop her discussing the alleged affair.[6][7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal Impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors" is what Congress determines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:genuinely arguing that Donald Trump did nothing wrong until Ukraine, to own the libs. This is, very clearly and distinctly, not what I have said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Hey I post on my phone but at least I know how to use capital letters and punctuation. There was all kinds of obstruction going on with the Russia investigation, the firing of James Comey, there was plenty of impeachable stuff going on, dude. It’s not what they ultimately went with, but there’s been plenty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:There was all kinds of obstruction going on with the Russia investigation, the firing of James Comey, there was plenty of impeachable stuff going on, dude. It’s not what they ultimately went with, but there’s been plenty. Well, there's a difference between what you know is true and what you can actually prove. You want a case you can build the evidence for to make before his term expires. You also need something that is fairly straightforward and easy to communicate about. The problem with a lot of the earlier stuff was that there were a lot of loose ends yet that could drag on for years if they started into them. They were also complex and convoluted with a lot of actors that made it all hard to follow, or at least easy to discredit. They didn't want to look like they were floundering around and letting Trump lead them by the nose. The Ukraine stuff was a neatly gift-wrapped package of impeachable offenses, easy to lay out and easy to prove. Only a handful of witnesses were needed to establish it, and they could get it over and done in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is, very clearly and distinctly, not what I have said. Ogmius815 posted:when Tlaib said “impeach the motherfucker” in January, there were not public facts supporting impeachment. “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Takes me back to 1984.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.” So then you don’t understand the difference between “there was not a case for impeachment” and “trump did nothing wrong”.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So then you don’t understand the difference between “there was not a case for impeachment” and “trump did nothing wrong”. Except there was a case for impeachment and Trump did something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:Except there was a case for impeachment and Trump did something wrong. guy was even busy complaining about how he didn't like how the case was being made then, but the Party demands that no case existed prior to Nancy Pelosi telling him that impeachment was good now therefore, there was no case for impeachment, no high crime or misdemeanor, no reason for Democrats to censure Donald J. Trump, up until then. and simultaneously, the people making the case for impeachment back then were naive children. they should have said that thing they didn't say more decorously, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
Ahhh, yeahhhh, Franklin Graham responded about the Christianity Today article saying his father would be embarrassed and that CT is a liberal mag now. https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidJollyFL/status/1207847271888539649
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So then you don’t understand the difference between “there was not a case for impeachment” and “trump did nothing wrong”. there is absolutely a case for impeachment, he has been getting away with abusing his power for ages and this is just the first thing he got nailed on, this isn't something in isolation this is a part of a larger pattern and is simply the straw the broke the camel's back to say there's no case for impeachment is to give the benefit of the doubt and look at this as one isolated incident, which it is not
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Ahhh, yeahhhh, Franklin Graham responded about the Christianity Today article saying his father would be embarrassed and that CT is a liberal mag now. lol @ debasing yourself and completely selling out your faith to defend a man like donald trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, there's a difference between what you know is true and what you can actually prove. You want a case you can build the evidence for to make before his term expires. You also need something that is fairly straightforward and easy to communicate about. I totally agree. I was specifically saying these things warranted “impeach the motherfucker” and that it was not irresponsible to say that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Wow, I shared this on Facebook (my dad is a conservative preacher, most of my family is very strongly Christian, and I have a few friends from my old red state who are the same) because I thought they would at least engage and have a meaningful conversation on how this all fits into good Christian teachings, and the responses were COOL CORN posted:Ahhh, yeahhhh, Franklin Graham responded about the Christianity Today article saying his father would be embarrassed and that CT is a liberal mag now. I just don't understand. Why? Why won't they listen? It's easy to just say they're stupid or ignorant or some snarky comment, but I am serious. What happened to our country? It makes no sense. It's been a constant denial for 4 years. I'm reminded of him calling Megan Markel nasty. They would not even believe the transcript of him saying it and held up the transcript as proof that he didn't. What in the gently caress is happening? This is the poo poo that scares me the most. People don't even believe the things they see with their own eyes. Like when he told Stephanopolous on national tv he would take foreign help in 2020. They just went, "Nope, not real. Made up. Didn't happen."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 07:28
