- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:34 am
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:34 am
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 11:10 am
11
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:36 am to Kraut Dawg
so the Constitution doesnt apply to the President?
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:37 am to Kraut Dawg
Hillary argued this very point when she was on staff as a Watergate counsel.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:40 am to Kraut Dawg
If they spew it to the masses, then the masses believe it and they can do as they wish...
Since this is a trial of the POTUS, I really do not see how anyone could say that he does not deserve due process... It is the only way that a POTUS can be prosecuted...
Since this is a trial of the POTUS, I really do not see how anyone could say that he does not deserve due process... It is the only way that a POTUS can be prosecuted...
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:40 am to Kraut Dawg
quote:
I'm certainly no legal scholar, but is this a blatant double standard?
I can see why this might be confusing, let me try and shed some light.
The reason due process does not apply is because this is not a criminal trial. Even if removed from office, he will still not be convicted of a crime.
It's amazing to me that grown adults don't understand how our government works.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:41 am to Godfather1
quote:
Hillary argued this very point when she was on staff as a Watergate counsel.
Yes - even argued that he should not be allowed to have counsel.
She was fired from the committee for lying repeatedly.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:41 am to AuburnTigers
quote:
so the Constitution doesnt apply to the President?
Of course not because this President is bad, very bad. He's a big meanie who says mean things. He's orange too.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:43 am to The Maj
quote:
I really do not see how anyone could say that he does not deserve due process
It's how the constitution works.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:46 am to LSUconvert
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 11:10 am
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:47 am to Kraut Dawg
quote:
why then would Nadler have argued against it in the 90s?
Because he's a partisan hack?
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:49 am to Kraut Dawg
quote:
I assume that my colleagues in the majority who pride themselves on being strict constructionists will agree that a standard of impeachment is not something that we can just pull out of the air to seize the political moment.
Live by your words, Fatso, live by your words!
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:52 am to LSUconvert
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/9/21 at 11:10 am
Posted on 12/31/19 at 10:56 am to Kraut Dawg
Gerhardt is correct.
Nadler was wrong in the Clinton era. Yes, he is applying a duplicitous double-standard today.
He is a partisan hack. Simple.
Nadler was wrong in the Clinton era. Yes, he is applying a duplicitous double-standard today.
He is a partisan hack. Simple.
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 10:59 am
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:02 am to Kraut Dawg
quote:
So if Mr. Nadler is a partisan hack during Clinton's impeachment, it's pretty safe to say that he's been a partisan hack this time around too?
Totally, his view that the President isn't entitled to due process is totally partisan in motivation.
He(along with every other article stating that the president isn't entitled to due process) happens to be correct this time.
His motivation is irrelevant to the fact.
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 11:05 am
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:06 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:False.quote:Yes - even argued that he should not be allowed to have counsel.
Hillary argued this very point when she was on staff as a Watergate counsel.
She was fired from the committee for lying repeatedly.
She received her last paycheck from the Judiciary Committee a month AFTER Nixon’s resignation and thus after the end of the investigation for which she was hired.
PolitiFact
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 11:07 am
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:09 am to LSUconvert
quote:Right result for the wrong reason. The concept will be soundly rejected here.
his view that the President isn't entitled to due process is totally partisan in motivation.
He(along with every other article stating that the president isn't entitled to due process) happens to be correct this time.
His motivation is irrelevant to the fact.
If the Constitution does not support any given pro-Trump talking point, it simply MUST be that the Constitution is wrong.
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 11:18 am
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:16 am to LSUconvert
It is amazing to me that grown people believe what the democrats are doing is “how the government is supposed to work.
They usually turn out to be corrupt just like the democrats they support.
Make sure you are here when the shite about pelosi’s son comes out
They usually turn out to be corrupt just like the democrats they support.
Make sure you are here when the shite about pelosi’s son comes out
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:19 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If the Constitution does not support any given pro-Trump talking point, it simply MUST be that the Constitution is wrong.
Right on queue here's gthog!
But more accurately that the democrats have found some loophole in it.
This post was edited on 12/31/19 at 11:22 am
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:38 am to LSUconvert
quote:
He(along with every other article stating that the president isn't entitled to due process) happens to be correct this time.
You're clearly overlooking the fact that there are forms of due process other than the strictly criminal due process rights that receive most of the attention in this area. For instance, if the government seeks to cut your disability or social security benefits, you enjoy certain aspects of due process prior to final action. Your property being sought by government via eminent domain? Due process. Dismissal from many government jobs? Due process first. And so on and so forth.
Then in a broader sense, our entire government was created on the foundation of fundamental fairness and due process. It's certainly nothing to actively seek as an American, to find some loophole around fundamental fairness and due process. Some even seem boastful about it. That's the polar opposite of what we're supposed to be about.
Posted on 12/31/19 at 11:40 am to davyjones
Exactly. These idiots are trying to argue that because the Constitution doesn't specifically spell out in favor of due process during impeachment that 200 years plus of history don't indicate that our entire system is based upon the concept of due process.
I suppose they can say it's not mandated by the Constitution but it's utterly absurd to act as if the Constitution speaks negatively on the subject.
I suppose they can say it's not mandated by the Constitution but it's utterly absurd to act as if the Constitution speaks negatively on the subject.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News