Dinner download - Tape surfaces of Trump calling for envoy's firing

[Chiphigh]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

 But it is not an opinion, the official portraits were either send out or weren't, trump told you the truth or he didn't.

Do you like being lied to? I am sure you don't, so prove me wrong, or you will have to reconsider your opinion of trump. which in the privacy of your conscience I am sure you already are.

More virtue signaling, it really is a sad thing to try and spin this into something other than that. 

[Chiphigh]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

And a president can be removed for doing so for unlawful reasons. Not for the removal, but for the reason.

Can you please tell me what could be unlawful about removing an ambassador for any reason by a president. 

 

I'll wait for your legal review and dazzling wizardry. 

[Cory1848]

3 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Except for the pesky little thing called an election. She serves at the pleasure of the president. She was vehemently against him. She should have been replaced on day one like Obama had done with all political appointees 

For the millionth time, she was not a political appointee -- she's a career diplomat! Why are simple facts so hard to digest?

[Cory1848]

3 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Please tell me you can't possibly think firing an ambassador that is not working on the presidents policy is in any way impeachment material. 

 

You can't possibly think that can you? 

If the "president's policy" is to seek foreign assistance to dig up dirt on a political opponent, then that is totally impeachable. He was not impeached for firing an ambassador; he was impeached for illegally seeking foreign assistance to influence a US election. The ambassador is to be commended for refusing to facilitate illegal behavior.

[Cory1848]

3 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Sorry, an ambassador can be removed by the president at any time in any way he chooses. 

Yes, and the president’s lawyers have also argued that he is literally beyond the reach of the law -- that he literally could shoot someone dead and get away with it, because he’s the president. An executive with such power is not part of a democracy; he creates tyranny; and it is this that the House of Representatives is seeking to curtail with impeachment proceedings. I don’t know what your nationality is, but if you favor unlimited executive authority (at least as long as you like the person in charge), then you are no American.

[Chomper Higgot]

42 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Can you please tell me what could be unlawful about removing an ambassador for any reason by a president. 

 

I'll wait for your legal review and dazzling wizardry. 

As has been explained to you multiple times, the POTUS does not have the right to take any action for corrupt or criminal reasons, including removal of an Ambassador.

[Chrysaora]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

As has been explained to you multiple times, the POTUS does not have the right to take any action for corrupt or criminal reasons, including removal of an Ambassador.

You lack flowcharts.

 

Is the POTUS able to remove a government employee as he sees fit?

 

Yes

 

Go to End

 

Notice there was no line about it being corrupt or criminal as that is for a court to decide. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Chrysaora said:

You lack flowcharts.

 

Is the POTUS able to remove a government employee as he sees fit?

 

Yes

 

Go to End

 

Notice there was no line about it being corrupt or criminal as that is for a court to decide. 

You lack an understanding of the law and the constitution.

[Chrysaora]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You lack an understanding of the law and the constitution.

My JD and my bar card would disagree.  

 

I'm game, so tell me about my lack of understanding.

[Cory1848]

13 minutes ago, Chrysaora said:

You lack flowcharts.

 

Is the POTUS able to remove a government employee as he sees fit?

 

Yes

 

Go to End

 

Notice there was no line about it being corrupt or criminal as that is for a court to decide. 

But when the president prevents relevant witnesses from appearing before that court claiming “executive privilege” and gums up the whole judicial process with endless lawsuits and appeals, that’s obstruction of justice, which is itself a crime. If you favor not only the president’s authority to fire whomever he chooses on a whim but also his ability to supersede the judicial system, at least on paper a coequal branch or government, then you favor dictatorship. Unfortunately, you’re not alone in that ...

[Chrysaora]

1 minute ago, Cory1848 said:

But when the president prevents relevant witnesses from appearing before that court claiming “executive privilege” and gums up the whole judicial process with endless lawsuits and appeals, that’s obstruction of justice, which is itself a crime. If you favor not only the president’s authority to fire whomever he chooses on a whim but also his ability to supersede the judicial system, at least on paper a coequal branch or government, then you favor dictatorship. Unfortunately, you’re not alone in that ...

This is where you people go off the rails.  The process as you call it, much like lawmaking, was created to be as you put it "gummed up."  When the President exercises something that afforded to him as head of the Executive Branch, that isn't gumming up anything.  It is the process. 

 

If you don't like it, change the laws and Constitutions.  Oh, good luck with that.

 

If you need a flowchart, the line goes to:

 

START WHINING

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>End

[Cory1848]

19 minutes ago, Chrysaora said:

This is where you people go off the rails.  The process as you call it, much like lawmaking, was created to be as you put it "gummed up."  When the President exercises something that afforded to him as head of the Executive Branch, that isn't gumming up anything.  It is the process. 

