Impeaching Donald Trump

[BernardLanguillier]

The arbitrators of the issue of Trumps actions being against the law and the consitiution rests completely on the Senate.  No other body can decide, be it the House of Represenatives, the Courts or the people.  This power is of course vested to the Senate by the Constitution.  Their verdict is legal and binding.  Deal with it Bernard.

Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate. In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.

Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.

Were they to follow the spirit of the constitution, they would look at facts, hear what the legal experts have to say in terms of the cases that can be impeached and hear the required witnesses to establish the truth in terms of were the facts lie relative to the cases outlined by the experts.

This has not happened the way it should have and this tells us how unethical the Republican Senate is relative to their duty.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Which is of course complete and utter bullcrap.  The words were PLAINLY written.  Words have meaning.  It this case the meaning was QUITE clear.  You, like Shiff are simply making things up

Yes, words have a meaning that is impacted by a context at a given point in time.

The word "President" means Trump today but it meant "Obama" 4 years ago.

When a poll asks Americans, "should the President be impeached"? Nobody understands this to mean "should President Obama be impeached".

That's because the word President as a meaning that is impacted by a context at a given point in time.

The same apply to "witness".

The poll we are discussing here was made after the Senate hearings started and it's 100% obvious that the only possible interpretation of the question was "should the Senate hear additional witnesses".

But you know this full well. You are just unwilling to admit the fact that 75% of Americans disapproved of the way the Republican Senate managed the impeachment process because it doesn't support your agenda.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Sometimes, Bernard, but they tend to be a lot more accurate than the rest of the TV crocks.

And how do you know when they are accurate and when they are not?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

Yes, words have a meaning that is impacted by a context at a given point in time.

The poll we are discussing here was made after the Senate hearings started and it's 100% obvious that the only possible interpretation of the question was "should the Senate hear additional witnesses".

Cheers,
Bernard

What part of this is impossible for you to understand?   The only possible interpretation is exactly what it said,
...witnesses.  Just admit you screwed up Bernard. If they had wanted to ask about additional witnesses, they would have worded the question that way like in other polls did.

You got scammed.  Learn to live with your shortcomings.

[BernardLanguillier]

What part of this is impossible for you to understand?   The only possible interpretation is exactly what it said,
...witnesses.  Just admit you screwed up Bernard. If they had wanted to ask about additional witnesses, they would have worded the question that way like in other polls did.

You got scammed.  Learn to live with your shortcomings.

Craig,

It looks like you quoted me partially, probably a context and timing issue...

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that any objective person reading our conversation would conclude that you are making sense here.

But I was not expecting you to change your position. 

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate.

It surely can be a partisan process.  Nothing in the constitution presents that.   Not always but clearly possible.  Kind of like what the House did, right?

In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.

It really depends on the actual makeup of the Senate.  In the case of the current Senate, to impeach Trump would require a a good number of Republicans and Democrats to join together to create the 67 vote super majority to convict.  Senators vote as they choose. 

Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.

They apply the constitution in this instance based on what THEY feel is correct.  They are playing their role exactly as the constitution requires.

Were they to follow the spirit of the constitution, they would look at facts, hear what the legal experts have to say in terms of the cases that can be impeached and hear the required witnesses to establish the truth in terms of were the facts lie relative to the cases outlined by the experts.

And that is exactly what they have done.  Sadly, for you, the outcome appears not to be the one you want.  Too bad.  This is how our Representative Republic works. 

This has not happened the way it should have and this tells us how unethical the Republican Senate is relative to their duty.

But they have lived up to their duty, the problem is you don’t like the outcome.  So cry me a river. 

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

It looks like you quoted me partially, probably a context and timing issue...

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that any objective person reading our conversation would conclude that you are making sense here.

But I was not expecting you to change your position. 

Cheers,
Bernard

Well Bernard it appears you changed you post as I was creating mine.  Not my problem.

Objective people can read the exact wording of the question and find no need to invent context to try and make it fit a failed position like you are attempting. 

And I hold no illusions that you will admit you screwed up. 

[BernardLanguillier]

They apply the constitution in this instance based on what THEY feel is correct.  They are playing their role exactly as the constitution requires.

And that is exactly what they have done.  Sadly, for you, the outcome appears not to be the one you want.  Too bad.  This is how our Representative Republic works. 

But they have lived up to their duty, the problem is you don’t like the outcome.  So cry me a river.

As I am sure you have understood, my comment isn't about the outcome, it's about the process that was - not - followed to gather the facts and listen to witnesses.

