I think Biden should propose that he will agree to testify under oath if Trump also agrees to testify under oath.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,240
- 136
Quite right.
One of the most interesting recent developments in football has been the effective use of "analytics," particularly with 4th down decision making.
The Eagles HC is the most aggressive playcaller on 4th down, often electing to go for it when others would punt or settle for FGs.
Why? Because that's what the stats are saying.
So what's the revelation?
Humans are biased and make poor risk decisions. We naturally put more weight on the pain of loss rather than the benefit of gain.
This is not a new observation, but one that's been tough to correct in reality.
Football is a special case where the stats can tell the coach "quit being a pussy and go for it. Losing by 1pt or by 6 is still a loss, but only one choice gives you the better chance of the win."
IMO, one of the major differences between the parties is this approach to taking risks, with the Ds being like Jason Garrett, now ex-coach of the Cowboys.
Had plenty of firepower and quality players on the roster to be a winning team, but in the end, often missing the playoffs bc of timid leadership that was too willing to punt the ball and risk failure, and hope for the better chance next time that never came.
This year, they lost to the gambling Eagles that rode a busted squad of 3rd stringers, rookies, and practice squad players into the playoffs.
I don't expect the Ds to win every time, but I expect them to at least go down swinging.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,240
- 136
I think it does go both ways, and does put the onus on the WH to step in and fix the mess they made.
If Trump loses the fight on the witness suppression, then it's on his dumb, incompetent ass that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Last edited:
The entire question had already been actively considered and settled by our framers. If they felt that the right thing to do was to settle things at election, then they'd have omitted Impeachment from the Constitution altogether. I do welcome any conversation that starts with questioning that the framers may have gotten it wrong and we should reconsider whether impeachment is something that should actually be used in practice, but that is not the nature of the arguments Republicans are making. I very much disagree with the proposed position, but I could respect someone who had a different perspective and engaged in conversation about it honestly. But since the conversations are dishonest in premise, it's not worth even entertaining them unless that can be negotiated first.
The very notion that Ken Starr is making the argument invalidates it entirely. 'Age of Impeachment' indeed.
nakedfrog
No Lifer
- Apr 3, 2001
- 63,657
- 20,114
- 136
I suppose it depends on whether the contract has a clause in place to allow for early termination...
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,240
- 136
If a president decided 3yrs in he doesn't like the job, and would much rather spend 100% of his time golfing instead, is that grounds for impeachment?
Is there a crime there? Not that I know of, but anyone else would lose their job for it...
But the president's lawyer's would have us believe that a president can't be fired.
Yeah.
Remember that Ben Franklin determined that impeachment should exist for a President who 'rendered himself obnoxious'. That's a pretty low bar.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 16,149
- 8,746
- 136
Calling out the Repubs in this way would be such a total burn on that aspect of their defense strategy. I wonder what the Repub response would be to that if it were a legal request on the part of the Dems?
'Trump isn't relevant to these impeachment proceedings, this is just a distraction'.
KMFJD
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2005
- 33,977
- 54,731
- 136
how long do you figure it would take him to perjure himself? 5 minutes?
His lying is pre-ordained so technically taking oath would be perjuring himself I think.
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,667
- 13,385
- 136
Nothing to see here
www.cnn.com
White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book
The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
www.cnn.com
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,838
- 20,433
- 146
Nothing to see here
White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book
The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
Guess that means Trump wants free copies to give to his closest foreign supporters.
Sounds like this was a letter sent to Bolton, per sources that CNN has. I hope the letter itself is released so we can see what kind of 'threat' was given.Nothing to see here
White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book
The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
I don't think there's any contract which would protect against a firing for cause. At worst, a wrongful termination would provide monetary reward but not force the company to allow the fired CEO to make decisions for them. Regardless, that discussion is tangential because the president's employment contract clearly has a with cause termination clause (impeachment).
I think that, though, the obvious case for impeachment being a necessary remedy is when a President's high crime or misdemeanor directly threatens the sanctity of an election. If there is no power to act upon such an abuse, then an election which is unprotected from misconduct cannot be seen as a remedy. Indeed, we see this ubiquitously in practice as the mechanism to start and maintain many de facto dictatorships. The argument that a failed attempt at interference with an election does not warrant removal falls flat on its face. If action is not taken then, what can we expect from a President who brazenly displays will to violate the Constitution to influence an election and is allowed to continue their job as if nothing happened? Even should it not be tried again, how could the people expected to maintain trust in the government to protect their vote? And when such a President also is allowed to prevent timely oversight of their activity en bloc at will with no ability to contest such obstruction before the next election, then how could the people expect that a promise of holding a President accountable should they succeed in future attempts be worth a damn?
Applying these arguments to Trump yields simple conclusions. If there is reasonable evidence which suggests a President has attempted such an act, it must be investigated with alarming speed and thoroughness until the question is settled. For Trump, a great many find that bar to have already been met (in finding of guilt), but if you are in the group which is yet undecided it makes no sense to me to avoid aggressive and immediate pursuit of such evidence.
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,196
- 9,742
- 146
nakedfrog
No Lifer
- Apr 3, 2001
- 63,657
- 20,114
- 136
fleshconsumed
Diamond Member
- Feb 21, 2002
- 6,486
- 2,363
- 136
I hope this can be substantiated by hard documents or other people.But wait... There's more!
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,994
- 31,558
- 146
Nothing to see here
White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book
The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.
so, I guess if repubs block witnesses, and so John Bolton can't be a witness, then this can't be witness tampering (obstruction)--which it is.
checkmate, libtards!
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,196
- 9,742
- 146
Fun fact, to pole vault over 1AU one would have to launch themselves from the starting point (40m out, no run-up relevant in this case I suppose) at an 89.99999998468 degree angle. 150B meters is nothing to sneeze at!
UNCjigga
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2000
- 25,726
- 10,484
- 136
Interesting...Collins, Murkowski and Romney submit the first question on how to deal with multiple motives for Trump blocking aid to Ukraine and how that relates to Article I.
If I understood that response correctly (who is this guy--counsel for White House or counsel for Chief Justice?) basically as long as the President had one legitimate motive, then the corrupt motive can be ignored for Article I?
If I understood that response correctly (who is this guy--counsel for White House or counsel for Chief Justice?) basically as long as the President had one legitimate motive, then the corrupt motive can be ignored for Article I?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter