[POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It? - page 11.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: nutildah on October 13, 2019, 10:40:00 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 08:38:54 AM

Nixon was being investigated under a criminal proceeding, which was the basis for subpoenas, which he defied, which was the basis for the article of impeachment against him. Anything else is just you attempting to redefine my argument and demanding I defend your interpretation.

You're now saying one thing lead to the other. Before you were saying one thing was the same as the other, which is not true.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 04:49:06 AM

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. I think you at least understand this now.

You two repeating your preferred interpretation of my words doesn't change what I actually said. The impeachment was based on a criminal proceeding, now its not. Your endless regurgitation is just a sad attempt at distracting from the premise, which is correct.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 08:38:54 AM

Nixon was being investigated under a criminal proceeding, which was the basis for subpoenas, which he defied, which was the basis for the article of impeachment against him. Anything else is just you attempting to redefine my argument and demanding I defend your interpretation.

You're now saying one thing lead to the other. Before you were saying one thing was the same as the other, which is not true.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 04:49:06 AM

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

An impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding. I think you at least understand this now.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 13, 2019, 08:33:17 AM

You were arguing that the Nixon impeachment proceedings were a criminal proceeding. Go back and read what you wrote dude. You said it more than once. Instead of just admitting you weren't right you're really going to try and convince us that you never said what you were saying? Even though we're on an internet forum where our posts are saved?

Look, here's another example of you not saying the Nixon Impeachment was a criminal proceeding!

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 04:19:02 AM

The currently issued subpoenas have ZERO AUTHORITY under the law because they are issued OUTSIDE of this protocol, unlike the Nixon impeachment, which was a criminal proceeding, unlike the current investigation.

Nixon was being investigated under a criminal proceeding, which was the basis for subpoenas, which he defied, which was the basis for the article of impeachment against him. Anything else is just you attempting to redefine my argument and demanding I defend your interpretation.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 08:16:01 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 13, 2019, 07:55:43 AM

You said "The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding."

You can keep saying you didn't, but you did.

You probably just didn't know what a criminal proceeding was at the time, or weren't familiar with the first article of the constitution. This doesn't make you stupid - so just chill out and stop trying to insist you weren't wrong or you didn't say that. We all have eyes and a brain, you aren't fooling anyone.

I said: The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding."

I did not say: "The Nixon impeachment was a criminal proceeding."

You keep repeating yourself all you like. I an not responsible for defending how you reinterpret my words, only what I actually said.

You were arguing that the Nixon impeachment proceedings were a criminal proceeding. Go back and read what you wrote dude. You said it more than once. Instead of just admitting you weren't right you're really going to try and convince us that you never said what you were saying? Even though we're on an internet forum where our posts are saved?

Look, here's another example of you not saying the Nixon Impeachment was a criminal proceeding!

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 04:19:02 AM

The currently issued subpoenas have ZERO AUTHORITY under the law because they are issued OUTSIDE of this protocol, unlike the Nixon impeachment, which was a criminal proceeding, unlike the current investigation.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 13, 2019, 07:55:43 AM

You said "The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding."

You can keep saying you didn't, but you did.

You probably just didn't know what a criminal proceeding was at the time, or weren't familiar with the first article of the constitution. This doesn't make you stupid - so just chill out and stop trying to insist you weren't wrong or you didn't say that. We all have eyes and a brain, you aren't fooling anyone.

I said: The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding."

I did not say: "The Nixon impeachment was a criminal proceeding."

You keep repeating yourself all you like. I an not responsible for defending how you reinterpret my words, only what I actually said.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 07:21:21 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 13, 2019, 05:28:08 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 03:53:16 AM

Quote from: nutildah on October 13, 2019, 01:57:36 AM

You literally said exactly that:

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 04:49:06 AM

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

Only in your own mind buttercup. Keep stretching for any warped semantic interpretation you can manage.

No that's literally what you said. He quoted you directly.

Sorry but you don't get to reinterpret my words and then demand I defend your interpretation of them. I said what I said, not what you said I said.

You said "The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding."

You can keep saying you didn't, but you did.

You probably just didn't know what a criminal proceeding was at the time, or weren't familiar with the first article of the constitution. This doesn't make you stupid - so just chill out and stop trying to insist you weren't wrong or you didn't say that. We all have eyes and a brain, you aren't fooling anyone.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 13, 2019, 05:28:08 AM

No that's literally what you said. He quoted you directly.