The issue here is that Republican senators have taken an a priori stance - a purely partisan and political one - that Trump was innocent and as a result have prevented the provision of objective facts through additional testimonies that could have impacted their "feeling" (used in the context of your previous sentence).

So their feeling is based on nothing but partisanship instead of being based on facts, and this is clearly what not the great founders were expecting from Senators when they wrote the constitution.

As a result, it seems fair an objective to call the behaviour of Republican Senators unethical, and I would dare to say, unlawful.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Well Bernard it appears you changed you post as I was creating mine.  Not my problem.

Objective people can read the exact wording of the question and find no need to invent context to try and make it fit a failed position like you are attempting. 

And I hold no illusions that you will admit you screwed up.

The fact that the meaning of a word is contextual is just that, a fact that's at the core of every communication between humans. It is thanks to context that we don't need to define every single word we use in every single sentence we write.

That you deny something this basic and obvious renders any conversation with you meaningless.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate. In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.

Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.

Were they to follow the spirit of the constitution, they would look at facts, hear what the legal experts have to say in terms of the cases that can be impeached and hear the required witnesses to establish the truth in terms of were the facts lie relative to the cases outlined by the experts.

This has not happened the way it should have and this tells us how unethical the Republican Senate is relative to their duty.

Cheers,
Bernard

You're wrong Bernard. If a president committed a real high crime, as Republican President Nixon did, both parties will enforce the constitution.  Nixon resigned when his fellow party Republicans told him privately in the Oval OFfice he went too far and that they, the Republicans from his own party, would vote to impeach him along with Democrats making acquittal in the Senate not something he could expect.  Nixon resigned rather than having to face his own party's guilty verdict before they even voted. 

[BernardLanguillier]

You're wrong Bernard. If a president committed a real high crime, as Republican President Nixon did, both parties will enforce the constitution.  Nixon resigned when his fellow party Republicans told him privately in the Oval OFfice he went too far and that they, the Republicans from his own party, would vote to impeach him along with Democrats making acquittal in the Senate not something he could expect.  Nixon resigned rather than having to face his own party's guilty verdict before they even voted.

The part in bold is correct, I see no relationship between that and me being wrong.

You are again justifying the innocence of Trump by the behviour of Republican Senators who based their actions on a a priori stance that Trump was innocent. As a result, you are saying nothing but "The proof of Trump's innocence is that he was considered innocent by partisan Senators".

You cannot not see the logical fallacy here.

Which means that you are not being honest in this conversation. You are just trying to be right at the cost of logic and truth.

Keep in mind that, as a free man, you have the liberty at any point in time to adhere back to your Republican principal of rightness and truth. You don't need to continue lying to yourself.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Craig Lamson]

As I am sure you have understood, my comment isn't about the outcome, it's about the process that was - not - followed to gather the facts and listen to witnesses.

The issue here is that Republican senators have taken a priori stance - a purely partisan and political one - that Trump was innocent and as a result have prevented the provision of objective facts through additional testimonies that could have impacted their feeling.

So their feeling is based on nothing but partisanship, and this is clearly what not the great founders were expecting from Senators when they wrote the constitution.

As a result, it seems fair an objective to call the behaviour of Republican Senators unethical, and I would date to say, unlawful.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, the entire Senate has spend days hearing arguments and have the written account of 17 witnesses.  Regardless of their feelings about the situation prior to the trial, they have done their constitutional duty. Then they decided to not hear additional witnesses or add additional documents, all according to the rules voted upon to hold the trial.  They acted exactly as the constitution demands.  It is neither unethical or un lawful.  For you to claim otherwise is beyond silly.

 I’m sure the founders would have preferred that the impeachment as delivered by the House would not have been totally partisan, but that’s the path the Democrats chose to travel.  The founders even warned against it.  But the Dems persisted and even failed to secure the witnesses you claim are so important.   Too bad for you.  This is our Representative Republic is action.  Legal and constitutional.   Your side simply lost it appears.

[Craig Lamson]

The fact that the meaning of a word is contextual is just that, a fact that's at the core of every communication between humans. It is thanks to context that we don't need to define every single word we use in every single sentence we write.

That you deny something this basic and obvious renders any conversation with you meaningless.

Cheers,
Bernard

So let’s review.  Bernard wants to ask a question to Americans to see if they want “additional” witnesses to the impeachment trial.  So he writes the question ;  “ Do you want witnesses in the impeachment trial?” 