|
|
|
Travic posted:I just don't understand. Why? Why won't they listen? It's easy to just say they're stupid or ignorant or some snarky comment, but I am serious. What happened to our country? It makes no sense. This is the culmination of two things in my mind: 1. Two generational cohorts have now been completely brainwashed by rightwing media. It started with rightwing radio in the 90's matured with Fox News in the 00's, and is now its own insulated infosphere where authoritarians and fascists can set their filters to max and just hear what they want 24/7. Everyone knows Boomers and Silents that were once tolerable people but have been radicalized by RW media. 2. Losing twice to Barack Obama broke these people. They have been forced to confront the reality that America isn't completely white anymore and they hate it. They hate it with every fiber of their being and Trump allows them to believe they are on the winning side, fighting back the tide. They weren't able to inflict pain on minorities while a black man was President. Now they can lord it over people as if they accomplished something in their meaningless lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 07:42
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:This is the culmination of two things in my mind: I can see that. My therapist describes this as their extinction burst as they fight back against a country that is changing and it certainly does seem apocalyptic enough. The only problem with that is that it seems to be working.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
Travic posted:I just don't understand. Why? Why won't they listen? It's easy to just say they're stupid or ignorant or some snarky comment, but I am serious. What happened to our country? It makes no sense. the modern evangelical movement was married to white supremacy in the 1960s and the desegregation of public schools, why do you expect that they'd turn on someone emboldening their rhetoric?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 08:27
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:lol @ debasing yourself and completely selling out your faith to defend a man like donald trump. When your faith is based on greed and anger it's not so much selling out to Trump as worshipping as a religious leader.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Travic posted:I can see that. My therapist describes this as their extinction burst as they fight back against a country that is changing and it certainly does seem apocalyptic enough. The only problem with that is that it seems to be working. It'll work like a charm, up until they all get to a certain age and the inescapable march of time does its thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
Madkal posted:When your faith is based on greed and anger it's not so much selling out to Trump as worshipping as a religious leader. Like, isn't one of the big things about the Anti-Christ how he's able to make all the phony Christians who just love money and hurting other people flock to him uncontrollably like he's the Pied Piper, while all the people who actually follow Christ's teachings can see through that poo poo like a window? Kinda makes you 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Well, there's a difference between what you know is true and what you can actually prove. You want a case you can build the evidence for to make before his term expires. You also need something that is fairly straightforward and easy to communicate about. Y’all are forgetting what set this whole thing into motion: the White House released the transcript of the call in a total unforced error and made it completely undeniable that Trump was dirty. If they hadn’t done that this easily may have been just another crime that we all knew about but Pelosi wasn’t willing to go after thrown onto the pile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Ahhh, yeahhhh, Franklin Graham responded about the Christianity Today article saying his father would be embarrassed and that CT is a liberal mag now. The only thing that's gonna come out of that article are some people at the mag getting fired. The remaining Trump supporters are so dug in they're gonna be wearing those hats 20 to 30 years from now, if they live that long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 11:26
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Like, isn't one of the big things about the Anti-Christ how he's able to make all the phony Christians who just love money and hurting other people flock to him uncontrollably like he's the Pied Piper, while all the people who actually follow Christ's teachings can see through that poo poo like a window? And three years of "Prosperity" followed by a massive poo poo show. Only those wearing the mark of the beast can do business. Cats living with dogs, total pandemonium.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Travic posted:I just don't understand. Why? Why won't they listen? It's easy to just say they're stupid or ignorant or some snarky comment, but I am serious. What happened to our country? It makes no sense. The latest Citations Needed podcast digs into the GOP and their link to Evangelical / Christian movie media as an arm for propaganda, and it goes into how a whole lot of these folks believe that Trump is the final king who will usher in the apocalypse alongside basically betraying the Jewish people in Israel. These folks are cheering the invasions of Syria and all the other poo poo Trump bungled because they literally think it’s their way to World War III (the “trials and tribulations”) and their rapture. It’s just the Christian Death Cult popping through again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 12:34
|
|