Impeachment is only for removal from office. Impeachment can not extend further than removal from office. A president, or any citizen, can only be charged with a crime in a criminal court - the kind with lawyers and judges. Congress is not a criminal court. (although the Chief Justice is required to preside over a presidential Senate trial)

The house can impeach the president for something that isn't a crime.

The house can subpoena the executive branch even if they don't think a crime has been committed.

Impeachable does not equal criminal.

Criminal does not equal impeachable.

The president has no right or legal standing to declare his own impeachment invalid. It's pretty ridiculous this even needs to be said.

Sorry but you don't get to reinterpret my words and then demand I defend your interpretation of them. I said what I said, not what you said I said.

The premise is that the subpoenas had force of law because they originated from a criminal investigation, making the comparison illegitimate. A crime is not required, but in order for a subpoena to exist, it must have the force of law including a penalty for defying it, which requires a vote in the house, or in Nixon's case a criminal investigation from which to issue the subpoena, the violation of which having legal penalty was the basis of that article of impeachment. In Trumps case there is neither a crime to base a subpoena on, nor a house vote, making them not legally even subpoenas.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 03:53:16 AM

Quote from: nutildah on October 13, 2019, 01:57:36 AM

You literally said exactly that:

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 04:49:06 AM

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

Only in your own mind buttercup. Keep stretching for any warped semantic interpretation you can manage.

No that's literally what you said. He quoted you directly.

Impeachment is only for removal from office. Impeachment can not extend further than removal from office. A president, or any citizen, can only be charged with a crime in a criminal court - the kind with lawyers and judges. Congress is not a criminal court. (although the Chief Justice is required to preside over a presidential Senate trial)

The house can impeach the president for something that isn't a crime.

The house can subpoena the executive branch even if they don't think a crime has been committed.

Impeachable does not equal criminal.

Criminal does not equal impeachable.

The president has no right or legal standing to declare his own impeachment invalid. It's pretty ridiculous this even needs to be said.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: nutildah on October 13, 2019, 01:57:36 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 01:10:43 AM

Quote from: nutildah on October 13, 2019, 01:00:52 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: nutildah on October 12, 2019, 06:10:53 AM

I just find it humorous that you have a stark inability to ever admit you were wrong about something. Sorry for picking on you.

Just because you are desperate to have whatever little gotcha moment you can scrounge up doesn't make me wrong.

Well, you were though. You said that impeachment proceedings were the same thing as a criminal investigation. Its not. Ergo, you were wrong. It doesn't matter what kind of contextual padding or re-arranging you want to do, this statement remains incorrect:

Quote

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

Not at all what I said, but have fun speaking for me and then telling me I am wrong if it makes you feel better Nutilduhhh.

You literally said exactly that:

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 04:49:06 AM

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

Only in your own mind buttercup. Keep stretching for any warped semantic interpretation you can manage.

"it" = The Watergate criminal investigation, upon which the issued subpoenas, on which that particular article of impeachment was based. IE those subpoenas had the force of law of an active criminal investigation giving it legal authority and the ability to be substance for an article of impeachment, thus not a valid comparison to the letters issued to Trump pretending to be subpoenas.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 01:10:43 AM

Quote from: nutildah on October 13, 2019, 01:00:52 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: nutildah on October 12, 2019, 06:10:53 AM

I just find it humorous that you have a stark inability to ever admit you were wrong about something. Sorry for picking on you.

Just because you are desperate to have whatever little gotcha moment you can scrounge up doesn't make me wrong.

Well, you were though. You said that impeachment proceedings were the same thing as a criminal investigation. Its not. Ergo, you were wrong. It doesn't matter what kind of contextual padding or re-arranging you want to do, this statement remains incorrect:

Quote

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

Not at all what I said, but have fun speaking for me and then telling me I am wrong if it makes you feel better Nutilduhhh.

You literally said exactly that:

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 04:49:06 AM

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: nutildah on October 13, 2019, 01:00:52 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: nutildah on October 12, 2019, 06:10:53 AM

I just find it humorous that you have a stark inability to ever admit you were wrong about something. Sorry for picking on you.

Just because you are desperate to have whatever little gotcha moment you can scrounge up doesn't make me wrong.

Well, you were though. You said that impeachment proceedings were the same thing as a criminal investigation. Its not. Ergo, you were wrong. It doesn't matter what kind of contextual padding or re-arranging you want to do, this statement remains incorrect:

Quote

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

Not at all what I said, but have fun speaking for me and then telling me I am wrong if it makes you feel better Nutilduhhh.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: nutildah on October 12, 2019, 06:10:53 AM

I just find it humorous that you have a stark inability to ever admit you were wrong about something. Sorry for picking on you.

