Trump is smarter than Bill was. He won't perjure himself when he lies about his crimes.I think what he meant to say was that impeachment should be reserved for very serious affairs, such as a consensual sexual act.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trump is smarter than Bill was. He won't perjure himself when he lies about his crimes.I think what he meant to say was that impeachment should be reserved for very serious affairs, such as a consensual sexual act.
Also, some of them were for "abuse of power," which apparently shouldn't ever be grounds for impeachment.Since you brought up federal judge impeachment, there have been 15 such trials held in the Senate and all 15 heard witness testimony. Regardless of charges or articles, some were removed from office and some were not. Witness testimony has a place in trial proceedings.
Republican judges or Democrat judges?
I think what he meant to say was that impeachment should be reserved for very serious affairs, such as a consensual sexual act.
Clinton wasn’t disbarred because he had consensual sex.I think what he meant to say was that impeachment should be reserved for very serious affairs, such as a consensual sexual act.
I think what he meant to say was that impeachment should be reserved for very serious affairs, such as a consensual sexual act.
Have you had a stroke? You're frightening me.Clinton wasn’t disbarred because he had consensual sex.
You wrote: "That would not happen if those participating in a meeting know that anything they might say would be made public." Nobody in their right mind would ever think the contents of a meeting with Trump will be kept secret, unless it serves King Donnie or Putin.I don’t agree. Privileges are established for sound public policy reasons. As courts have often stated, frank, candid, and robust discussions between an executive and staff is important and even vital for good and efficient government. That would not happen if those participating in a meeting know that anything they might say would be made public. I have asserted EP, as well as other privileges, knowing that the material excluded would be helpful to our side.
Edit: I have no doubt that past presidents as well as the current one use EP to withhold embarrassing information. But “embarrassing” is not an exception to otherwise privileged information.
I think we have separation of powers problems if we use impeachment as an exception to EP. I think impeachable conduct should be conduct proven by extrinsic evidence.
I think it’s more likely his attorneys won’t let him. And I don’t think Bill knew he could just refuse to show up and not send over any documents. That’s a new option. But I do think he lied in his answers to Mueller. Can’t recall what it was but something having to do with Roger Stone.Trump is smarter than Bill was. He won't perjure himself when he lies about his crimes.
Since you brought up federal judge impeachment, there have been 15 such trials held in the Senate and all 15 heard witness testimony. Regardless of charges or articles, some were removed from office and some were not. Witness testimony has a place in trial proceedings.
You originally said this:
I said this in response to this argument:
You can disagree, but dismissing it out of hand as something other than a coherent argument only serves to show that you can't frame any response to justify your disagreement.
No, my argument is that your argument that EP should never yield to impeachment makes no sense. Stop trying to take your own stupidity and transfer it to me. You're the one who drew this nonsense line to begin with, not me.“to argue that Congress must investigate the White House without any access to the inner workings of the White House itself is to argue that impeachment is stupid, and should be rendered toothless, making the President effectively an autarch”.
Your argument seems to be that executive privilege should always yield to impeachment proceedings. That makes EP worthless and that makes no sense. My point is that congress cannot blow through executive privilege in search of grounds for impeachment. That isn’t oversight. It’s a clear elimination of separation of powers.
Oh, and I don’t think applying EP makes impeachment stupid or rendered toothless. Congress has significant investigative power not to mention DOJ investigations that can form a basis for impeachment. You are selling nonsense with this argument.
Witnesses already testified to what Bolton supposedly would say
No, my argument is that your argument that EP should never yield to impeachment makes no sense. Stop trying to take your own stupidity and transfer it to me. You're the one who drew this nonsense line to begin with, not me.
With all the talk about Executive Privilege, it's important to note that Trump has yet to assert it. Instead, he has just issued a blanket "Fxck you." So all the EP nonsense is a diversion. Trumps real stand is based on Absolute Immunity.Again, there has been no determination regarding EP with any witness or document. It’s just a term some people use to justify wholesale obstruction of congress.
No, my argument is that your argument that EP should never yield to impeachment makes no sense.
Yeah he does seem to be arguing that. I was simply responding to his claim that all courts safeguard EP. Clearly the SCOTUS (and yes I know it was a GJ and not impeachment) back then did not agree that POTUS should enjoy absolute EP.Based on the vague references COH is making, I believe the "nuance" you are missing is the "judicial process" quoted above. The Nixon case was in the context of a criminal grand jury investigation, not an impeachment. COH is essentially arguing that, even if the Executive doesn't have absolute EP in the context of a grand jury, it should have absolutely EP in the context of an impeachment.
I've already presented my argument against yours. You claiming it isn't cogent doesn't make it so. Please, don't deign to "stipulate" anything for me. Either find the balls necessary to simply disagree like an adult, or stop trying to goad me.Yes, that’s my argument. You haven’t argued otherwise in a cogent fashion. To youse your framework, I’ll stipulate that it could handcuff congress (although I think that is highly unlikely for reasons I stated) but so what? That is the nature of privileged evidence.
