• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

Page 145 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
outriding said:
in a normal trial you are supposed to excuse yourself if u have conflict of interest

Why is this not the same?
Click to expand...

There are 4 democratic Senators running for President, who are participating in the impeachment process. Don't even talk to me about conflicts of interest. This is not a trial in a court. This is not a normal trial and expectations that it should follow same procedures and rules would be wrong. I hear a lot of people talking that do not understand this, out there where I live.
 
compuwiz1 said:
There are 4 democratic Senators running for President, who are participating in the impeachment process. Don't even talk to me about conflicts of interest. This is not a trial in a court. This is not a normal trial and expectations that it should follow same procedures and rules would be wrong. I hear a lot of people talking that do not understand this, out there where I live.
Click to expand...
Then each political party has a conflict of interest.
 
hal2kilo said:
Then each political party has a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

There's a large difference between the Biden nepotism "This looks a little shady." to the Trump "We're going to openly flaunt holding up funding as leverage and circumvent normal processes because we can't have anyone know what's going on."
 
examining "Burden Sharing":
If 2 brothers and 2 sisters chip in to keep Mom afloat and someone is contributing less than their share, Would you speak to the one who is coming up short or would you tell Mom and pressure her to 'do you a favor"?
I cry out for some common sense to be applied.
 
compuwiz1 said:
There are 4 democratic Senators running for President, who are participating in the impeachment process. Don't even talk to me about conflicts of interest. This is not a trial in a court. This is not a normal trial and expectations that it should follow same procedures and rules would be wrong. I hear a lot of people talking that do not understand this, out there where I live.
Click to expand...
So the Republicans' incessant whining about due process in the impeachment has been utter horseshit? Who knew?
 
compuwiz1 said:
There are 4 democratic Senators running for President, who are participating in the impeachment process. Don't even talk to me about conflicts of interest. This is not a trial in a court. This is not a normal trial and expectations that it should follow same procedures and rules would be wrong. I hear a lot of people talking that do not understand this, out there where I live.
Click to expand...
It's not a conflict of interest because they believe they're acting in the public interest, obviously.
 
SMOGZINN said:
I don't think running foul of a specific legal statute would matter any more either. After this trial the precedent that will have been set is that a President can't even be investigated unless they willingly cooperate. By claiming absolute immunity, and abusing 'executive privilege' they can keep it tied up in court for years. When the Senate gets away with this they will have removed their ability to be a balance on the President. I know that Republicans think that they are going to get a few court cases after this is all over limiting the abuse of executive privilege and absolute immunity, but any smart President from now on will find some new excuse, no matter how flimsy, on why those court rulings don't apply in this case and require it to be retried, and there is nothing Congress can do about it.
Click to expand...

1. Impeachment was never intended to be applied as requiring violation of a specific criminal statute. There were no federal criminal crimes until 1789 anyway.
2. The ability to delay well past the election absolutely are relevant to why the Senate should put more pressure with their own subpoenas and decide the matter via the second article of impeachment should the admin continue to obstruct well beyond any reasonable arguments of privilege. I feel that even should they suddenly fully comply there is plenty of obstructing acts (defiance of subpoenas, tampering witnesses and jurors, continued coordination with co-conspirators, etc.) making removal on this count necessary, however I can respect earnest difference on this
3. There are actually also criminal violations of law. One in obstruction. But also in running afoul of the impoundment control act in withholding aid, and they obviously knew of this problem in their creative actions to try to circumvent at least awareness of the act. While the impoundment control act is law, it's not criminal law. Even still, conspiracy to violate this law for something of value in an election is definitely a crime.
 
NWRMidnight said:
If Trump can do what ever he believes is best for the country which is him leading it, and is allowed to use foreign governments to help make that happen, what's to stop him from altering or removing our voting rights? The very fact that they believe he can do what ever he wants, even election interference on the premise that the best thing for our country is him leading it, 1) on some level invalidates our voting process, 2) is one of the premises or a building block of a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Democracy is the Enemy of the People!
 
Was that seriously a question as to whether impeaching the president is undermining future elections by preventing him from running again?

Who the fuck is seriously contemplating these thoughts and how did they take office?
 
compuwiz1 said:
There are 4 democratic Senators running for President, who are participating in the impeachment process. Don't even talk to me about conflicts of interest. This is not a trial in a court. This is not a normal trial and expectations that it should follow same procedures and rules would be wrong. I hear a lot of people talking that do not understand this, out there where I live.
Click to expand...

That's hardly the same. Dem Senators did not participate in the high crimes described in the writ. If Graham knew of them as they unfolded then he is complicit & corrupt. Trump's lawyers aren't arguing that those events did not occur but rather that it's fine that they did. That's deeply immoral & utterly wrong, but who cares, right? Y'all knew that about Trump the first time you voted for him.
 
compuwiz1 said:
There are 4 democratic Senators running for President, who are participating in the impeachment process. Don't even talk to me about conflicts of interest. This is not a trial in a court. This is not a normal trial and expectations that it should follow same procedures and rules would be wrong. I hear a lot of people talking that do not understand this, out there where I live.
Click to expand...

the person running the trial declared himself biased before the trial ever started.
 
compuwiz1 said:
There are 4 democratic Senators running for President, who are participating in the impeachment process. Don't even talk to me about conflicts of interest. This is not a trial in a court. This is not a normal trial and expectations that it should follow same procedures and rules would be wrong. I hear a lot of people talking that do not understand this, out there where I live.
Click to expand...


So..

You are saying (Person on trial + Juror running against person on trial) = (Person on trial + Juror who was driving the get away for the person on trial)
 
interchange said:
1. Impeachment was never intended to be applied as requiring violation of a specific criminal statute. There were no federal criminal crimes until 1789 anyway.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Impeachment was always intended to be a balance on a strong executive. The Founding Fathers made it clear that they were much more afraid of the President becoming a king than Congress overstepping it's bounds.

2. The ability to delay well past the election absolutely are relevant to why the Senate should put more pressure with their own subpoenas and decide the matter via the second article of impeachment should the admin continue to obstruct well beyond any reasonable arguments of privilege. I feel that even should they suddenly fully comply there is plenty of obstructing acts (defiance of subpoenas, tampering witnesses and jurors, continued coordination with co-conspirators, etc.) making removal on this count necessary, however I can respect earnest difference on this
Click to expand...

How do you do this if the Executive branch simply refuses to cooperate? What happens when, not if, they send the Sargent-at-Arms and the Whitehouse, DOJ, etc. simply refuses to acknowledge his authority and bar him access to the witness or documents being subpoenaed? That was the reason the House didn't try that tactic, it was almost certainly going to make matters worse, because once he is denied they have basically two choices, authorize him to use violence, and very likely start a civil war, or go to court. Might as well skip the step and just go to the courts.

3. There are actually also criminal violations of law. One in obstruction. But also in running afoul of the impoundment control act in withholding aid, and they obviously knew of this problem in their creative actions to try to circumvent at least awareness of the act. While the impoundment control act is law, it's not criminal law. Even still, conspiracy to violate this law for something of value in an election is definitely a crime.
Click to expand...

Once again I agree. In fact I think there were several other laws broken during all this, as well as the Emoluments clause.
 
Schiff is destroying the white house councils argument that the subpoenas the house issued before the impeachment resolution were invalid.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top