Republicans put out pro-impeachment ad

TreeFrogTrader · Jun 5, 2019

piezoe said:
I agree. Although a Grand Jury can question a witness, this is not at all the same as cross examination by an attorney for the accused. Furthermore, you made an excellent point when you said Obstruction was not proven. All that was offered in Mueller's report was evidence of obstruction that many attorneys considered strong and convincing evidence of Obstruction that, in their opinion, was enough to indict anyone other than the President.

We have built in safeguards for the accused in our democratic republic's System of Justice. So no matter how convincing and strong the evidence may appear, the charges are not proven until either the accused admits his guilt or the accused is found guilty in one of several types of hearings. Depending on the specific charges, the possible types of hearings include mostly procedures where the accused has an opportunity to question the evidence and to present his own witnesses and to cross examine the prosecutions witnesses either before a judge, or a judge and jury. In an Impeachment hearing the jury would be the Senate, the Prosecution would be the House, and the Judge would be the Chief Justice. However in an impeachment hearing, the accused can not be punished other than by removal from office .

Besides impeachment, the House has other ways of punishing those who interfere with its workings or desires under the Constitution. The House, according to Article One, or statute and established precedence, has the power to arrest and jail; to fine; the power of the purse, which may optionally be wielded against a recalcitrant President, Administrator, or judicial body; the power to impeach and try federal officers; the power to sanction and hold in contempt, and other powers as well.

The branches of the Federal government are not "co-equal" as is incorrectly and foolishly thought to be the case by many. Under the Constitution, and by intentional design of the Founders after long and arduous debate, the House was given power over both the Judiciary and the Executive Branch! It was argued by Hamilton that the most power in government should rest with the "people" and as the House was to be "the peoples' House"* the most power should be abide within the House. Hamilton's arguments eventually prevailed. And that is why the House is given it's three great powers: The power of the purse; the power to impeach on broad and undefined terms; and the power to specify to the Court which matters the Court may not hear. That these ultimate powers of the House are so little exercised is a curious, and perhaps unanticipated, result of the House so seldom being capable of acting "of one mind."

Currently there is the matter of certain individuals, including officers in the Executive Branch, having ignored House subpoenas. This is a matter that in the past has resulted in individuals being held in contempt of Congress -- not a matter to be taken lightly.

___________________
*In Hamilton's era "the people" in the sense of the "peoples House" were male property owners and white with very few exceptions. Everyone else was disenfranchised.
More...

Another lecturette from Tardzoe. Where would he be without his subscription to Google?

As I said, if he were a surgeon, there would be no procedure where he is not a self-proclaimed expert. Except you have to overlook the fact that all his patients die on the table.

Similarly, he has been a constant source of lecturettes on why a president can be prosecuted, and then why he cannot be prosecuted, and now how he can be impeached, I guess he is the only one who did not know and had to google it up.

In the end though, Trump will not be removed by prosecution and conviction, nor will he be removed by impeachment. So other than the fact that he has been and will be 100% wrong on the two processes that have been under discussion- he is doing fine. Just don't go to him for gall bladder surgery because he will end out removing your kidney. But, hey, he is a retired government employee and that would be close enough for government work.

LacesOut · Jun 5, 2019

piezoe said:
I agree. Although a Grand Jury can question a witness, this is not at all the same as cross examination by an attorney for the accused. Furthermore, you made an excellent point when you said Obstruction was not proven. All that was offered in Mueller's report was evidence of obstruction that many attorneys considered strong and convincing evidence of Obstruction that, in their opinion, was enough to indict anyone other than the President.

We have built in safeguards for the accused in our democratic republic's System of Justice. So no matter how convincing and strong the evidence may appear, the charges are not proven until either the accused admits his guilt or the accused is found guilty in one of several types of hearings. Depending on the specific charges, the possible types of hearings include mostly procedures where the accused has an opportunity to question the evidence and to present his own witnesses and to cross examine the prosecutions witnesses either before a judge, or a judge and jury. In an Impeachment hearing the jury would be the Senate, the Prosecution would be the House, and the Judge would be the Chief Justice. However in an impeachment hearing, the accused can not be punished other than by removal from office .

Besides impeachment, the House has other ways of punishing those who interfere with its workings or desires under the Constitution. The House, according to Article One, or statute and established precedence, has the power to arrest and jail; to fine; the power of the purse, which may optionally be wielded against a recalcitrant President, Administrator, or judicial body; the power to impeach and try federal officers; the power to sanction and hold in contempt, and other powers as well.

The branches of the Federal government are not "co-equal" as is incorrectly and foolishly thought to be the case by many. Under the Constitution, and by intentional design of the Founders after long and arduous debate, the House was given power over both the Judiciary and the Executive Branch! It was argued by Hamilton that the most power in government should rest with the "people" and as the House was to be "the peoples' House"* the most power should be abide within the House. Hamilton's arguments eventually prevailed. And that is why the House is given it's three great powers: The power of the purse; the power to impeach on broad and undefined terms; and the power to specify to the Court which matters the Court may not hear. That these ultimate powers of the House are so little exercised is a curious, and perhaps unanticipated, result of the House so seldom being capable of acting "of one mind."