He’s acting like EP is some magical concept that the POTUS can use to cover anything and everything without an analysis as to whether it even applies to discrete issues and areas. It would be like going into court and telling the judge the reason you refuse to respond to discovery and disregard depo notices is because AC privilege. Yes, it is a valid privilege but your ass will be sanctioned because you didn’t even attempt to apply it correctly.
Again, there has been no determination regarding EP with any witness or document. It’s just a term some people use to justify wholesale obstruction of congress.
I've already presented my argument against yours. You claiming it isn't cogent doesn't make it so. Please, don't deign to "stipulate" anything for me. Either find the balls necessary to simply disagree like an adult, or stop trying to goad me.
You're not engaging in the Socratic method. You're engaging in evasion and arrogance. And if it were genuinely the Socratic method, I'd tell you to kiss off. You're not my mentor. Just because you're old doesn't mean you know anything about anything.Yes, I’m trying to goad you into focusing on your reasons for running around privilege. That’s called Socratic method. I stipulated to handcuffing to take away that argument. I think you kinda want to argue for a balancing test, but you haven’t gone there So I don’t know what the hell you are trying to say.
You're not engaging in the Socratic method. You're engaging in evasion and arrogance. And if it were genuinely the Socratic method, I'd tell you to kiss off. You're not my mentor. Just because you're old doesn't mean you know anything about anything.
If you ever want to have an even discussion as adults, let me know. Until then, cheers.
Mitch McDonald.I've not been able to so. If anyone can give an unbiased, impartial, emotionally detached summary of the events, please do so.
TIA.
... pettifoggery?You're not engaging in the Socratic method. You're engaging in ...
the socratic method is just a pedantic way for one party to address another. and i doubt Co Hoosier had any malice at all but it's impossible not to agree with the originalhappygoat. it connotes or implies a teacher/student relationship. Kiss off is a fair response to same.... pettifoggery?
the socratic method is just a pedantic way for one party to address another. and i doubt Co Hoosier had any malice at all but it's impossible not to agree with the originalhappygoat. it connotes or implies a teacher/student relationship. Kiss off is a fair response to same.
Damn the goal posts have really moved here.
It's a tactic used by teachers to foster critical thinking. as a method of dialogue, i agree, any two persons can use it to discuss an issue. you are absolutely correct. that said, the manner you use it comes across as more akin to the teacher/student scenario. just an impression. continue on.That’s wrong. A teacher might employ the Socratic method to bring out thinking depth in a student. Many law students have learned this way. But the reverse is not true. The presence of Socratic dialogue does not necessarily imply a student teacher relationship. Any group of individuals can employ Socratic debate or method as a means of discussing any issue.
Proof positive that you're just spinning. It's useless to engage with you.When Mueller flopped, the Dems moved on to Ukraine with that phony whistleblower stunt.
...he says as he moves them yet again, which he absolutely doesn't do, but is perfectly acceptable when he does. If he did. Which he doesn't.Can we stick a fork in this whole goal post moving BS? Bringing that up is never relevant and it’s usually a way to avoid saying anything important. Argument and discussion is a dynamic process. Goal posts are supposed to move as matters progress.
Damn the goal posts have really moved here.
Can we stick a fork in this whole goal post moving BS? Bringing that up is never relevant and it’s usually a way to avoid saying anything important. Argument and discussion is a dynamic process. Goal posts are supposed to move as matters progress.
Maybe it makes for a good lawyer and a shitty everything else.What a load of bull. You move the goalposts on nearly every "discussion." Then when you get called on it you double down and change them again. There is no argument and discussion when the object of said argument and discussion changes every other post.
Maybe it makes for a good lawyer and a shitty everything else.
Proof positive that you're just spinning. It's useless to engage with you.
...he says as he moves them yet again, which he absolutely doesn't do, but is perfectly acceptable when he does. If he did. Which he doesn't.
What a load of bull. You move the goalposts on nearly every "discussion." Then when you get called on it you double down and change them again. There is no argument and discussion when the object of said argument and discussion changes every other post.
A pretty clear bright line is when it involves tampering with federal elections.Where are you going to draw that line between impeachment worthy abuse and garden variety abuse?
"Get over it. We do that all the time with foreign policy."A pretty clear bright line is when it involves tampering with federal elections.
I think that can be put on the table if you were to ever admit you were wrong...... about anything. Until then..... no...... they can’t be removed.Can we stick a fork in this whole goal post moving BS? Bringing that up is never relevant and it’s usually a way to avoid saying anything important. Argument and discussion is a dynamic process. Goal posts are supposed to move as matters progress.