He must depend upon the reader to determine his intention is to ask about additional witnesses beyond the witnesses already part of the trial., many of which have no idea there are already witnesses in the trial. 

Instead, other polls asked; “Do you want ADDITIONAL witnesses to the impeachment trial? ”.  No need for convoluted distortions to get the reader to infer context that is obscure.  Just a clearly worded question that requires no implication. 

You need to be mentally challenged to find Bernards contorted position even remotely plausible.

He simply screwed up and is looking to save face.

[JoeKitchen]

As someone with degrees in Mathematics and who has studied statistics fairly intensely, not including the word "additional" would, at best, make it a flawed question in a survey.  At worse, it could be seen as personal bias on part of the pollster. 

Creating a bias free poll is extremely difficult and the fact is that flaws and biases on the part of the pollsters happen all of the time.  A lot of the time, if the pollster only ever interacts with people of his own opinion, he will never even be able to spot any biases in his poll since his counterparts have the same biases as himself and would just as easily looked over it. 

Just something to keep in mind when looking at any set of statistics. 

[Alan Klein]

The part in bold is correct, I see no relationship between that and me being wrong.

You are again justifying the innocence of Trump by the behviour of Republican Senators who based their actions on a a priori stance that Trump was innocent. As a result, you are saying nothing but "The proof of Trump's innocence is that he was considered innocent by partisan Senators".

You cannot not see the logical fallacy here.

Which means that you are not being honest in this conversation. You are just trying to be right at the cost of logic and truth.

Keep in mind that, as a free man, you have the liberty at any point in time to adhere back to your Republican principal of rightness and truth. You don't need to continue lying to yourself.

Cheers,
Bernard

My post said nothing about Trump's innoence.  I responded to your point that a president couldn't get impeached by his party.  Nixon proved your statement wrong.  If there's enough evidence of a real High Crime, both parties will impeach and convict.  The problem is the Democrat House used political charges to impeach, rather than real High Crimes.  So the president's party dismissed them for political reasons.  GIGO_Garbage In Garbage Out. 

Your side seems to have a problem with the American Constitution.  You also don;t like the way our electoral system works constantly complaining that Trump didn't really win the presidency because Clinton got more popular votes.  So now you're doing it again complaining that the Senate didn't do it's constitutional job.  You seem to have problems handling losing. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

As someone with degrees in Mathematics and who has studied statistics fairly intensely, not including the word "additional" would, at best, make it a flawed question in a survey.  At worse, it could be seen as personal bias on part of the pollster. 

Creating a bias free poll is extremely difficult and the fact is that flaws and biases on the part of the pollsters happen all of the time.  A lot of the time, if the pollster only ever interacts with people of his own opinion, he will never even be able to spot any biases in his poll since his counterparts have the same biases as himself and would just as easily looked over it. 

Just something to keep in mind when looking at any set of statistics.

I agree (as a former Marketing Analyst, coming from a background with a fair level of statistical analysis), and would like to add that picking an aselect sample to interview is really hard, especially in the case where (like in the USA) the political views are very polarized (due to a mainly 2-party system).

[Alan Klein]

I agree (as a former Marketing Analyst, coming from a background with a fair level of statistical analysis), and would like to add that picking an aselect sample to interview is really hard, especially in the case where (like in the USA) the political views are very polarized (due to a mainly 2-party system).

There's a lot of shaming going on as well.  People don't want to acknowledge their beliefs because they'll be made fun of being called Nazis, bigots, and racists,  accusations that you would never hear in this forum. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Which means that, according to your interpretation, the impeachment process clearly outlined in the constitution with clear guidelines about applicability, is an empty shell since it will always be at the mercy of partisanship in the Senate. In other words, a President would - again according to your interpretation - only be impeachable if the Senate is in the hands of the opposition. This is obviously not what the great founders had in mind when they embedded in the constitution the possibility of a president to be impeached.

+1

Note that this is only the case because Republicans are not playing their role in applying the constitution they made an oath to protect.

Sadly true, but somewhat to be expected (not justified, but expected) in such a partisan divided environment.

[Alan Klein]

So the first voting appears to be in from Iowa Democrats nomination.  I don;t know if this is the final. But Biden didn't do too well.  Buttgieg won. The Democrats must be getting nervous.  Time to impeach Trump again. 


Buttigieg   27.6%   
Sanders   26.3   
Warren   20.5
Biden   13.8   
Klobuchar   11.5   

[LesPalenik]

I'm glad Pete did so well. From now on, he'll surge like a Tesla.
Until the other mayor steps in.