Just because you are desperate to have whatever little gotcha moment you can scrounge up doesn't make me wrong.

Well, you were though. You said that impeachment proceedings were the same thing as a criminal investigation. Its not. Ergo, you were wrong. It doesn't matter what kind of contextual padding or re-arranging you want to do, this statement remains incorrect:

Quote

The Nixon impeachment was based upon the criminal Watergate incident, so yes, it was a criminal proceeding.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 12, 2019, 08:39:13 PM

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Democrats have control of the House (elections have consequences) and the House has the sole power of impeachment.

Pelosi doesn't have to structure the impeachment proceedings based on Clintons, Nixons or Johnsons and the next impeachment doesn't have to be based on Trumps. Even if it's Trump again.

She needs to hold one vote. "Should the president be impeached."

If there ends up being a trial in the Senate do you think Mitch will give in to a single request from the Democrats or base any of his decisions on what happened during Clintons trial unless it benefits him? Of course not and he shouldn't since the people put Republicans in control of the Senate.

The constitution and the law are the only rules that must be followed.

Exactly. There needs to be a vote, a vote of the full house. This is exactly what she is NOT doing because it gives the president rights to subpoena his own witnesses and bring his own evidence. Instead of holding a vote she is engaging in this extralegal partisan display, calling it impeachment, and acting OUTSIDE of the law.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 12, 2019, 10:02:50 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 12, 2019, 09:07:24 PM

There are only a certain small group of people who have any chance of 'running the country'. All of the people in this group will do exactly what their controllers tell them to, and the plan is to nose-dive the United States into a mountain at an opportune time. The controller's plan is to pick up the pieces and re-build to suite their agenda. It's called 'creative destruction.'

Get out before the crash. Go back after...at least if there is some hope at that point of re-building on some of the founding principles of the country. There may or may not be; that part is difficult to predict.

The whole "everyone around me is just a stupid drone, I am the only one who can see the truth" is a dangerous mentality to have. It will prevent you from thinking objectively and questioning yourself.

I'm doing all right, but thanks for your concern.

Most of my greatest successes have been doing things, and looking at things, differently than the 'herd'. I do try to 'give something back' for ethical reasons. Also, to a degree, to protect my own skin. I could easily be mistaken for one of 'them' when people's eyes are finally jolted open. I want it on record that I did what I could.

By the way, I have no problem whatsoever 'thinking objectively and questioning myself'. A decade ago I was just like you. Not surprising; life-long indoctrination by the same basic group who did you. Only through the aforementioned process did I make what seems to be a 180 degree course correction. It's actually not exactly what it seems, but is significant.

PopoJeff

full member

Activity: 414

Merit: 182

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 12, 2019, 10:02:50 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 12, 2019, 09:07:24 PM

There are only a certain small group of people who have any chance of 'running the country'. All of the people in this group will do exactly what their controllers tell them to, and the plan is to nose-dive the United States into a mountain at an opportune time. The controller's plan is to pick up the pieces and re-build to suite their agenda. It's called 'creative destruction.'

Get out before the crash. Go back after...at least if there is some hope at that point of re-building on some of the founding principles of the country. There may or may not be; that part is difficult to predict.

The whole "everyone around me is just a stupid drone, I am the only one who can see the truth" is a dangerous mentality to have. It will prevent you from thinking objectively and questioning yourself.

Quote from: PopoJeff on October 12, 2019, 08:54:00 PM

Agreed. This is all just a ridiculous display of peacocking and pointing fingers.

Can we get back to just running the country? And stop with doing absolutely nothing other than trying to dismantle each other's party.

Congressional oversight (especially when it comes to the executive branch) is one of the most important parts of "Just running the country".

Did you ever stick your dick in something you shouldn't have ? Did that make you unqualified to do the job your were hired to do?

That's all this comes down to. Bill did it. Trump did it. Kennedy did it. I'm sure most presidents have.

Everyone trying to exploit someone else's personal behavior for their own benefit.

Let look at something else objectively. If it's so bad for one side to try to hide a sex partner during an election..... you think that's influencing the election. Then why is it ok for the other side to expose someone else's sexual indiscretions prior to an election.... isn't that just as influential ?

