My Meme About Executive Privilege And Criminal Cover-Up Triggered A Complex
reply
flag
5 ups, 3h,
3 replies
For all 45 Presidents, Executive Privilege has been a necessary part of the Constitutional separation of powers. It's only about shielding a crime if a crime has been committed. There has been no crime, as all evidence shows, but the left is using their innuendo to pretend that not calling a person is a coverup. They don't get to question everyone about every discussion that was privileged.
More leftist nonsense.
More leftist nonsense.
reply
delete
flag
3 ups, 2h,
2 replies
Trump has been a criminal throughout his adult life.
Whether he's convicted in the senate (which will happen if a secret ballot is enacted) he will be convicted in "the court of popular opinion."
Are you opposed to a secret ballot?
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/480294-trumps-impeachment-trial-requires-a-secret-ballot
As I wrote in the prelude to my Facebook post:
"Why does the rudimentary advisability of a secret ballot strike terror in the hearts of Trump and his cultists?
YOU use a secret ballot and would be outraged if deprived of it.
PS
A Compendium Of Best Pax Posts About Trump's Rampant, Life-Long Criminality
https://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-compendium-of-best-pax-posts.html
Whether he's convicted in the senate (which will happen if a secret ballot is enacted) he will be convicted in "the court of popular opinion."
Are you opposed to a secret ballot?
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/480294-trumps-impeachment-trial-requires-a-secret-ballot
As I wrote in the prelude to my Facebook post:
"Why does the rudimentary advisability of a secret ballot strike terror in the hearts of Trump and his cultists?
YOU use a secret ballot and would be outraged if deprived of it.
PS
A Compendium Of Best Pax Posts About Trump's Rampant, Life-Long Criminality
https://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-compendium-of-best-pax-posts.html
reply
flag
0 ups, 2h,
1 reply
Besides... if he's convicted "in the court of popular opinion" (which he's not been, but you imagine he has), no one is hurt with an open vote... If the public supports his removal, they will support those that remove him. You defeat your own argument.
reply
delete
flag
1 up, <1h class="c-reply-count" div="" nbsp="" style="cursor: pointer; display: inline;">2 replies
It is not a question of "no one being hurt by an open vote."
It's a question of whether truth would be better served by a secret ballot.
Clearly, Democrats will vote the same way in any event.
But you are VERY doubtful Republicans would vote to acquit Malignant Messiah if they could -- by secret ballot -- condemn the criminal-thug-liar-cheat-mobster, thus getting free of Mafia Don's background threats to cause them deadly political harm.
PS A new Fox poll "released Sunday and conducted as the Senate impeachment trial began in earnest, found that 50 percent of Americans think the Senate should vote to convict and remove Trump, while 44 percent believe the upper chamber should not vote to remove the president." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/479973-fox-news-poll-half-of-americans-say-trump-should-be-convicted-and
Furthermore, the percentage of Americans who want Trump convicted and removed from office has been rising consistently.
When Bolton testifies, the percentage of the citizenry who want Malignant Messiah removed will spike even higher.
I look forward to your next contortionist justification of America's worst "president" ever.
It's a question of whether truth would be better served by a secret ballot.
Clearly, Democrats will vote the same way in any event.
But you are VERY doubtful Republicans would vote to acquit Malignant Messiah if they could -- by secret ballot -- condemn the criminal-thug-liar-cheat-mobster, thus getting free of Mafia Don's background threats to cause them deadly political harm.
PS A new Fox poll "released Sunday and conducted as the Senate impeachment trial began in earnest, found that 50 percent of Americans think the Senate should vote to convict and remove Trump, while 44 percent believe the upper chamber should not vote to remove the president." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/479973-fox-news-poll-half-of-americans-say-trump-should-be-convicted-and
Furthermore, the percentage of Americans who want Trump convicted and removed from office has been rising consistently.
When Bolton testifies, the percentage of the citizenry who want Malignant Messiah removed will spike even higher.
I look forward to your next contortionist justification of America's worst "president" ever.
reply
flag
0 ups, <1h div="">
"I look forward to your next contortionist justification of America's worst "president" ever."
