Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss Nancy Pelosi and impeachment at the General Forum; Originally Posted by Constant_Slothrop Sorry, but I doubt that you could afford to hire me. My firm charges about $1000/hour ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2019, 05:42 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,045
Thanks: 5,360
Thanked 5,875 Times in 4,017 Posts
Default Re: Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant_Slothrop View Post
Sorry, but I doubt that you could afford to hire me. My firm charges about $1000/hour for my time.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post:
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2019, 03:37 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,421
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,837 Posts
Default Re: Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant_Slothrop View Post
Accepting and trying to cover up criminal support for a political campaign is not a criminal conspiracy unless there is a specific agreement between the criminals and the campaign, and Mueller found insufficient evidence of such an agreement. That does not diminish the seriousness of those actions or whether they constitute impeachable offenses. Mueller was considering whether there was sufficient evidence to find that certain actions involved indictable violations of federal criminal statutes. That isnít the test for impeachment.
Mueller actually outlines enough evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian to obtain an indictment but that's not the criteria that prosecutors use when they seek an indictment. They want to have more than enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't want an indictment and not enough evidence to convict because "double-jeopardy" prevents future prosecution if they fail the first time and later find sufficient evidence in the future.

As noted though that's not the criteria for impeachment that doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence is not applicable in impeachment because the accused faces no penalties from the proceedings. Removal from office is not a "penalty" because it does not involve the loss of life, liberty, or property of the accused. The office is not a right person. It's a privilege.

Only after leaving office could the President be subjected to criminal prosecution for crimes committed.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:08 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,421
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,837 Posts
Default Re: Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
I thought you read the thing? Mueller's own statement said he couldn't indict the President because of the AG policy not to indict a sitting President. Chicken**** Mueller hid behind that as the reason he couldn't "find" indictable offenses.

The fact is, he and his handpicked team simply couldn't find indictable offenses. So he implied they were still possible using the logic, we couldn't ( or wouldn't) prove innocence.

I gotta tell ya;
Robert Mueller, a career investigator/prosecutor, with a team of hand picked Clinton loving lawyers that could spend 2 1/2 years and $35 million, and they couldn't find guilt of collusion and corruption in the Trump Russian hoax. I doubt you, sitting in front of your computer in your jammies eating corn curls, are gonna break the case.
It's not the Attorney General's policy. It's the Department of Justice's policy and here's a link to the 2000 policy statement by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...24-p0222_0.pdf

READ IT BECAUSE IT DICTATED THE DOJ POLICY FOR BOTH ROBERT MUELLER III AND FOR WILLIAM BARR.

The Attorney General cannot arbitrarily decide that the DOJ policy established by the Office of Legal counsel, that the DOJ has been following for decades, can be ignored or changed. That would require a legal argument that would address all of the issues addressed in that policy statement. William Barr didn't even attempt to change the DOJ policy. He simply ignored it.

Additionally the DOJ is prohibited from making any statement about an unindicted person other than if the evidence establishes that they're not guilty of any offense. Mueller explicitly stated that Trump could not be cleared of obstruction of justice because of the evidence that obstruction of justice, based upon the statutory law, did occur. William Barr ignored the evidence and the conclusion of Mueller's Report.

AG Barr also ignored the role of the prosecutor. A prosecutor never determines if a person committed a crime. The role of the prosecutor is merely to gather the evidence and then indict and prosecute if the evidence supports the prosecution. The prosecutor does not determine guilt or innocence in a criminal case.

A prosecutor cannot claim an unindicted person committed a crime. The prosecutor can only claim that the evidence establishes the basis for prosecution based upon the statutory law. The jury, upon presentation of the evidence in the case, determines if the accused committed the crime.

We no longer live under the rules of the Spanish Inquisition where a person is guilty because the prosecutor says so.

As also noted in the OLC's policy it's the Constitutional role and responsibility of Congress to address "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by a President with the impeachment process. Those ""high crimes and misdemeanors" may or may not be related to violations of criminal law and not all violations of criminal law are applicable to impeachment. If related to a violation of statutory law the impeachment proceedings do not establish guilt of the accused because impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. The accused is not presumed innocent and does not face the loss of life, liberty, or property from the impeachment proceedings.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

Last edited by ShivaTD; 05-31-2019 at 04:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2019, 08:54 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 17,773
Thanks: 11,130
Thanked 11,764 Times in 6,993 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Mueller actually outlines enough evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian to obtain an indictment but that's not the criteria that prosecutors use when they seek an indictment. They want to have more than enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't want an indictment and not enough evidence to convict because "double-jeopardy" prevents future prosecution if they fail the first time and later find sufficient evidence in the future.

As noted though that's not the criteria for impeachment that doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence is not applicable in impeachment because the accused faces no penalties from the proceedings. Removal from office is not a "penalty" because it does not involve the loss of life, liberty, or property of the accused. The office is not a right person. It's a privilege.

