It is hard to do complex deals without attorneys. I get things done.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Printable View
It is hard to do complex deals without attorneys. I get things done.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I meant to put a ;) so I just edited it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I meant to put a ;) so I just edited it. Sorry!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But I do still think you are lying. :D
Haven't been a huge supporter of our TX Senator John Cornyn. He's part of the old GOPe, always kinda been lukewarm about him. However his tweet today was one of the most sensible statements I've seen on twitter
Senator John CornynSenator John Cornyn Retweeted Chuck Schumer
Will Democrats running for President recuse themselves as jurors due to their conflict of interest? Or, instead, will they intentionally use their office to remove a rival, in order to obtain a personal and political benefit?
Senator John Cornyn added,
NICE!!! That will be the proof in the pudding. Of course some of those clowns have already been driven out of the dance like Harris.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
A lawyer w/out critical thinking skills...just what everybody wants. He tells you how to think and doesn't know the difference between sympathy and empathy.
Are you still struggling with this? Maybe this photo illustration will help:Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/empathy-sympathy/
No I've observed you and other democrat/socialists (yes you are one) use them in the wrong context many times. Apparently It's cool to empathize when you are really sympathizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
If I say empathize, that is what I mean. I know the difference. With practice most folks (other than sociopaths) with some life experience can find a way to empathize with people whose experiences are not exactly the same as there. It requires you to project yourself into the other person’s situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Sympathy is experiencing sorrow for them - not relating to their misfortune, just feeling sorrow for it.
This isn’t that complicated.
the biggest thing i've seen in the last couple of days is that giuliani needs to learn how to use apostrophes properly.
apart from that, it's just a bunch of partisans digging in.
everyone who's read this board over the years ought to know i can't stand trump, but i see nothing here that looks anywhere near as bad for trump as it does for several democrats and bureaucrats.
That's where I'm at. I've read the report. I've read the snippets. Have taken in all the information I can in my limited time to do so. All I see is them talking around things and never getting to anything of substance to actually prove their charges. Maybe there is more to come. Maybe there isn't. Until it's over, I'll keep Orville Redenbacker in business.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Only criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump isn’t being tried for a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
are you implying that proof should not be required in an impeachment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It appears he is. He and Shiff and Nadler don't have any idea what they believe and it changes from day to day and morning to evening. It's just hard to believe that somebody put Comey in charge of the FBI.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Absolutely not. I am simply stating that there is no reason why one must impose the highest standard under the law (beyond reasonable doubt) to impeachment. This standard is imposed in criminal law to protect individuals due process rights under the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. The issue of a public official being removed from office doesn’t invoke the same individual rights safeguards.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
As an alternative, civil cases typically impose the standard “preponderance of the evidence”, which translates roughly to “it is more likely than not that the defendant did it.”
Not saying that should be the standard either.
But is there really any doubt that Trump sought to use the power of his office to cause the Ukrainian President to announce investigations against Biden and Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election? And is there any doubt that the purpose of these announcements were to help Trump politically, rather than to serve the policy interests of the US?
There is certainly enough evidence to impeach. As to whether there is enough evidence to remove from office, there certainly is if you apply the “preponderance of the evidence standard”. If you ask whether it is more likely than not that the answer to the two questions is “yes”, then I think it is clearly yes.
If you impose the criminal standard, it is for sure a bit more challenging because any excuse that you think is possible that negates either of the questions might be sufficient to conclude that he should not be removed from office.
But even in that case, a criminal defendant cannot normally block all direct evidence in a criminal trial. Prosecutors can get the documents they want very easily through subpoenas and direct witnesses cannot be wholesale excluded from testimony, particularly where it has been shown that they were actors in the alleged conspiracy.
The wholesale ring fenced stonewalling of the evidence from these sources without a valid claim to an actual privilege to do so is entirely unprecedented and violates the constitution by not respecting the power that the Constitution explicitly provides to Congress. That is the behavior of dictators.