I've neither defended Obama nor Carter, number 1 and 2 on the worst presidents list. But sadly, both were presidents, without quotations. Same as Trump.
Truth will not be served at all via a secret ballot. It's an open impeachment, open vote. Period. No reason to have a secret ballot at all. None. Except, as clearly stated, you want GOP senators to have a chance to remove him from office, not because of phony imagined crimes, but because they don't like him personally and just want the chance to remove him.
He's been accused publicly of things the evidence shows he did not do. The vote should be public as well. Common sense.
Not sure why you call Trump a Messiah, there is only one of those and Trump is not it. You need some education.
Polls don't matter, only the evidence does and the evidence is clear as it has been for this whole debacle. No crime. No justification to impeach. Acquittal the only correct response to save our country from these leftist loons who hate it so much.
Bottom line... Trump's been better than I expected. Didn't vote for him in 2016, probably won't in 2020 either... but this circus of the left is an stain on America.
I've neither defended Obama nor Carter, number 1 and 2 on the worst presidents list. But sadly, both were presidents, without quotations. Same as Trump.
Truth will not be served at all via a secret ballot. It's an open impeachment, open vote. Period. No reason to have a secret ballot at all. None. Except, as clearly stated, you want GOP senators to have a chance to remove him from office, not because of phony imagined crimes, but because they don't like him personally and just want the chance to remove him.
He's been accused publicly of things the evidence shows he did not do. The vote should be public as well. Common sense.
Not sure why you call Trump a Messiah, there is only one of those and Trump is not it. You need some education.
Polls don't matter, only the evidence does and the evidence is clear as it has been for this whole debacle. No crime. No justification to impeach. Acquittal the only correct response to save our country from these leftist loons who hate it so much.
Bottom line... Trump's been better than I expected. Didn't vote for him in 2016, probably won't in 2020 either... but this circus of the left is an stain on America.
reply
flag
0 ups, <1h div="">
"It is not a question of "no one being hurt by an open vote.""
Yet that's what you implied when you said GOP would only vote him out if they could do a secret ballot. I demonstrated your ignorance by pointing out that if the public wants him out (which they don't), they an open ballot would not hurt them and they would be free to vote him out openly as well as in secret.
No the clear truth is that no case has been made to remove him from office. None. No evidence of any wrongdoing at all.
But there are those who don't like him, GOP and DNC alike, and would love to remove him WITHOUT CAUSE through the lunacy of a secret ballot.
That's your wet dream...
Who cares about the election?
Who cares about the will of the people?
Who cares about right and wrong?
Who cares about this country?
Not the left, that's for sure.
Yet that's what you implied when you said GOP would only vote him out if they could do a secret ballot. I demonstrated your ignorance by pointing out that if the public wants him out (which they don't), they an open ballot would not hurt them and they would be free to vote him out openly as well as in secret.
No the clear truth is that no case has been made to remove him from office. None. No evidence of any wrongdoing at all.
But there are those who don't like him, GOP and DNC alike, and would love to remove him WITHOUT CAUSE through the lunacy of a secret ballot.
That's your wet dream...
Who cares about the election?
Who cares about the will of the people?
Who cares about right and wrong?
Who cares about this country?
Not the left, that's for sure.
reply
flag
0 ups, 2h,
1 reply
No need for secret ballot. This is a senate matter of public record. Votes like most in congress should of course be public. Your hope is that with a secret ballot those who realize Trump is not guilty (as we all do based on the evidence) can still remove him because they don’t like him.
No. No need for secret ballot.
No. No need for secret ballot.
reply
delete
flag
1 up, <1h class="c-reply-count" div="" nbsp="" style="cursor: pointer; display: inline;">1 reply
There is no constitutional (or otherwise legally-specified) need for the Senate to vote openly.
