Impeachment philosophy thread

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 12:52 PM

Placeholder as I quote a few posts to establish the topic.

ETA: topic is the philosophy of concluding Trump committed an impeachable offense.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Is it crystal clear? I'm not convinced. How would you convince someone?

It seems one would have to establish four things

What is the crime?
Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor?
What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence?
How does the evidence meet that standard?

Originally Posted by Paul2

Like I said, I'm not here to convince anyone, that's an issue of rhetoric; I'm talking about what a rational person would conclude, which is an issue of logic (and evidence).

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I don't think it is logical to conclude it is incitement without a lot more history of what has constituted incitement and how the question has been addressed philosophically in the past. Maybe you possess that information, but I do not, and I'm not sure how many do.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

It's clear to anyone who has the capacity to look the word up in a damn dictionary and doesn't feel the need to nit pick at every other post.

Here it is

zorro99 · 23rd January 2021, 12:56 PM

Rep. Marjorie Greene files articles of impeachment against Biden
Cristina Marcos01/21/21 04:57 PM EST

Rep. Marjorie Greene (R-Ga.) said Thursday that she has filed articles of impeachment against President Biden, only a day after he was sworn into office.

The text of Greene's articles of impeachment specifying any impeachable offenses committed by Biden was not immediately available. But Greene indicated that the articles accuse Biden of abusing his power while serving as vice president by allowing his son, Hunter, to serve on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

"President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the presidency. His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama's Vice President is lengthy and disturbing. President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family's pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies," Greene said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...-against-biden

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 12:59 PM

It seems a dictionary would not make things easier. The definition of incitement is the simple

Quote:

the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

But that has the huge problem of not having any common exceptions for things like lawful, innocent behavior that can provoke someone to unlawful violence.

It also isn't clear that even if the dictionary definition was perfect, why some senator should use that as the criteria.

zorro99 · 23rd January 2021, 01:01 PM

I don’t think there is any philosophy at all behind Greene’s impeachment articles. In fact I can’t even find a copy of them.

Thermal · 23rd January 2021, 01:03 PM

Not clear on the philosophy angle. As the House decides whether he was or wasn't, he was.

Are we supposed to philosophize on whether the House should or shouldn't have?

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Thermal

Not clear on the philosophy angle. As the House decides whether he was or wasn't, he was.

Are we supposed to philosophize on whether the House should or shouldn't have?

The house will make their case. And I think the following questions would have to be answered

What is the crime?
Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor?
What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence?
How does the evidence meet that standard?

Vixen · 23rd January 2021, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by zorro99

I don’t think there is any philosophy at all behind Greene’s impeachment articles. In fact I can’t even find a copy of them.

The philosophy is, 'You complained about the noise from my ghetto blaster, so now I'm complaining about you mowing your lawn on Sunday morning, so there!'

<unspoken: I am so fricking stupid I don't realise I need a majority vote to get it through>

You give me tit I'll raise you tat.

Stacyhs · 23rd January 2021, 01:16 PM

The Great Zaganza · 23rd January 2021, 01:25 PM

Impeachment is part of the Oversight Congress has over the President.
As such, only what Congress thinks is worthy of Impeachment and Conviction matters, not any law or principle.
And yes, a party with a Majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate could convict a President for wearing a tan suit.

Vixen · 23rd January 2021, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The house will make their case. And I think the following questions would have to be answered

What is the crime?
Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor?
What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence?
How does the evidence meet that standard?

You build up circumstantial evidence and back it with factual evidence, of which there is plenty: the rioters bragging about their exploits openly on Parler, for example.

Circumstantial evidence: When Trump moved into the White House, he put a portrait - or was it a bust - of Andrew Johnson in place. This guy led an insurrection at Wilmington IIRC and was staunchily dodgy in political outlook.

Trump had planned a strategy just for this occasion, i.e., losing an election. He was ready for this. Whilst demanding recounts was quite legal and within his rights, it became readily apparent very swiftly that these Court Applications were frivolous and vexatious in nature. Trump tactic #2: appeal directly to the state governors Tactic #3: appeal to the Supreme Courts.

Agitate on Twitter, with the help of 'hard-toiling Don Jr, Eric and 'dumb as a brick' Ivanka.

Create a slogan: stop the steal.

Refer to malcontents, neo-nazis, survivalists, QAnon conspiracy theorists as 'patriots'.

Arrange a rally on 6th Jan 2021 to try to intimidate the Senate from declaring the election. Make menacing contact with Ruffensperger (_sp?) demanding he reverts the election result and cojole him into 'finding 11,780 more votes' [incitement to corruption]. Harass the VP Mike Pence into announcing at the Senate that the election result not be accepted.

Telling his crowd of 15K to 'walk to Capitol Hill' to demand the vote be stopped.

They arrive there, and lo! and behold! there is only a skeleton staff of Capitol Police on duty. Trump is watching the whole thing on television nearby. Not once did he send a message to the motley crew to calm it down and leave the building. He refused to call for the National Guard for another two hours. WAIT!!! Mike Pence called you, cowering in a sheltered bunker, staving off armed quasi-military guys demanding his execution and that of others and you...did...exactly NOTHING!

By the time of the trial, it may well become clear that the raid was planned in advance and the lack of police deliberate and that it is undeniably clear that Trump wickedly planned to overthrow the state and declare himself total dictator , head of the National Guard, police and army, with Pelosi and co arrested and charged - rather like what happened in Hong Kong.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Impeachment is part of the Oversight Congress has over the President.
As such, only what Congress thinks is worthy of Impeachment and Conviction matters, not any law or principle.
And yes, a party with a Majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate could convict a President for wearing a tan suit.

Obviously. But if a senator is able to be convinced, someone may want to try convincing. This is asking about how one would do that.

turingtest · 23rd January 2021, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6c/ce...0a97df37a4.gif

That actually works on a couple of different levels in this thread. I'm gonna guess, though, that it's not for Marjorie Taylor Greene...

Vixen · 23rd January 2021, 01:59 PM

From the Independent:

Quote:

Unlike a criminal trial, where there are strict rules about what is and isn’t evidence, the Senate can consider anything it wishes. And if they can show that Trump’s words made a real impact, all the better, and scholars expect it in the trial.

Darat · 23rd January 2021, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The house will make their case. And I think the following questions would have to be answered

What is the crime?
Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor?
What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence?
How does the evidence meet that standard?

Those questions do not belong in a thread about the impeachment in the USA constitution as they are not part of constitutional impeachment.

sackett · 23rd January 2021, 02:27 PM

Bob, ole philosopher, I wish you'd learn that "criteria" is the plural. "Criterion" is the singular.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Those questions do not belong in a thread about the impeachment in the USA constitution as they are not part of constitutional impeachment.

As the constitution doesn't answer them, someone else has to provide answers. It says high crime and misdemeanors. How does one know if the person has committed one to vote to convict them?

Stacyhs · 23rd January 2021, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by turingtest

That actually works on a couple of different levels in this thread. I'm gonna guess, though, that it's not for Marjorie Taylor Greene...

Yes. And I'm not getting sucked into yet another one of Bob's black holes. I'm outta here!

theprestige · 23rd January 2021, 02:33 PM

Jesus ******* Christ. An impeachable offense is anything the House decides. How is this not already settled? How are ******* self styled "skeptics" so ******* bad at basic reasoning and continuity?

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Jesus ******* Christ. An impeachable offense is anything the House decides. How is this not already settled? How are ******* self styled "skeptics" so ******* bad at basic reasoning and continuity?

I responded this issue. At some point, the house representatives will wish to convince some senators that what the house thought was impeachable is also worth convicting over. At the point you want to convince others, it helps to be able to argue why.

sackett · 23rd January 2021, 02:54 PM

The Constitution is an 18th century creation, and uses 18th century language -- and assumptions. To men of the Age of Reason, "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant behavior that no decent person could tolerate.

Here we see the difficulty of persuading small, ill-stocked minds to rise to levels of behavior which they can't concieve. In sober fact, they've never heard of them.

That's enough big words for today. In a bob thread, anyhow.

theprestige · 23rd January 2021, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I responded this issue. At some point, the house representatives will wish to convince some senators that what the house thought was impeachable is also worth convicting over. At the point you want to convince others, it helps to be able to argue why.

You're asking about a removable offense, not an impeachable offense. Please please please figure it the **** out.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

You're asking about a removable offense, not an impeachable offense. Please please please figure it the **** out.

?

The house reps are going to argue in front of the senate that what they impeached him for should be what the Senate votes to punish him for.

Darat · 23rd January 2021, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

As the constitution doesn't answer them, someone else has to provide answers. It says high crime and misdemeanors. How does one know if the person has committed one to vote to convict them?

It is all in the constitution, like I told you in the other thread if you want to change the constitution as in making it so "someone else has to provide answers" there are mechanisms in the constitution as to how to make those changes.

Until then you are not asking a question that has anything to do with impeachment as laid out in the constitution.

Darat · 23rd January 2021, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

?

The house reps are going to argue in front of the senate that what they impeached him for should be what the Senate votes to punish him for.

What has "should " got to do with it? If your should is not in the constitution it is not a should and again if you want to make changes to the constitution....

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

It is all in the constitution, like I told you in the other thread if you want to change the constitution as in making it so "someone else has to provide answers" there are mechanisms in the constitution as to how to make those changes.

Until then you are not asking a question that has anything to do with impeachment as laid out in the constitution.

I didn't say making someone else provide answers. If one truly just wants each senator to make some determination on their own, that is fine. If you want to make a claim to a senator and try to convince them, I'm discussing how one would do that.

DevilsAdvocate · 23rd January 2021, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by zorro99

I don’t think there is any philosophy at all behind Greene’s impeachment articles. In fact I can’t even find a copy of them.

The text for House Resolutions from 1/21 are not yet available. It should be available within the next few days.

Once the text is available, I think it will go to the Congressional Research Service for analysis. Then to the House Judiciary Committee for an instant death. The Committee may just kill it and skip the research. I'm not sure what leeway they have in that.

This was a resolution for impeachment, not a resolution for an investigation into impeachment, so it doesn't go to the House Rules Committee, which could begin an investigation. It goes straight to the Judiciary Committee where it will be voted down.

bobdroege7 · 23rd January 2021, 09:06 PM

The crime is seditious conspiracy.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

The crime is seditious conspiracy.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

But plenty here are arguing impeachment is a political act distinct from the criminal code

bobdroege7 · 23rd January 2021, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But plenty here are arguing impeachment is a political act distinct from the criminal code

But I was answering your question.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

But I was answering your question.

Are you just finding a crime that applies if this was a criminal case, or are you arguing that congress should evaluate it according to this statute?

The Great Zaganza · 23rd January 2021, 09:48 PM

The reason why someone would or would not vote to impeach boils down to
- what gets me reelected?
- what gets my party reelected?

bobdroege7 · 23rd January 2021, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Are you just finding a crime that applies if this was a criminal case, or are you arguing that congress should evaluate it according to this statute?

Both actually, and the House prosecutors should consider if Trump committed any other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Vixen · 24th January 2021, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But plenty here are arguing impeachment is a political act distinct from the criminal code

Yes, and the political act culminates in a political vote.

What is the difficulty?

BobTheCoward · 24th January 2021, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Vixen

Yes, and the political act culminates in a political vote.

What is the difficulty?

I was replying to bobdroege7.

bobdroege7 has a stance that it should be approached using a criminal statute. You appear to not. That means my replies to one of you should not be read as a compatible with the other.

I have answered your difficulty question in an earlier post. Even though I'm talking to bobdroege7 based on bobdroege7's assumptions, the previous post which answers your question still applies. Changing my content to address a different person is not a reversal from my previous arguments for the politics-only group.

Darat · 24th January 2021, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Are you just finding a crime that applies if this was a criminal case, or are you arguing that congress should evaluate it according to this statute?

Why are you asking, why do you keep wanting to change the constitutional process of impeachment?

BobTheCoward · 24th January 2021, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Why are you asking, why do you keep wanting to change the constitutional process of impeachment?

I'm asking a clarifying questions of bobdroege7's position to clarify bobdroege7's position. The constitution has nothing to do with me better understanding someone's position (first amendment maybe).

Darat · 24th January 2021, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I'm asking a clarifying questions of bobdroege7's position to clarify bobdroege7's position. The constitution has nothing to do with me better understanding someone's position (first amendment maybe).

The impeachment that is the topic of this thread is the impeachment contained in the constitution not some other form of impeachment. Why are you asking him about something not related to the topic of this thread that you started?

BobTheCoward · 24th January 2021, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

The impeachment that is the topic of this thread is the impeachment contained in the constitution not some other form of impeachment. Why are you asking him about something not related to the topic of this thread that you started?

My business is my own and not for you to know.

Darat · 24th January 2021, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

My business is my own and not for you to know.

Why did you post that non sequitur?

23rd January 2021, 12:52 PM	#1
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Impeachment philosophy thread Placeholder as I quote a few posts to establish the topic. ETA: topic is the philosophy of concluding Trump committed an impeachable offense.
	Last edited by BobTheCoward; 23rd January 2021 at 12:55 PM.

23rd January 2021, 01:01 PM	#5
zorro99 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 978	I don’t think there is any philosophy at all behind Greene’s impeachment articles. In fact I can’t even find a copy of them.
zorro99 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 978	__________________ There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.

23rd January 2021, 01:03 PM	#6
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 13,542	Not clear on the philosophy angle. As the House decides whether he was or wasn't, he was. Are we supposed to philosophize on whether the House should or shouldn't have?
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

23rd January 2021, 01:08 PM	#8
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 20,921	Originally Posted by zorro99 I don’t think there is any philosophy at all behind Greene’s impeachment articles. In fact I can’t even find a copy of them. The philosophy is, 'You complained about the noise from my ghetto blaster, so now I'm complaining about you mowing your lawn on Sunday morning, so there!' <unspoken: I am so fricking stupid I don't realise I need a majority vote to get it through> You give me tit I'll raise you tat.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

23rd January 2021, 01:25 PM	#10
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,686	Impeachment is part of the Oversight Congress has over the President. As such, only what Congress thinks is worthy of Impeachment and Conviction matters, not any law or principle. And yes, a party with a Majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate could convict a President for wearing a tan suit.
	__________________ So what are you going to do about it, huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do?

23rd January 2021, 12:54 PM	#2
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Is it crystal clear? I'm not convinced. How would you convince someone? It seems one would have to establish four things What is the crime? Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor? What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence? How does the evidence meet that standard? Originally Posted by Paul2 Like I said, I'm not here to convince anyone, that's an issue of rhetoric; I'm talking about what a rational person would conclude, which is an issue of logic (and evidence). Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I don't think it is logical to conclude it is incitement without a lot more history of what has constituted incitement and how the question has been addressed philosophically in the past. Maybe you possess that information, but I do not, and I'm not sure how many do. Originally Posted by Stacyhs It's clear to anyone who has the capacity to look the word up in a damn dictionary and doesn't feel the need to nit pick at every other post. Here it is

23rd January 2021, 12:56 PM	#3
zorro99 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 978	Rep. Marjorie Greene files articles of impeachment against Biden Cristina Marcos01/21/21 04:57 PM EST Rep. Marjorie Greene (R-Ga.) said Thursday that she has filed articles of impeachment against President Biden, only a day after he was sworn into office. The text of Greene's articles of impeachment specifying any impeachable offenses committed by Biden was not immediately available. But Greene indicated that the articles accuse Biden of abusing his power while serving as vice president by allowing his son, Hunter, to serve on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. "President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the presidency. His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama's Vice President is lengthy and disturbing. President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family's pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies," Greene said. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...-against-biden
zorro99 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 978	__________________ There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.

23rd January 2021, 12:59 PM	#4
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	It seems a dictionary would not make things easier. The definition of incitement is the simple Quote: the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully. But that has the huge problem of not having any common exceptions for things like lawful, innocent behavior that can provoke someone to unlawful violence. It also isn't clear that even if the dictionary definition was perfect, why some senator should use that as the criteria.

23rd January 2021, 01:07 PM	#7
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by Thermal Not clear on the philosophy angle. As the House decides whether he was or wasn't, he was. Are we supposed to philosophize on whether the House should or shouldn't have? The house will make their case. And I think the following questions would have to be answered What is the crime? Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor? What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence? How does the evidence meet that standard?

23rd January 2021, 01:16 PM	#9
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,029