Both sides do the same shit.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: tvbcof on October 12, 2019, 09:07:24 PM

There are only a certain small group of people who have any chance of 'running the country'. All of the people in this group will do exactly what their controllers tell them to, and the plan is to nose-dive the United States into a mountain at an opportune time. The controller's plan is to pick up the pieces and re-build to suite their agenda. It's called 'creative destruction.'

Get out before the crash. Go back after...at least if there is some hope at that point of re-building on some of the founding principles of the country. There may or may not be; that part is difficult to predict.

The whole "everyone around me is just a stupid drone, I am the only one who can see the truth" is a dangerous mentality to have. It will prevent you from thinking objectively and questioning yourself.

Quote from: PopoJeff on October 12, 2019, 08:54:00 PM

Agreed. This is all just a ridiculous display of peacocking and pointing fingers.

Can we get back to just running the country? And stop with doing absolutely nothing other than trying to dismantle each other's party.

Congressional oversight (especially when it comes to the executive branch) is one of the most important parts of "Just running the country".

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: PopoJeff on October 12, 2019, 08:54:00 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on October 12, 2019, 08:17:05 PM

This is all just theater.

Agreed. This is all just a ridiculous display of peacocking and pointing fingers.

Can we get back to just running the country? And stop with doing absolutely nothing other than trying to dismantle each other's party.

There are only a certain small group of people who have any chance of 'running the country'. All of the people in this group will do exactly what their controllers tell them to, and the plan is to nose-dive the United States into a mountain at an opportune time. The controller's plan is to pick up the pieces and re-build to suite their agenda. It's called 'creative destruction.'

Get out before the crash. Go back after...at least if there is some hope at that point of re-building on some of the founding principles of the country. There may or may not be; that part is difficult to predict.

PopoJeff

full member

Activity: 414

Merit: 182

Quote from: tvbcof on October 12, 2019, 08:17:05 PM

This is all just theater.

Agreed. This is all just a ridiculous display of peacocking and pointing fingers.

Can we get back to just running the country? And stop with doing absolutely nothing other than trying to dismantle each other's party.

TwitchySeal

legendary

Activity: 2716

Merit: 2093

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 07:53:58 PM

Quote from: nutildah on October 12, 2019, 06:10:53 AM

I just find it humorous that you have a stark inability to ever admit you were wrong about something. Sorry for picking on you.

Just because you are desperate to have whatever little gotcha moment you can scrounge up doesn't make me wrong.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 12, 2019, 03:46:39 PM

You really think that because the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon must comply with the House subpoenas makes the current subpoenas unenforceable because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on them?

Did you come up with this on your own or read it in a conspiracy blog?

That's just not how it works. It's not the Supreme Courts job to sign off on every House subpoena. The rulings they make set a precedent. The Nixon case actually proves that the House does have the power to subpoena Presidential records to provide oversight of the executive branch. This is why Trumps lawyers tried to argue to a judge that the 1974 ruling (which was unanimous) was wrongly decided. The judge basically laughed in Trumps face.

No, the point is they are not comparable. You used it as an example and claimed Trump could be impeached on this fat alone, when in fact he was not legally subpoenaed, which requires force of law with a penalty for defiance. The two situations are not at all comparable. The precedent says, as I documented above, that there first needs to be a vote before a subpoena with force of law can be issued. What the democrats are doing is unprecedented in an impeachment process.

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Democrats have control of the House (elections have consequences) and the House has the sole power of impeachment.

Pelosi doesn't have to structure the impeachment proceedings based on Clintons, Nixons or Johnsons and the next impeachment doesn't have to be based on Trumps. Even if it's Trump again.

She needs to hold one vote. "Should the president be impeached."

If there ends up being a trial in the Senate do you think Mitch will give in to a single request from the Democrats or base any of his decisions on what happened during Clintons trial unless it benefits him? Of course not and he shouldn't since the people put Republicans in control of the Senate.

The constitution and the law are the only rules that must be followed.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

This is all just theater. Trump want/needs to be booted. He's playing the crazy card to give his 'enemies' as much ammunition as he can.

I told you all way back in 2016 before he was seated that Trump wouldn't do a 2nd term and didn't wish to.

The most interesting hypothesis I've heard is that this is a way to get one of the Kushners in. Either Jarred or Yael. Basically Trump leaves, Pence takes over and makes a Kushner VP (which no Dem would go against) then Pence leaves and bingo. Chabad-Lubavitch has the U.S. Presidency...more directly than ever. Just like the predictive programming shows:

https://youtu.be/F4MkCH6dWMA?t=6100

Topic: [POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It? - page 11. (Read 2194 times)