"Trump's Impeachment Trial Could Use A Secret Ballot"
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/480294-trumps-impeachment-trial-requires-a-secret-ballot
"Jeff Flake says 35 Senate Republicans would vote to convict Trump if impeachment featured a secret ballot."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-flake-says-35-senate-republicans-would-vote-to-convict-trump-if-impeachment-featured-a-secret-ballot-2019-09-27
Conservatives seem to think they only have to "make an argument" to be "right"... not that their arguments need to be factual.
"Trump's Impeachment Trial Could Use A Secret Ballot"
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/480294-trumps-impeachment-trial-requires-a-secret-ballot
"Jeff Flake says 35 Senate Republicans would vote to convict Trump if impeachment featured a secret ballot."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-flake-says-35-senate-republicans-would-vote-to-convict-trump-if-impeachment-featured-a-secret-ballot-2019-09-27
Conservatives seem to think they only have to "make an argument" to be "right"... not that their arguments need to be factual.
reply
flag
0 ups, <1h div="">
Never said there was a requirement for an open ballot. You can read can't you?
I pointed out the truth that there is clearly NO REASON for a secret ballot. The only right answer is an open ballot.
I pointed out the truth that there is clearly NO REASON for a secret ballot. The only right answer is an open ballot.
reply
flag
1 up, 2h,
2 replies
Correct... you have no right to discover evidence of a possible crime. American law 101. If there is a crime, you investigate it. We have no crime. You don't get to go fishing for a crime (or more accurately, posture innocent actions to "look" like a crime)
reply
delete
flag
1 up, <1h class="c-reply-count" div="" nbsp="" style="cursor: pointer; display: inline;">2 replies
John Bolton, the most hawkish, straight-arrow Republican in recent memory, begs to differ.
reply
flag
0 ups, <1h div="">
He did play that role well didn't he. Turns out he hates the country and the Constitution by playing along with this monkey trial.
reply
delete
flag
0 ups, <1h div="">
"Turns out he hates the country and the Constitution."
My God!
Such presumptuous drivel.
Bolton -- a very highly regarded conservative (at least among conservatives) -- claims he was witness to a crime.
And you're saying "We have no crime" and therefore no right to investigate it.
Apparently you believe a crime only exists if it is proven that a crime happened.
You can't "put the cart before the horse."
It's preposterous! (... literally "putting the front, behind.") https://www.etymonline.com/word/preposterous
There was already enough evidence for probably cause.
But now that we have Bolton's eyewitness, insider testimony, there is probable cause for more than one crime. And God only knows what his ENTIRE book will reveal.
But apparently, you're sticking to your absurd claim that the Senate doesn't need to investigate because there was no crime?!?
It's hard to believe that so many American conservatives have not only been suckered but choose to recite their abuser's ridiculous talking points.
Once probable cause is established, it is The Purpose Of The Trial to determine if there a crime had been committed.
Firm determination whether or not a crime has been committed is NOT a pre-requisite for conducting a trial.
***
But stepping outside your quicksand for a moment...
Just how does John Bolton "hate the country and the Constitution?"
Seriously, please put your rationale in writing.
To quote our illustrious president, you can't just blow smoke from "your wherever."
Evidence!
Not fact-free oratory and rhetoric.
Evidence!
Again, the investigation of truth is not about devising good arguments de novo, ex nihilo.
Investigation of Truth gets down to the nitty-gritty, calling witnesses and examining evidence.
My God!
Such presumptuous drivel.
Bolton -- a very highly regarded conservative (at least among conservatives) -- claims he was witness to a crime.
And you're saying "We have no crime" and therefore no right to investigate it.
Apparently you believe a crime only exists if it is proven that a crime happened.
You can't "put the cart before the horse."
It's preposterous! (... literally "putting the front, behind.") https://www.etymonline.com/word/preposterous
There was already enough evidence for probably cause.
But now that we have Bolton's eyewitness, insider testimony, there is probable cause for more than one crime. And God only knows what his ENTIRE book will reveal.
But apparently, you're sticking to your absurd claim that the Senate doesn't need to investigate because there was no crime?!?
It's hard to believe that so many American conservatives have not only been suckered but choose to recite their abuser's ridiculous talking points.
Once probable cause is established, it is The Purpose Of The Trial to determine if there a crime had been committed.
