President Trump

Post by **wayfriend** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:22 pm

They were tried and sentenced by the military. So, you know: wrong.

Post by **SoulBiter** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:36 pm

My bad.. I had replied but then that would be breaking a commitment to not reply to someone on this board for any reason.

Carry on.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:04 pm

wayfriend wrote:They were tried and sentenced by the military. So, you know: wrong.

Are you suggesting that Trump cannot or should not pardon them? If the former, from where would the restriction on that Constitutional authority originate? If the latter, why not? Because they were guilty? Only guilty people may receive pardons (accepting one implies an admission of guilt).

Post by **wayfriend** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 8:58 pm

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Are you suggesting that Trump cannot or should not pardon them?

Follow! I am suggesting that the assertion that they were tried by people who do not understand military actions (that is, "second guess what goes on in a war") is false.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:58 pm

They were tried in a military court, who judged their actions to be in the wrong. This fact is not in dispute despite SoulBiter's comments to the contrary.

The UN got upset because Trump did something and the UN likes neither the United States nor Trump. The UN can go fuck itself. These people were charged with Federal/military crimes in the United States, were found guilty, and now Trump pardoned them. There is nothing "wrong" about that.

Post by **Gaius Octavius** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:50 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si-vMj-FB88

Post by **Skyweir** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:32 am

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:They were tried in a military court, who judged their actions to be in the wrong. This fact is not in dispute despite SoulBiter's comments to the contrary.

The UN got upset because Trump did something and the UN likes neither the United States nor Trump. The UN can go fuck itself. These people were charged with Federal/military crimes in the United States, were found guilty, and now Trump pardoned them. There is nothing "wrong" about that.

No the UN expressed justifiable concern over the pardon of military personnel convicted of war crimes. Right? Cuz war crimes are not to be encouraged? Right?

Cuz if you think about it THATS what such an action sends all nations.

Do we want to send such a message to all military personnel involved in any military operation? The US is the most powerful globally .. the point is the prevention and deterrence of war crimes.

Unprovoked and indefensible killing of civilians and enemy forces, raping of civilians and enemy forces, torture of civilians and enemy forces, right?

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:42 am

What surprises me in not the pardon but that they were convicted at all. The US has a long history of not allowing members of its military (or government) to be charged with war crimes as far as I know.

Do I think it sends a bad message? Yes, but only about the US. It's not exactly a secret that the principles they espouse are followed only as and when convenient / profitable for the most part.

--A

Post by **Gaius Octavius** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:34 am

https://nationalfile.com/source-trump-w ... -hospital/

President Trump was recently hospitalized after his food tester became ill.

Any political faction trying to assassinate the president is playing an extremely dangerous game...one that can only end very badly.

Post by **Skyweir** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:28 pm

There was no evidence of deliberate poisoning ... something was likely off. Could be giardia or anything, under cooked chicken.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:24 pm

Skyweir wrote:No the UN expressed justifiable concern over the pardon of military personnel convicted of war crimes. Right? Cuz war crimes are not to be encouraged? Right?

I don't give a shit what the UN thinks. Our military strongly discourages war crime activity, which is why these guys were sentenced in the first place. Now that they are pardoned, though, what is done is done.

Post by **wayfriend** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:49 pm

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Name then then prove they have been prevented from testifying. I'll wait.

Remember: Despite speaking with 17 witnesses behind closed doors, including 12 witnesses in just a week of public testimony, Democrats have not obtained crucial documents or spoken with several key officials because the White House and State Department have refused to comply with subpoenas.

That has left top Democrats with a choice: They could fight in court to obtain potential smoking-gun documents and testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former national security adviser John Bolton. Or they could move forward with the evidence they have. [link]

White House Blocks Four Administration Witnesses From Giving Impeachment Depositions

Four potentially devastating witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry will follow White House orders and will refuse to testify. [link]

White House Ordered Pentagon To Ignore Congressional Subpoenas

President Donald Trump and members of his administration have been telling employees of the federal government to defy subpoenas coming from House Democrats in connection with their impeachment inquiry, which is probing Trump's July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. And according to one of the Democratic leaders of the inquiry, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, those employees include people in the U.S. Defense Department. [link]

Post by **Skyweir** » Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:45 pm

Really damning, illegal and incredibly hypocritical behaviour.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:06 am

Thank you for your cooperation, wayfriend. The Administration should be defying the current round of subpoenas. If the House wanted to subpoena these people for real they would actually get around to impeaching Trump instead of pretending to do it. Once they actually file Articles of Impeachment I will begin advising the Administration to comply with Congressional subpoenas. Until then, the House can sit down and shut up because they have nothing.

Skyweir, how many times do I have to tell you that "high crimes and misdemeanors" can be almost anything the House wants it to be? No, they can't impeach Trump for littering but they could have done it for potential violations of the Emoluments Clause (but they didn't), they could have done it over the allegations presented in the Mueller Report (but they didn't), and they could do it now over claims--claims which are still unproven--that the phone call with Zelensky resulted in bribery or extortion (but they haven't).

