Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (115841)	3/26/2019 4:49:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 362571

Why don't you give me a couple examples of impeachable offenses you could envision that you think would not fit my criteria? A couple of things you think, perhaps, could happen? I don't have the energy for another round of that particular standard. I've given you lists before. That how I came to the conclusion I did that you saw no space between them. For you the impeachable standard and the actionable criminal standard are identical. You make no allowance for, say, obstruction that is deemed by DOJ to be un-actionable but is obstruction nonetheless. From my previous post: Likewise, we, at least most of us, don't use the criminality standard for our government officials. We expect them to be much, much better than merely not criminals. Your support standard is also apparently identical to your impeachment standard and your criminal standard. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep falling back to the impeachment standard. I'll leave you with this hypothetical: the Constitution requires two witnesses to treason for conviction. You are the only witness to a covert meet where you know for sure what happened. You also know that there can be no conviction without another witness. Would you not label the perpetrator a traitor, nonetheless?