d2jsp
d2jsp Forums > General Chat > Political & Religious Discussion > Impeachment Hearings
Prev1142143144
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Greet
#1431 Dec 5 2019 07:15am
Group: Member
Posts: 10,605
Joined: Jun 18 2012
Gold: 1,120.01
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 5 2019 02:03am)
Lol?!

The witness was clearly implying that "Barron" is a silly, pompous first name.


Oh stop that bullshit. Lets assume for a second that she was actually implying that his name is ‘silly & pompous’... aren’t the liberals supposed to be snowflakes? And lets be real, the kid has waaaaaaaay more to worry about in terms of what is last name is than his first.

What the witness said was wrong. But not for any reason other than she should have known better because Republicans have 0 substance when it comes to the actual content of this case. They were able to divert attention away from the fact that our President is corrupt & has done a multitude of impeachable acts. So she shouldn’t have given them something they can grab onto.

Can’t believe you’re going to legitimately argue that saying he can name his son Barron but can’t make him a baron is any indication of an ‘attack’. For Christ sakes, I doubt Donny T even knows what a baron is
Skinned
#1432 Dec 5 2019 07:26am
Group: Member
Posts: 50,794
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 0.00
Quote (Greet @ Dec 5 2019 08:15am)
Oh stop that bullshit. Lets assume for a second that she was actually implying that his name is ‘silly & pompous’... aren’t the liberals supposed to be snowflakes? And lets be real, the kid has waaaaaaaay more to worry about in terms of what is last name is than his first.

What the witness said was wrong. But not for any reason other than she should have known better because Republicans have 0 substance when it comes to the actual content of this case. They were able to divert attention away from the fact that our President is corrupt & has done a multitude of impeachable acts. So she shouldn’t have given them something they can grab onto.

Can’t believe you’re going to legitimately argue that saying he can name his son Barron but can’t make him a baron is any indication of an ‘attack’. For Christ sakes, I doubt Donny T even knows what a baron is


They will be histrionic for the sake of argument.
Goomshill
#1433 Dec 5 2019 08:33pm
Group: Member
Posts: 34,062
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 455.00
https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1202750532709834752

So lets say that Adam Schiff never directly subpoenaed John Solomon or Devin Nunes, but instead subpoenaed people he knew they were talking to and got their metadata / texts / phone logs from the other side of the calls
it still begs the question- what authority does Adam Schiff have to subpoena phone records of anyone in the first place?

Quote
“There does not appear to be any basis to believe that a congressional committee is authorized to subpoena telephone records directly from a provider..." says former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.


They can't just claim infinite impeachment powers that revoke the 4th amendment. There's no allegation of a crime much less probable cause, and he's not a cop and they aren't signed off by a judge.
Its not some small and inconsequential power Schiff just seized for himself to say he can seize private information from providers on a whim.

Congress has enjoyed a legal grey area as to exactly how far their subpoena powers extend in the past, fought over in courts and never resolved. But this is a massive overstep by previous standards, especially as Schiff chose to publicize the records rather than keep them classified, especially as the calls were with journalists. In the past its been questions of whether they could compel an administration to comply with making a witness testify, now its suddenly Adam Schiff has the power to spy on anyone anywhere for any reason? In particular, the 4th amendment has long been understood to grant a dual check against unreasonable searches in that two of three branches of government are needed- either executive law enforcement or congressional requests to initiate a subpoena and the judiciary to sign off on it. That's not a power the judicial branch is wont to relinquish.
proccy
#1434 Dec 5 2019 11:12pm
Group: Member
Posts: 31,942
Joined: Apr 1 2007
Gold: 2,598.20
lol everyone still worked up over this bull crap.

two fallacies are at play here.
#1 = trump believing everything he does is "Perfect"
#2 = the democrats are not doing this out of political bias
Ghot
#1435 Dec 6 2019 12:01am
Group: Member
Posts: 96,671
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,195.00
Quote (Goomshill @ Dec 5 2019 09:33pm)
https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1202750532709834752

So lets say that Adam Schiff never directly subpoenaed John Solomon or Devin Nunes, but instead subpoenaed people he knew they were talking to and got their metadata / texts / phone logs from the other side of the calls
it still begs the question- what authority does Adam Schiff have to subpoena phone records of anyone in the first place?



They can't just claim infinite impeachment powers that revoke the 4th amendment. There's no allegation of a crime much less probable cause, and he's not a cop and they aren't signed off by a judge.
Its not some small and inconsequential power Schiff just seized for himself to say he can seize private information from providers on a whim.

Congress has enjoyed a legal grey area as to exactly how far their subpoena powers extend in the past, fought over in courts and never resolved. But this is a massive overstep by previous standards, especially as Schiff chose to publicize the records rather than keep them classified, especially as the calls were with journalists. In the past its been questions of whether they could compel an administration to comply with making a witness testify, now its suddenly Adam Schiff has the power to spy on anyone anywhere for any reason? In particular, the 4th amendment has long been understood to grant a dual check against unreasonable searches in that two of three branches of government are needed- either executive law enforcement or congressional requests to initiate a subpoena and the judiciary to sign off on it. That's not a power the judicial branch is wont to relinquish.






I'm not so sure the Judicial branch isn't still a bit involved in some underhanded shenanigans.

Remember how the DOJ just sort of "dropped" this case for "fishy" reasons...

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration



I'm thinking there still may be a few rats left in the DOJ.
Black XistenZ
#1436 Dec 6 2019 12:27am
Group: Member
Posts: 37,113
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 2,997.00
In a hyperpartisan environment where every area of life is slowly consumed by creeping polarization, was it ever realistic to assume that the judiciary would withstand the gravity of partisanship and remain a truly neutral institution? Wasnt it always more realistic to assume that it would one day get politicized?
Go Back To Political & Religious Discussion Topic List
Prev1142143144
Add Reply New Topic New Poll