Currently there is the matter of certain individuals, including officers in the Executive Branch, having ignored House subpoenas. This is a matter that in the past has resulted in individuals being held in contempt of Congress -- not a matter to be taken lightly.

___________________
*In Hamilton's era "the people" in the sense of the "peoples House" were male property owners and white with very few exceptions. Everyone else was disenfranchised.
More...

Thanks...
I think the point, sir, is that obstruction has already been legally decided...

And that 100 or 1000 Never-Trumpers, Always-Trumpers, or straight down the pine legal eagles can opine till their hearts consent.
It doesn't matter.

No different than 100 or 1000 people can opine about 'what would have happened' had anyone other than Hillary 'didn't intend' to commit a crime, as per Comey, and so she was exonerated....and ANYONE else would have gone to prison if their last name wasn't Cunton.
That, also, doesn't matter.

So it's time to move on from the Russia Hoax and the follow up Obstruction angle..
It's time to investigate the investigators....you know, the ones who committed actual crimes.

piezoe · Jun 5, 2019

TreeFrogTrader said:
Where would he be without his subscription to Google?
More...

Or a good 9th grade Civics Teacher!

Why not turn over a new leaf and do like I do? Start posting of topics you have some knowledge of.

TreeFrogTrader · Jun 5, 2019

piezoe said:
Or a good 9th grade Civics Teacher!

Why not turn over a new leaf and do like I do? Start posting of topics you have some knowledge of.
More...

Yeh, you have been a veritable cornucopia of knowledge related to how Trump would eventually be prosecuted and removed from office or removed by impeachment.

The fact that neither one is going to happen does not enter into your "knowledge." You will only end out making a post the size of the Gutenberg Bible to explain why he should have been removed based on your google searches.

The operation was a success, but the patient died. Or, it was the best trade ever based on his analysis of the technicals and the fundamentals, except it lost money. Hillary won the election except you have to overlook the little fact that she watches the Price of Right during the day now. Welcome to the world of Peizoe. The paint by number mind of a government employee.

No removal by prosecution, and no removal by impeachment. So, no I will not be "turning over a new leaf" and drinking the kool aid with you.

Oh and your dud Biden is not going to be the nominee either, even though google and your civics teacher will/would tell you that he is. There is a whole world of thinking outside the little box that is your world.

Cuddles · Jun 5, 2019

piezoe · Jun 5, 2019

TreeFrogTrader said:
...you have been a veritable cornucopia of knowledge related to how Trump would eventually be prosecuted and removed from office or removed by impeachment. The fact that neither one is going to happen does not enter into your "knowledge."
More...

I noticed you are using the future tense. Interesting. (actually, you've probably, none too cleverly, changed "could" to "would"; thus putting words in my mouth that I don't believe I have ever uttered. I'm usually very cautious, more so than you apparently, when using the future tense.)

I invite you to do some research and get back to us.

P.S. you should have paid more attention in the 9th grade.

TreeFrogTrader · Jun 5, 2019

piezoe said:
I noticed you are using the future tense. Interesting. (actually you've put words in my mouth that I don't believe I have ever uttered. I'm usually very cautious, more so than you apparently, when using the future tense.)
More...

You have made a boring post.

Yes I said you are wrong and Trump will not be removed by prosecution or impeachment and if I used the future tense in doing so, well deal with it.

As far as you being "cautious." You might want to double down on that given your track record of being wrong about the prosecution and the impeachment outcomes. Wait until you can google and read the outcome on a wiki page. In the meantime, I have just given you the right answer, future tense and all.

piezoe · Jun 5, 2019

TreeFrogTrader said:
You have made a boring post.

Yes I said you are wrong and Trump will not be removed by prosecution or impeachment and if I used the future tense in doing so, well deal with it.

As far as you being "cautious." You might want to double down on that given your track record of being wrong about the prosecution and the impeachment outcomes. Wait until you can google and read the outcome on a wiki page. In the meantime, I have just given you the right answer, future tense and all.
More...

Are you wheelchair bound, because you seem to have no life at all outside of ET. If so, I am truly sorry.

FriskyCat · Jun 5, 2019

I've got the usual suspects on ignore. My new game is to figure out which of the whack-a-mole suspects you are replying to based on your replies. My guess is the long-winded blowhard Piezoe.

Frederick Foresight · Jun 6, 2019

Here4money said:
No Democrat in the House has illusions of this passing the Senate. Most of us are just fed up with Pelosi obstructing and not doing her goddamn constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law.
More...

There's my girl:

Pelosi tells colleagues she wants to see Trump ‘in prison,’ not impeached:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a5a95b01e3ac

How Trump Could Be Prosecuted After the White House:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ld-be-prosecuted-after-the-white-house-227050