WATCH LIVE: Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump (Day Six)

Apparently, he chose not to. And, it's questionable, because Vought is only Acting Director. Mulvaney, I believe, retains the Director title, while serving as Acting Chief of Staff. Plus, plenty of testimony floating around that the aid was withheld at the expressed order of the President.

 

Basically 'almost', but almost doesn't cut it. The law matters.

 

Dershowitz destroyed the far left loons like Maxine Waters who say no crime is necessary for impeachment and the standard for impeachment is whatever Congress says it is.

 

I don't believe you watched him. Did you?

 

You must have missed the part when he admitted his "theory" was contrary to the majority of academic constitutional scholars, most of whom do not believe a statute crime is necessary. Never thought of Maxine as a constitutional scholar, but her opinion seems to side with the majority of them.

 

For Texas Republican and others who obviously did not actually watch Dershowitz:

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/le...he-has-a-minority-view-its-because-hes-wrong/

 

If there is no clear definition of what qualifies for impeachment, we have chaos and an omnipotent legislature.

It also encourages partisan impeachments.

And Maxine is both a loon and a crook.

 

Yes, I did. He is an island of sanity in this charade.

 

Not at all...IMO, the Founders deliberately left one of the criteria vague, to allow for changes in society and the Congresses which represent them.

 

Maybe he watched but didn't listen?

 

Then you would have seen his admission that his view is a MINORITY one among his peers.

 

Trying to see if there is actual facts behind the question or your assumptions based on other assumptions

 

Don't try to double guess. The question stands by itself.

 

A question based on presumption not fact..... Not worth my time tbh

 

No assumption of anything. It is a very simple question which you are avoiding.

Run away then.

 

What does that prove?

Galileo view that the sun was the center of the solar system was a minority view too......

"Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to geocentric models such as the Tychonic system.[9] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[9]"

 

It proves that even he acknowledges that he likely is wrong. You do recall (maybe not) that in the Clinton Impeachment, he argued there was no need for there to be a crime, but, he says he has changed his mind. This bloke is your 'fair weather' Lawyer.

 

Ditto with Lawrence Tribe (the democrats lawyer)

Galileo was thought be be wrong too most of his peers thought so.

 

Gee you do like your Galileo point, don't you. Silly. Oranges and apples. One is science and the other is an esoteric debate about what was in the minds of blokes 250 years ago.

 

And I believe the majority of them to be wrong. Impeachment for non-criminal acts can basically be summed up thusly: No-confidence votes.

We don't HAVE a no-confidence vote. I would love one, I would love the ability to recall public officials Mr. Turley, but we. just. don't. have. that. power. And the reason we don't have a no-confidence vote is that Britain(and much of Europe) was and still is in political turmoil. They replace their public officials at the drop of the hat.

But not the United States. In the US, we're reluctant to replace our officials(for better and for worse), and we use the ballot box. That's what makes us special. That's why our democracy(flawed as I still believe it to be) has stood the test of time.

If we adopt the majority's viewpoint, we will overturn the framers(and through the Senate) establish a no-confidence vote. And that no-confidence vote will be used ruthlessly and relentlessly. Why should I accept an Elizabeth Warren presidency? Give me ONE good reason to accept one.

No-confidence votes means to end the election process. So you think you're just getting Trump. You're not just getting Trump, you're going to screw America in the process.

 

Being in the minority doesn't mean your wrong...... Galileo is evidence of that

 

Dr. King certainly wasn't in the majority when he first spoke about the righteousness of human and civil rights. He had to compel others to his cause. Majority/minorities are so fragile, and in fact the appeal to the majority is an intellectual fallacy.

 

Perhaps, you favor stability over freedom. Remember, when the Constitution was implemented, the Senate was chosen by the State Legislatures and the electorate consisted of white males who owned property. The electorate and their self-interests have broadened with the expansion of the voting franchise. So, in 1787, the electorate was less diverse and the population density much lower. Law, IMO, to a large degree is a function of human interaction. A homogeneous population, with less density equals fewer interactions, and less need for "law." As the the population density and diversity increases there are more interactions and more stress. Combine that with the increasing complexity of our technology leads to the need for more law, which produces its own stress. It certainly produces more political challenges...but I prefer them to a totalitarian state.
And your comparison depends on your definition of stability. We have more concentration of income and wealth than most advanced economies. W also have more violence and crime than most advanced ed economies. We are the only advanced economy without some form of universal health care. So...I'd suggest stability depends upon how its defined.

 

As a white male, one of the reasons I left the Democratic Party was identity politics in the 21st century was poisonous to any actual philosophical conduct. So yeah, that doesn't ring too large for me. In proportion to property ownership could probably be more argued for class division(wealth disparity) then anything else.

I do agree with your law argument however, and that's actually why a totalitarian state is needed. To regulate the interactions, lower the stress and to mobilize society to achieving goals and aims.

 

Identity politics is a phase of assimilation. I think it will pass with the development of common standards and values. But, that means a willingness to become more tolerant and accept greater compromises, not less, with fewer compromises. I suspect you feel dispossessed and want to return to an earlier and, for most people, less free society...which was never the "American promise."