Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10268
All crimes are not impeachable offenses and all impeachable offenses are not crimes.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:34 am The House Judiciary Committee released a report Saturday in which it argued that a president may be impeached for “illegitimate motives” even if his actions are “legally permissible.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... aking-law/
Perhaps so, but please name a time when someone has been removed from office via impeachment and conviction without a crime having been demonstrated.yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:54 amAll crimes are not impeachable offenses and all impeachable offenses are not crimes.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:34 am The House Judiciary Committee released a report Saturday in which it argued that a president may be impeached for “illegitimate motives” even if his actions are “legally permissible.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... aking-law/
Vinny
When this is potentially only the 4th presidential one in our country's near 250 year history I'd say that is too small a sample to hold to precedents. In other words new "precedents" can be established with this one.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:28 amPerhaps so, but please name a time when someone has been removed from office via impeachment and conviction without a crime having been demonstrated.yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:54 amAll crimes are not impeachable offenses and all impeachable offenses are not crimes.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:34 am The House Judiciary Committee released a report Saturday in which it argued that a president may be impeached for “illegitimate motives” even if his actions are “legally permissible.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019 ... aking-law/
Vinny
No. It's a phrase it seems I've recently frequently heard.sweetbthescrivener wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:26 am I think Vinny was just having fun with Newspeak.
Of course you have heard that in the Democrat party media.yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:35 pmNo. It's a phrase it seems I've recently frequently heard.sweetbthescrivener wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:26 am I think Vinny was just having fun with Newspeak.
Vinny
Simonjester wrote: QED "the effective use of newspeak"
Perhaps Vinny meant to write, "Not all crimes are impeachable offenses and not all impeachable offenses are crimes"? "All crimes are not impeachable" sounds like a politician could literally get away with murder!yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:35 pmNo. It's a phrase it seems I've recently frequently heard.sweetbthescrivener wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:26 am I think Vinny was just having fun with Newspeak.
Vinny
You are correct. You wrote it much better than myself. However, the Founding Fathers did allow a politician to get away with murder when Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton.Pet Hog wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:06 pmPerhaps Vinny meant to write, "Not all crimes are impeachable offenses and not all impeachable offenses are crimes"? "All crimes are not impeachable" sounds like a politician could literally get away with murder!yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:35 pmNo. It's a phrase it seems I've recently frequently heard.sweetbthescrivener wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:26 am I think Vinny was just having fun with Newspeak.
Vinny
No. "High crimes and misdemeanors" means an offense to the country, breaching the fiduciary duty to the country.Xan wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:00 pm Impeaching for something that isn't a crime would be a terrible precedent. How would a President even know whether something he's doing is impeachable or not, if he can be impeached for something that's legal?
Fortunately, I don't think it's true. Surely there has to be a crime for somebody to be impeached. Isn't "high crimes and misdemeanors" the threshold?
yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:25 am If you want to learn more about the issues surrounding impeachment either watch this or read the author's book or do both.
I read his book last night immediately after I finished watching it.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?466747-1/impeach
The author has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court so he knows something about legalities.
Vinny
They can, and would, impeach him for farting out of order. Shoot, they can do anything they please, including smothering him with a pillow, as we are long past the point where the dems controlling this sham give a hoot about what's legal. At this point, the list of potential indictees has become quite long, and their kangaroo court (which from the beginning has flagrantly deviated from anything even resembling legal process) shows every sign of being a last gasp attempt to save their own skins.Xan wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:00 pm Impeaching for something that isn't a crime would be a terrible precedent. How would a President even know whether something he's doing is impeachable or not, if he can be impeached for something that's legal?
Fortunately, I don't think it's true. Surely there has to be a crime for somebody to be impeached. Isn't "high crimes and misdemeanors" the threshold?
I stand corrected.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:53 pmOf course you have heard that in the Democrat party media.yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:35 pmNo. It's a phrase it seems I've recently frequently heard.sweetbthescrivener wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:26 am I think Vinny was just having fun with Newspeak.
Vinny
Maybe you should stop watching, listening to, or reading such propaganda.
How many impeachment cases has he argued?yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:26 amyankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:25 am If you want to learn more about the issues surrounding impeachment either watch this or read the author's book or do both.
I read his book last night immediately after I finished watching it.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?466747-1/impeach
The author has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court so he knows something about legalities.
Vinny
Except it was written and came out BEFORE the infamous July 25th phone call!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:59 pmAlan Dershowitz has a pretty good handle on what the Framers meant to do with impeachment:yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:25 am If you want to learn more about the issues surrounding impeachment either watch this or read the author's book or do both.
I read his book last night immediately after finishing watching.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?466747-1/impeach
Vinny
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Imp ... 151074228X
It's a waste of your good mind to argue with a non-analysis.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:25 pmHave you read the transcript of that call? I have, and there is absolutely nothing there that could possibly be a legitimate cause of impeachment.yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:14 pmExcept it was written and came out BEFORE the infamous July 25th phone call!Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:59 pmAlan Dershowitz has a pretty good handle on what the Framers meant to do with impeachment:yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:25 am If you want to learn more about the issues surrounding impeachment either watch this or read the author's book or do both.
I read his book last night immediately after finishing watching.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?466747-1/impeach
Vinny
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Imp ... 151074228X
Vinny
But it's obvious that there is no reaching you. So my last comment on this topic here is that people who have been brainwashed by propaganda will be very unhappy when Trump is re-elected in a landslide and the Republicans win back the House.
That is going to happen because the American people who voted for Trump, and many other Americans who haven't succumbed to the brainwashing, are tired of the ceaseless attacks on the Republic by the Democrat party, the Democrat party press, and the Deep State.