Only after leaving office could the President be subjected to criminal prosecution for crimes committed.
Sigh, you are making stuff up again.

The special counsel's report explicitly acknowledges there wasn't sufficient evidence of any American coordination or a conspiracy with the Russian government to sustain an indictment. The standard for an indictment is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Mueller's team of hyperpartisan Resistance zealots couldn't find enough evidence of coordination or conspiracy with the Russians to bring an indictment but somehow it's a patriotic duty of Congress to overturn the 2016 election via impeachment based on rumor and speculation.

Mueller tried to put some lipstick on his obstruction investigation pig by claiming they never considered indicting the President because of DOJ policy. Of course the rabid Resistance lynch mob never asks why anyone around the President, not shielded by the policy, wasn't indicted. Mueller's lynch mob posing as prosecutors was willing to use police state tactics in attempts to coerce members of team Trump into providing evidence against him but they didn't charge any subordinates with helping him obstruct the overall investigation. Instead, the idiotic premise that Trump acted in isolation to obstruct the investigation is accepted as fact.

Applying the hare brained model that revoking privileges such as the Presidency don't require require any standard of proof means for instance a tribunal of legislators could revoke an individual's drivers license on a whim. In this case it's nullifying a national election because Congress doesn't like the results. Of course to the Resistance discarding any standard of evidence in a headlong rush to impeachment is justified because Orange man bad.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:33 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,953
Thanks: 11,571
Thanked 4,294 Times in 2,774 Posts
Default Re: Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Th[e] role of evaluating the evidence is a Constitutional responsibility of Congress addressed by the power of Congress to impeach. Congress has this responsibility because it's a co-equal part of our government. The impeachment process by Congress is to ensure the Rule of Law in the United States so that no one, not even the President, is above the Rule of Law.
As I have stated previously in this forum, I sincerely hope that the House does impeach. The Senate will never convict; and the energized base of the Democratic Party (which would surely result from the impeachment process) would be more than offset, in my opinion, by an unhappy group of independents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Finally we must also note that the standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" does not exist when addressing impeachment.
Okay.

Would you prefer, then, that we should assume the civil-court standard of "a preponderance of the evidence" (in other words, 51 percent)?

Is that good enough for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The Democrats do control the House and they have the unilateral ability to launch the Impeachment investigation but the Republicans also have a responsibility to stand up for the Constitution and Rule of Law in the United States. This goes far beyond any loyalty that a Republican might have for Donald Trump. Are Republicans going to stick to their guns in supporting the President when they literally have to turn their back on the Rule of Law and the administration of Justice in the United States to do that?
In other words, "good" Republicans should have Donald Trump convicted, in their own minds; and, therefore, follow through with a conviction in the Senate.

There is simply no room for a "good" Republican to believe that Donald Trump is not guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office.

Is that essentially your view?
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got itÖ"óGeorge Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2019, 12:53 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 958
Thanks: 888
Thanked 1,321 Times in 611 Posts
Default Re: Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The best Mueller could manage in his robotic recitation of prepared text was a vague proclamation of "if we thought he was innocent we would have said so"
So Mueller said the investigation did not produce evidence that proves aliens exist but had they found proof aliens did not exist, they would have said so . . .

And the kooky left are telling us that Mueller has seen and has described the aliens they are seeing.

.
__________________
Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:05 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,045
Thanks: 5,360
Thanked 5,875 Times in 4,017 Posts
Default Re: Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
So Mueller said the investigation did not produce evidence that proves aliens exist but had they found proof aliens did not exist, they would have said so . . .

And the kooky left are telling us that Mueller has seen and has described the aliens they are seeing.

.

It's funny that the left will "Convict" Republicans with no evidence. But they let Hillary off the hook after she obstructed and destroyed most of the evidence against her.

The left loves the fact that the government and media is stacked hugely in their favor. They would love o have 100%, as in a single party government,
they have been trying for years to stop all of their opposition by stifling free speech, etc... And they call the right Fascist,
they are taking their cues right out of the fascist hand book.

Last edited by Dog Man; 05-31-2019 at 01:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post:
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:44 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,826
Thanks: 7,061
Thanked 4,795 Times in 2,731 Posts
Default Re: Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant_Slothrop View Post
Sorry, but I doubt that you could afford to hire me. My firm charges about $1000/hour for my time.
Sounds to me like some people are getting ripped off.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

A lie doesn't become truth, a wrong doesn't become right, and Evil doesn't become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. - Booker T Washington
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 06-03-2019, 01:24 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 55,036
Thanks: 2,225
Thanked 35,251 Times in 20,233 Posts
Default Re: Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant_Slothrop View Post
Sorry, but I doubt that you could afford to hire me. My firm charges about $1000/hour for my time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
Sounds to me like some people are getting ripped off.
It IS a pretty steep price for a children's party clown...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
and, impeachment, nancy, pelosi

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0