If it’s misinformation it should be easy to refute — NOS4A2
“ However, Mueller did not allege any crimes directly connecting the two — that is, that Trump advisers criminally conspired with Russian officials to impact the election.
Other reported focuses of Mueller’s investigation — such as potential obstruction of justice by the Trump administration — also did not result in any charges.” — NOS4A2
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional impeachment or trial. The Constitution grants the House and Senate sole powers to impeach and try, respectively. The Constitution sets no rules, so they can do whatever they want.What if the impeachment inquiry was unfair and unjust, violating due process and the constitution? — NOS4A2
You're an idiot. There are a whole slew of claims that are known to be false but cannot be falsified. Knowing that allows us to also know that not all false claims can be falsified. Misinformation is not always false or falsifiable. Sometimes it can be true but irrelevant...
In any case... you're an idiot for suggesting that misinformation can be easily refuted.
Focus on the relevant facts.
Yeah. So you can just fuck off.
There is no such thing as an unconstitutional impeachment or trial. The Constitution grants the House and Senate sole powers to impeach and try, respectively. The Constitution sets no rules, so they can do whatever they want.
Complaining about fairness in this process seems similar to complaining that a participant in a street fight isn't following the Marquis of Queensbury rules of boxing. But lets consider it anyway. Is it fair for a President to block access to witnesses and documents by asserting executive privilege (and remember, that's the context we're discussing); it's contrary to the rules for discovery in standard cases. That "unfairness" is balanced against the "unfairness" of Congress' powers.
Yeah. So you can just fuck off.
So touchy, probably because even you know your misinformation is bunk. — NOS4A2
the case is already doomed in the senate. — NOS4A2
The case is "doomed in the [Senate]" because McConnell is happy to subvert his oath to be an impartial juror. He said it himself: "I'm not an impartial juror."
It’s doomed because the case is (1) inadequate, (2) without evidence, and (3) mostly fabricated by (4) those who know they cannot win in the next election. — NOS4A2
Give us another CNN... link. — NOS4A2
The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. — NOS4A2
Justice Roberts better do his job here. That juror(Mr. McConnell) must be removed. He ought be compelled to recuse himself, at the very least. Anyone else who so believes that they cannot be an impartial juror. Fer fuck's sake, this is perhaps the most important of all responsibilities bestowed upon the members of the Senate. — creativesoul
Isn't it the case, that when the House (as an entity) decided to begin impeachment proceedings, demands for evidence were valid? — Metaphysician Undercover
By having the full power of impeachment, no other body has Constitutional authority to deem anything that transpires as invalid. You may judge it unfair, but you can't claim it's unconstitutional.The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. This is precedent. — NOS4A2
When you say it's "not a good enough reason" - are you again talking about fairness? Fairness and constitutionality are two different things, and it seems to me you resort to Constitutionality when it helps your case (defending Trump's expansive use of executive privilege - clearly going beyond past boundaries, ignoring its unfairness), and then shift over to fairness when Constitutionality doesn't give you what you want. What could be more partisan than that?The fact that due process does not apply is not a good enough reason to avoid giving due process and applying justice. And in fact further proves the naked partisanship, how this is a ploy to influence the next election, and how the case is already doomed in the senate.
I'm telling you they don't care. They have Fox News and Facebook buttressing a rightist simulacra (a la Baudrillard) and they're just fucking going for it: Foisting a universe of alt-facts on the millions of dumbed-down a-historisic gullibles disgracing the Union. All the prep-work is done: The US broadly is dumb as fuck and gullible as fuck and Facebook has asceneded to the simulacric lodelight. — ZzzoneiroCosm
The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. This is precedent.
— NOS4A2
By having the full power of impeachment, no other body has Constitutional authority to deem anything that transpires as invalid. You may judge it unfair, but you can't claim it's unconstitutional. — Relativist
I'm sure the Senate Ethics Committee will get right on that.HE ought be removed. — creativesoul
The Republican Senate members have a leader who is - by any and all reasonable accounts - siding with the defense(holding the same position as the president) and was prior to the start of the trial in which he has sworn an oath...
...to be an impartial juror during an impeachment trial. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.