Why haven't they filed Articles of Impeachment yet? What are they waiting for, Christmas? They don't need proof to impeach, only the appearance of having committed a "high crime or misdemeanor".

The Democrats in the House are like teenagers with homework "yeah, dad, I know--I'll get to it tomorrow. I will do it, now just get off my back!"

Today is 21 November 2019 and Trump still has not been impeached.

Post by **Skyweir** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:18 am

You cant impeach anyone without an impeachment investigation and impeachment trial. Due process still means something.

AND you require witnesses to testify .. hence having to subpoena those who are not voluntarily rocking up to do the right thing.

We will see however who is prepared to put their money, threat of indictment ... where their mouth is.

Its looking bad for Trump ON SO MANY LEVELS now.

Post by **Hashi Lebwohl** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:09 am

Skyweir wrote:You cant impeach anyone without an impeachment investigation and impeachment trial. Due process still means something.

AND you require witnesses to testify ..

Actually, no you don't, at least according to the Constitution. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Article I Section II:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I Section III

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II Section IV

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III Section II

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

None of the 27 Amendments mention impeachment, so everything about it is in the original document. The U. S. Code, if you want to browse it references the word "impeachment" but only from a criminal trial/legal point of view. The kind of impeachment we are discussing here is a Congressional matter, not a matter of actual criminal law, so the regular rules which apply in a court of law do not apply here.

For more information, here is what the Cornell Law School has to say about impeachment.

As far as "looking bad" for Trump....well, just for the sake of discussion let us presume that the Democrats in the House actually impeach him tomorrow and wrap it up in only two or three weeks. What happens? Well, other than going down in history as the third President to be impeached (Nixon was never impeached, choosing to resign before that could happen) the trial moves to the Senate. Do you really think that two-thirds of Senators will vote to remove him from office? No, I don't either.

What does that mean? It means Trump gets a slap on the wrist and keeps his job as POTUS. Where is the downside to that, other than "you got impeached"?

Post by **Skyweir** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:54 am

A lot of if buts and maybes in that scenario.

Despite your linked points ... when was a POTUS impeached in the absence of investigation or trial?

I think give it time for Trumps flagrant abuse of power to be further collaborated and let the Republicans act as their conscience sees fit. History will be judge.

And history owes no loyalties.

Post by **Gaius Octavius** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:28 am

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Skyweir wrote:You cant impeach anyone without an impeachment investigation and impeachment trial. Due process still means something.

AND you require witnesses to testify ..
Actually, no you don't, at least according to the Constitution. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Article I Section II:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article I Section III

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article II Section IV

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article III Section II

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
None of the 27 Amendments mention impeachment, so everything about it is in the original document. The U. S. Code, if you want to browse it references the word "impeachment" but only from a criminal trial/legal point of view. The kind of impeachment we are discussing here is a Congressional matter, not a matter of actual criminal law, so the regular rules which apply in a court of law do not apply here.

For more information, here is what the Cornell Law School has to say about impeachment.

As far as "looking bad" for Trump....well, just for the sake of discussion let us presume that the Democrats in the House actually impeach him tomorrow and wrap it up in only two or three weeks. What happens? Well, other than going down in history as the third President to be impeached (Nixon was never impeached, choosing to resign before that could happen) the trial moves to the Senate. Do you really think that two-thirds of Senators will vote to remove him from office? No, I don't either.

What does that mean? It means Trump gets a slap on the wrist and keeps his job as POTUS. Where is the downside to that, other than "you got impeached"?

You forgot that the later verses abrogate the earlier verses. Oh wait...wrong book, sorry.

Post by **Skyweir** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:14 am

Ok

But you get my point .. theres a trial for a reason.

And now for more personal benefiting from public office

... here the RNC invested 100,000 USD in ... mmm ... a political initiative? Oh no in the purchase of Donnie jrs book Triggered ... wait god it? So it would get on the

"Triggered" debuted at the top of the next week's New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction, with an important caveat: a dagger symbol indicating a large percentage of the book's sales came from "institutional, special interest, group, or bulk purchases."

"It's known in the industry as the 'deadly dagger,'" a source told Page Six. "A rare penalty that is only called for flagrant fouls."

https://www.businessinsider.com/rnc-sp ... sider-main

Post by **Zarathustra** » Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:18 pm

Skyweir wrote:You cant impeach anyone without an impeachment investigation and impeachment trial. Due process still means something.

Sky, the trial happens in the Senate. The House impeaches. An impeachment is like an indictment. It's like pressing charges; a formal, official allegation of.a wrong doing. You don't have a trial in order to press charges. You have a trial to see if those charges are true and justified.

All the House has to do is hold a vote. It really is that simple.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

President Trump