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: Lane3 who wrote (115844)	3/26/2019 5:06:29 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362593

>> 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. I do not. At all. Because if there is no criminal case it is simply a political one. I would not allow for Democrats to line up with only political intent -- as with Maxine Waters or numerous others. There is no provision in the Constitution for politically motivated impeachment. That is why the bar was set to a near-criminal standard. We can't have a moral standard for impeachment. But if a man appears at the White House every morning drunk, he obviously has no business running the country. While that may not be a major crime, it could be an impeachable offense. Obstruction is a crime. The ONLY objective standard we have for it is that set out in the criminal code. Just to be clear, I do not believe the people would be satisfied with impeachment of a president on a lesser crime. I DO believe a lesser standard of proof might be acceptable for impeachment. If there were, for example, a "more likely than not" chance that Trump had shot and killed someone on Madison Ave, the people would expect an impeachment even without meeting the required "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in a criminal court proceeding. And the standards of proof are probably more important overall than whether a particular charge is criminal or not. Political charges are not due any consideration whatsoever, IMO. Most of the SDNY fits that description.

To: Lane3 who wrote (115844)	3/26/2019 5:18:24 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 362593

Would you not label the perpetrator a traitor, nonetheless? It depends. Is the perpetrator a Republican?

To: Lane3 who wrote (115844)	3/26/2019 5:30:40 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362593

>> 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? I would, personally, but if the Constitution has a more stringent requirement I would recognize there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. I, were I in a position to do so, would have the exclusive responsibility to support conviction. No one else, under your hypothetical, would have that option. As to Trump, I find it inconceivable that any of the claims against him should be upheld as worthy of impeachment. Something new that I'm not familiar with may come up, but from what I've seen there isn't a case to be made. I just choose to be less political about it than many on the Left do. I'm not sure where you're coming from politically, but I can't find value in more intangible standards, for reasons I've previously explained.