With irrefutable proof?
Thanks for acknowledging the difference in scenarios.
I didn't expect to even get that far here.
With irrefutable proof?Sputter away, but the fact is it happens quite often.
Thanks for acknowledging the difference in scenarios.There usually isn't "irrefutable proof." That's the problem. To get a conviction for perjury, you must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The usual defense is "I mis-remembered" or "I misspoke." When you need proof BRD, that defense generally wins. Since prosecutors don't like to lose, they usually pass on prosecuting perjury.
Clinton's case was different. No problem proving a lie there, but there was a solid legal defense based on the immateriality of all his answers about Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case. See my post above.
With irrefutable proof?
Thanks for acknowledging the difference in scenarios.
I didn't expect to even get that far here.
lawns are distributed to everyone at the advanced age of 65.
cut and paste Rush LyricsDegree in philosophy? You got ripped off.
Free Will
Rush
There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance
A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive
You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will
There are those who think that
They've been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them
They weren't born in Lotus-Land
All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's…
Glad you brought up Clinton. Is lying under oath a crime? Yes or No. Don’t be a coward and dodge the question with nuance.
But they are giving Clinton a pass by constantly dismissing why he got impeached.Yes, it's a different scenario.
Then again, I can't see anyone else here arguing that Clinton actually didn't lie.
This is a problem in any discussion where people are comparing one person's bad behavior with another's. If one person thinks that person A's conduct was worse than person's B's, the other person in the argument will accuse that person of trying to excuse person B's bad acts when that isn't actually what they're doing. Saying that Trump's behavior is worse than Clinton's isn't giving Clinton a pass.
D'at's all dey gots.I’m not sure why anyone thinks bringing Clinton up is a useful exercise here.
I didn’t introduce Clinton into the thread. Is correct the record offering a holiday bonus? How many more posts before you get the gold plated buckets?CDS on full display.
Take it up with the poster who started the exercise.I’m not sure why anyone thinks bringing Clinton up is a useful exercise here.
Clinton and Trump share the distinction of impeachment, although there’s a healthy debate as to whether or not Trump is impeached until Congress submits the articles to the Senate. Separation of powers and all.The idea that we would attempt to equate perjuring yourself in a civil deposition to using hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to extort foreign powers to illegally intervene in our elections is just dumb beyond belief.
If we are doing comparisons we should be comparing it to Watergate, although even in that case Nixon’s actions pale in severity to Trump’s. There really is no analogy for the level of corruption we see here.
Take it up with the poster who started the exercise.
Clinton and Trump share the distinction of impeachment, although there’s a healthy debate as to whether or not Trump is impeached until Congress submits the articles to the Senate. Separation of powers and all.
Nixon at least put country before party in resigning.
Don’t read Noah Feldman’s op-ed. He defines impeachment as a process, not a vote, one that’s not formalized until Congress officially engages the Senate. It’s semantics, but an interesting interpretation with some validity.No meaningful debate, no. The Constitution gives the House the ‘sole power of impeachment’ and the House explicitly stated he is impeached.
Yes he put country before partyHe resigned because he was going to be convicted, not because he was some patriot.
Don’t read Noah Feldman’s op-ed. He defines impeachment as a process, not a vote, one that’s not formalized until Congress officially engages the Senate. It’s semantics, but an interesting interpretation with some validity.
Yes he put country before party
Until the articles of impeachment are handed to the senate, it's an empty gesture. Trump could be impeached every day for any reason, or no reason at all, and it's meaningless until it's handed to the senate. The yes/no argument is a moot point as the impeachment isn't actionable by anyone but the senate.I have read it, and his interpretation that it is a process has no basis in the text of the constitution and he admits as much. The Constitution is extremely clear,
1) the House has the sole power of impeachment.
2) the house resolution passed explicitly states Trump is impeached.
3) the house resolution fulfills the requirements set forth in the house rules as to impeachment.
To argue Trump isn’t impeached is to argue that the entity granted the sole power of impeachment has ruled that someone is impeached but that their opinion is overruled by something else. This would be an extremely novel reading of the House’s powers, haha.
No, his party put country before party. Nixon would certainly have stayed if he wasn’t told he would be removed.
hilarious. next theyll be saying he wasnt impeached because "it was a perfect phone call", "no quid pro quo", "fake news".Don’t read Noah Feldman’s op-ed. He defines impeachment as a process, not a vote, one that’s not formalized until Congress officially engages the Senate. It’s semantics, but an interesting interpretation with some validity.
Until the articles of impeachment are handed to the senate, it's an empty gesture. Trump could be impeached every day for any reason, or no reason at all, and it's meaningless until it's handed to the senate. The yes/no argument is a moot point as the impeachment isn't actionable by anyone but the senate.
I find the legal gymnastics fascinating, but it's the end result that actually matters.
Until the articles of impeachment are handed to the senate, it's an empty gesture. Trump could be impeached every day for any reason, or no reason at all, and it's meaningless until it's handed to the senate. The yes/no argument is a moot point as the impeachment isn't actionable by anyone but the senate.
I find the legal gymnastics fascinating, but it's the end result that actually matters.
Lack of reading comprehension for the loss. It's an empty gesture if it isn't handed to the senate.Next you'll argue that if he is not convicted by the Senate its an empty gesture.
If the Dems in the house did nothing you would argue they should do something otherwise they have power.
Basically no matter what the Dems are at fault in some way.
The Tulsi that just got praised by Trump? Ok. U sure we don wit Clinton though?I didn’t introduce Clinton into the thread. Is correct the record offering a holiday bonus? How many more posts before you get the gold plated buckets?
But you’re right. Let’s go back to your concern over Tulsi Gabbard. So much concern.
Lack of reading comprehension for the loss. It's an empty gesture if it isn't handed to the senate.
Us and Them