 

If you don't like it, change the laws and Constitutions.  Oh, good luck with that.

 

If you need a flowchart, the line goes to:

 

START WHINING

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>End

I understand from above that you have some kind of legal training. I don't, but I do know that lawyers can make a case for just about anything ("bring lawyers, guns, and money," right?). You, however, resort to name-calling ("you people" ??) and pounding your fists into your chest. Have a good rest of your day, man ...

[bristolboy]

45 minutes ago, Chrysaora said:

You lack flowcharts.

 

Is the POTUS able to remove a government employee as he sees fit?

 

Yes

 

Go to End

 

Notice there was no line about it being corrupt or criminal as that is for a court to decide. 

Actually as far as it being corrupt it's also for Congress to decide. You know via impeachment in the House and then a trial in the Senate. 

[Chrysaora]

4 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

I understand from above that you have some kind of legal training. I don't, but I do know that lawyers can make a case for just about anything ("bring lawyers, guns, and money," right?). You, however, resort to name-calling ("you people" ??) and pounding your fists into your chest. Have a good rest of your day, man ...

Fist pounding .. wow.  Are you Clairvoyant as well as knowing the law with no legal training?

[Chrysaora]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually as far as it being corrupt it's also for Congress to decide. You know via impeachment in the House and then a trial in the Senate. 

It's not a criminal trial.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Chrysaora said:

It's not a criminal trial.

That's true. It's not a criminal trial. You should tell that to the Republicans. They don't seem to understand that there doesn't have to be an allegation of a felony for a President to be impeached and tried in the Senate.

[bristolboy]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

I won't recommend farming to you, Instead you should try cultivating an acquaintance with actual history and what the Founding Fathers meant by what is impeachable. They specifically ruled out confining impeachment only to crimes. There is plenty of evidence for that. 

For example, "misdemeanor" back then had another, and prior,  meaning. Which makes sense. Why would a misdemeanor in the modern sense of a very minor legal infraction be considered grounds for impeachment?

"According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the oldest meaning of “misdemeanor” is “misconduct.”

"My review of a very large online database of texts from when the Constitution was drafted and ratified indicates that “misdemeanor” was used both in the sense of “petty crime” and “misconduct,” or “misbehavior,” in the Founding Era.

A 1773 newspaper excerpt from the papers of John Adams contains this quote: “If an office be granted to hold so long as he behaves himself well in the office, that is an estate for life, unless he lose it for misbehaviour; for it hath an annexed condition to be forfeited upon misdemeanor, and this by law is annexed to all offices, they being trusts; and misdemeanors in an office is a breach of trust.” 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/24/dershowitz-misdemeanors-high-crimes-impeachment-constitution-104073

 

Inside the Founding Fathers’ Debate Over What Constituted an Impeachable Offense

"Of all the Founders who debated impeachment, three Virginians—Mason, Madison and delegate Edmund Randolph—did the most to set down a vision of when Congress should remove a president from office. Though the men had very different positions on the Constitution, their debates in Philadelphia and at Virginia’s ratifying convention in Richmond produced crucial definitions of an impeachable offense. And their ultimate agreement—that a president should be impeached for abuses of power that subvert the Constitution, the integrity of government, or the rule of law—remains essential to the debates we’re having today, 230 years later."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/

The above article also describes James Madison's crucial role in creating the impeachment clauses of the Constitution. Do you know who James Madison is? He's commonly called the Father of the Constitution. He certainly didn't believe that impeachment should only be confined to criminal acts by the President.

 

Anyway, it's shameful that an unsophisticated farmer like me clearly knows a lot more about the subject than do you. Educate yourself.

 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Scott

[neeray]

12 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

There's no evidence that anything was done for a corrupt purpose.

That's just too funny.

 

"give me an investigation, or at least announce it, and I'll give you the $391,000,000 that's already been approved (the money that I am holding until you cooperate)".

 

Yes, too funny.

[neeray]

11 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Impeachment was the goal since long before this made up threat to national security. 

 

You have lost another attempt. But we know they'll keep trying. 

Of course impeachment was the goal long prior to the quid pro quo that really brought it on.

Democrats recognized immediately that an uneducated, gangster buffoon with no political experience would be harmful to America. He had shown his true colours long before the Russians helped him steal the election.

Thus, democrats rose to the cause to rid the country of this toxic POTUS.

[sirineou]

On 1/27/2020 at 7:58 AM, Chiphigh said:

Can you please tell me what could be unlawful about removing an ambassador for any reason by a president. 

 

I'll wait for your legal review and dazzling wizardry. 

trump is not being impeached for removing the ambasador, 

It is not the removal that was illegal, it was the reason.