23rd January 2021, 01:25 PM	#11
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 20,921	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward The house will make their case. And I think the following questions would have to be answered What is the crime? Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor? What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence? How does the evidence meet that standard? You build up circumstantial evidence and back it with factual evidence, of which there is plenty: the rioters bragging about their exploits openly on Parler, for example. Circumstantial evidence: When Trump moved into the White House, he put a portrait - or was it a bust - of Andrew Johnson in place. This guy led an insurrection at Wilmington IIRC and was staunchily dodgy in political outlook. Trump had planned a strategy just for this occasion, i.e., losing an election. He was ready for this. Whilst demanding recounts was quite legal and within his rights, it became readily apparent very swiftly that these Court Applications were frivolous and vexatious in nature. Trump tactic #2: appeal directly to the state governors Tactic #3: appeal to the Supreme Courts. Agitate on Twitter, with the help of 'hard-toiling Don Jr, Eric and 'dumb as a brick' Ivanka. Create a slogan: stop the steal. Refer to malcontents, neo-nazis, survivalists, QAnon conspiracy theorists as 'patriots'. Arrange a rally on 6th Jan 2021 to try to intimidate the Senate from declaring the election. Make menacing contact with Ruffensperger (_sp?) demanding he reverts the election result and cojole him into 'finding 11,780 more votes' [incitement to corruption]. Harass the VP Mike Pence into announcing at the Senate that the election result not be accepted. Telling his crowd of 15K to 'walk to Capitol Hill' to demand the vote be stopped. They arrive there, and lo! and behold! there is only a skeleton staff of Capitol Police on duty. Trump is watching the whole thing on television nearby. Not once did he send a message to the motley crew to calm it down and leave the building. He refused to call for the National Guard for another two hours. WAIT!!! Mike Pence called you, cowering in a sheltered bunker, staving off armed quasi-military guys demanding his execution and that of others and you...did...exactly NOTHING! By the time of the trial, it may well become clear that the raid was planned in advance and the lack of police deliberate and that it is undeniably clear that Trump wickedly planned to overthrow the state and declare himself total dictator , head of the National Guard, police and army, with Pelosi and co arrested and charged - rather like what happened in Hong Kong.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

23rd January 2021, 01:26 PM	#12
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Impeachment is part of the Oversight Congress has over the President. As such, only what Congress thinks is worthy of Impeachment and Conviction matters, not any law or principle. And yes, a party with a Majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate could convict a President for wearing a tan suit. Obviously. But if a senator is able to be convinced, someone may want to try convincing. This is asking about how one would do that.

23rd January 2021, 01:32 PM	#13
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,683	Originally Posted by Stacyhs https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6c/ce...0a97df37a4.gif That actually works on a couple of different levels in this thread. I'm gonna guess, though, that it's not for Marjorie Taylor Greene...
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

23rd January 2021, 01:59 PM	#14
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 20,921	From the Independent: Quote: Unlike a criminal trial, where there are strict rules about what is and isn’t evidence, the Senate can consider anything it wishes. And if they can show that Trump’s words made a real impact, all the better, and scholars expect it in the trial.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

23rd January 2021, 02:16 PM	#15
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,133	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward The house will make their case. And I think the following questions would have to be answered What is the crime? Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor? What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence? How does the evidence meet that standard? Those questions do not belong in a thread about the impeachment in the USA constitution as they are not part of constitutional impeachment.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

23rd January 2021, 02:27 PM	#16
sackett Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 6,388	Bob, ole philosopher, I wish you'd learn that "criteria" is the plural. "Criterion" is the singular.
	__________________ If you would learn a man's character, give him authority. If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.

23rd January 2021, 02:29 PM	#17
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by Darat Those questions do not belong in a thread about the impeachment in the USA constitution as they are not part of constitutional impeachment. As the constitution doesn't answer them, someone else has to provide answers. It says high crime and misdemeanors. How does one know if the person has committed one to vote to convict them?

23rd January 2021, 02:33 PM	#18
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,029	Originally Posted by turingtest That actually works on a couple of different levels in this thread. I'm gonna guess, though, that it's not for Marjorie Taylor Greene... Yes. And I'm not getting sucked into yet another one of Bob's black holes. I'm outta here!

23rd January 2021, 02:33 PM	#19
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,688	Jesus ***** Christ. An impeachable offense is anything the House decides. How is this not already settled? How are *** self styled "skeptics" so ***** bad at basic reasoning and continuity?

23rd January 2021, 02:50 PM	#20
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by theprestige Jesus ***** Christ. An impeachable offense is anything the House decides. How is this not already settled? How are *** self styled "skeptics" so ***** bad at basic reasoning and continuity? I responded this issue. At some point, the house representatives will wish to convince some senators that what the house thought was impeachable is also worth convicting over. At the point you want to convince others, it helps to be able to argue why.

23rd January 2021, 02:54 PM	#21
sackett Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 6,388	The Constitution is an 18th century creation, and uses 18th century language -- and assumptions. To men of the Age of Reason, "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant behavior that no decent person could tolerate. Here we see the difficulty of persuading small, ill-stocked minds to rise to levels of behavior which they can't concieve. In sober fact, they've never heard of them. That's enough big words for today. In a bob thread, anyhow.
	__________________ If you would learn a man's character, give him authority. If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.

23rd January 2021, 02:58 PM	#22
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,688	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I responded this issue. At some point, the house representatives will wish to convince some senators that what the house thought was impeachable is also worth convicting over. At the point you want to convince others, it helps to be able to argue why. You're asking about a removable offense, not an impeachable offense. Please please please figure it the **** out.