Firm determination whether or not a crime has been committed is NOT a pre-requisite for conducting a trial.
***
But stepping outside your quicksand for a moment...
Just how does John Bolton "hate the country and the Constitution?"
Seriously, please put your rationale in writing.
To quote our illustrious president, you can't just blow smoke from "your wherever."
Evidence!
Not fact-free oratory and rhetoric.
Evidence!
Again, the investigation of truth is not about devising good arguments de novo, ex nihilo.
Investigation of Truth gets down to the nitty-gritty, calling witnesses and examining evidence.
reply
flag
1 up, 2h
Lol these arguments, much like the GOP Senate itself, want to skip straight to acquittal.
No. What you said is not “American Law 101.”
Impeachment is not perfectly analogous to a routine criminal case. That said, the comparison is instructive.
In criminal law, if a prosecutor thinks there is enough solid evidence of a crime — then they file an indictment, which is analogous to the impeachment articles which were filed here, and if a grand jury sees it the same way, then that starts the criminal process.
The prosecutor doesn’t have to dismiss the charges just because there might be some doubt. The Defendant’s guilt or innocence is determined after a full and fair trial.
And the right to a fair trial is held by both the Defendant *and* the State (also called “the people”). The Defendant’s attorney usually gets more leeway than the prosecutor, but he or she can’t get away with literally anything, or he or she will be sanctioned by the Court.
And compared to a typical criminal trial, the President — with the help of the GOP Senate — has been able to stack the deck much more in his favor in terms of the evidence the “prosecution” has been able to collect. The “executive privilege” simply doesn’t exist for typical defendants charged with a crime.
No. What you said is not “American Law 101.”
Impeachment is not perfectly analogous to a routine criminal case. That said, the comparison is instructive.
In criminal law, if a prosecutor thinks there is enough solid evidence of a crime — then they file an indictment, which is analogous to the impeachment articles which were filed here, and if a grand jury sees it the same way, then that starts the criminal process.
The prosecutor doesn’t have to dismiss the charges just because there might be some doubt. The Defendant’s guilt or innocence is determined after a full and fair trial.
And the right to a fair trial is held by both the Defendant *and* the State (also called “the people”). The Defendant’s attorney usually gets more leeway than the prosecutor, but he or she can’t get away with literally anything, or he or she will be sanctioned by the Court.
And compared to a typical criminal trial, the President — with the help of the GOP Senate — has been able to stack the deck much more in his favor in terms of the evidence the “prosecution” has been able to collect. The “executive privilege” simply doesn’t exist for typical defendants charged with a crime.
reply
flag
2 ups, 3h
Exactly.
reply
flag
2 ups, 2h
Right, it’s for the protection of the executive deliberative process and of sensitive national security information, not a total shield against discovery
All Administrations assert executive privilege from time to time, but these disputes typically get resolved through negotiation, and never before in our history have the claims been this wide-ranging or the typical horse-trading process broken down to this extent
Of note, Nixon’s executive privilege claims about the tapes under subpoena were unanimously overruled by the Supreme Court
Trump’s claims of “executive privilege“ are particularly weak in this instance because he gets on Twitter and tweets about the very things and conversations this case is about including totally gratuitous information like selling anti-tank missiles to Ukraine
If broadcasting this information to the entire world via Twitter is not a waiver of executive privilege, then I don’t know what is
More evidence that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and will say or do anything to make himself look good
All Administrations assert executive privilege from time to time, but these disputes typically get resolved through negotiation, and never before in our history have the claims been this wide-ranging or the typical horse-trading process broken down to this extent
Of note, Nixon’s executive privilege claims about the tapes under subpoena were unanimously overruled by the Supreme Court
Trump’s claims of “executive privilege“ are particularly weak in this instance because he gets on Twitter and tweets about the very things and conversations this case is about including totally gratuitous information like selling anti-tank missiles to Ukraine
If broadcasting this information to the entire world via Twitter is not a waiver of executive privilege, then I don’t know what is
More evidence that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and will say or do anything to make himself look good
No comments:
Post a Comment