23rd January 2021, 02:59 PM	#23
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by theprestige You're asking about a removable offense, not an impeachable offense. Please please please figure it the **** out. ? The house reps are going to argue in front of the senate that what they impeached him for should be what the Senate votes to punish him for.

23rd January 2021, 03:37 PM	#24
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,133	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward As the constitution doesn't answer them, someone else has to provide answers. It says high crime and misdemeanors. How does one know if the person has committed one to vote to convict them? It is all in the constitution, like I told you in the other thread if you want to change the constitution as in making it so "someone else has to provide answers" there are mechanisms in the constitution as to how to make those changes. Until then you are not asking a question that has anything to do with impeachment as laid out in the constitution.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

23rd January 2021, 03:39 PM	#25
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,133	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward ? The house reps are going to argue in front of the senate that what they impeached him for should be what the Senate votes to punish him for. What has "should " got to do with it? If your should is not in the constitution it is not a should and again if you want to make changes to the constitution....
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

23rd January 2021, 03:43 PM	#26
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by Darat It is all in the constitution, like I told you in the other thread if you want to change the constitution as in making it so "someone else has to provide answers" there are mechanisms in the constitution as to how to make those changes. Until then you are not asking a question that has anything to do with impeachment as laid out in the constitution. I didn't say making someone else provide answers. If one truly just wants each senator to make some determination on their own, that is fine. If you want to make a claim to a senator and try to convince them, I'm discussing how one would do that.

23rd January 2021, 08:34 PM	#27
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,454	Originally Posted by zorro99 I don’t think there is any philosophy at all behind Greene’s impeachment articles. In fact I can’t even find a copy of them. The text for House Resolutions from 1/21 are not yet available. It should be available within the next few days. Once the text is available, I think it will go to the Congressional Research Service for analysis. Then to the House Judiciary Committee for an instant death. The Committee may just kill it and skip the research. I'm not sure what leeway they have in that. This was a resolution for impeachment, not a resolution for an investigation into impeachment, so it doesn't go to the House Rules Committee, which could begin an investigation. It goes straight to the Judiciary Committee where it will be voted down.
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

23rd January 2021, 09:06 PM	#28
bobdroege7 Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,266	The crime is seditious conspiracy. 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
bobdroege7 Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,266	__________________ Un-american Jack-booted thug Graduate of a liberal arts college! Faster play faster faster play faster

23rd January 2021, 09:22 PM	#29
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by bobdroege7 The crime is seditious conspiracy. 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both." But plenty here are arguing impeachment is a political act distinct from the criminal code

23rd January 2021, 09:26 PM	#30
bobdroege7 Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,266	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward But plenty here are arguing impeachment is a political act distinct from the criminal code But I was answering your question.
bobdroege7 Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,266	__________________ Un-american Jack-booted thug Graduate of a liberal arts college! Faster play faster faster play faster

23rd January 2021, 09:31 PM	#31
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by bobdroege7 But I was answering your question. Are you just finding a crime that applies if this was a criminal case, or are you arguing that congress should evaluate it according to this statute?

23rd January 2021, 09:48 PM	#32
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,686	The reason why someone would or would not vote to impeach boils down to - what gets me reelected? - what gets my party reelected?
	__________________ So what are you going to do about it, huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do?

23rd January 2021, 11:08 PM	#33
bobdroege7 Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,266	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Are you just finding a crime that applies if this was a criminal case, or are you arguing that congress should evaluate it according to this statute? Both actually, and the House prosecutors should consider if Trump committed any other high crimes and misdemeanors.
bobdroege7 Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,266	__________________ Un-american Jack-booted thug Graduate of a liberal arts college! Faster play faster faster play faster

24th January 2021, 04:55 AM	#34
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 20,921	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward But plenty here are arguing impeachment is a political act distinct from the criminal code Yes, and the political act culminates in a political vote. What is the difficulty?
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

24th January 2021, 06:25 AM	#35
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by Vixen Yes, and the political act culminates in a political vote. What is the difficulty? I was replying to bobdroege7. bobdroege7 has a stance that it should be approached using a criminal statute. You appear to not. That means my replies to one of you should not be read as a compatible with the other. I have answered your difficulty question in an earlier post. Even though I'm talking to bobdroege7 based on bobdroege7's assumptions, the previous post which answers your question still applies. Changing my content to address a different person is not a reversal from my previous arguments for the politics-only group.