I made the statement that I didn't believe it was a gaff before I heard her try and defend her statement in the town hall remarks. My belief that it wasn't a gaff is dissipating after hearing those remarks. She didn't help herself on this issue with the town hall remarks. And it wasn't evident that it was intentional with the way she defended it. She should have left it alone if her defense was going to be so inept.
This is the Republican Party
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
There is no evidence to support this. Yes, having no friction is bad (it usually means one group is enforcing their will) but that doesn’t mean everything, even things most Americans agree on, should become stalled for 30+ years.
Sorry, just read your wackadoodle second paragraph. Your partisanship is nuts. I am glad that I will likely outlive you as will my generation so I won’t have to deal with this in my old age.
Its sad when the whole world is just waiting on a bunch of jaded nutjobs to keel over so we can actually have some good years…
The more government does and grows, the less freedom the people have to choose their own paths and determine their own futures...
Quick question for the class….
President Trump’s attorneys, with him in the room, are arguing for blanket immunity unless the senate convicts upon impeachment.
So…. does that mean that upon a final ruling on Supreme Court appeal, Joe Biden could go on live TV and state that he has declared Donald Trump an enemy of the state and instructed the military or another governmental agency to commit an extrajudicial execution of Trump and promptly resign the next day with complete immunity?
I’m not sure that Trump or his cohort truly understands the implications of what they are asking for should it fall into someone else’s hands….. that is, unless he intends to never relinquish power again.
President Trump’s attorneys, with him in the room, are arguing for blanket immunity unless the senate convicts upon impeachment.
So…. does that mean that upon a final ruling on Supreme Court appeal, Joe Biden could go on live TV and state that he has declared Donald Trump an enemy of the state and instructed the military or another governmental agency to commit an extrajudicial execution of Trump and promptly resign the next day with complete immunity?
I’m not sure that Trump or his cohort truly understands the implications of what they are asking for should it fall into someone else’s hands….. that is, unless he intends to never relinquish power again.
Presidential immunity is a weird deal. Biden (or any President) can declare someone an enemy of the state and not only have that person killed but if we mistake someone else for that person and kill them the President or those acting on his orders can’t be charged with a crime….correct ? Assume the President has to act in good faith ?
I understand the reasoning of Presidential immunity but that doesn’t mean I don’t have concerns. As you know I’m big on precedents and don’t believe the one you presented would be positive. Unfortunately, there are lots of political precedents currently under review. Very few of them positive.
I understand the reasoning of Presidential immunity but that doesn’t mean I don’t have concerns. As you know I’m big on precedents and don’t believe the one you presented would be positive. Unfortunately, there are lots of political precedents currently under review. Very few of them positive.
President Obama ordered a drone strike that resulted in the targeted killing of a juvenile U.S. citizen non-combatant in a non-hostile country. Murder? Not immune?
Not even an equitable comparison to Jan 6. There are justifiable & credible reasons for immunity in the instance of the drone strike.
I believe Huffy was directly addressing Aston scenario when Biden executes Trump
If so, those two situations don't compare either.I believe Huffy was directly addressing Aston scenario when Biden executes Trump
If Biden thought he could execute Trump, he would have already done it... but, i think he is afraid of learning the real definition of "insurrection"I believe Huffy was directly addressing Aston scenario when Biden executes Trump
It's not their fault that the rednecks can't organize a real insurrection of the USA.
Maybe manslaughter probably not murder. Also, probably shouldn’t allow the authorization of drone strikes to kill non combatants in non war zones at all.
No, he has to wait until the SC rules in Trump’s favor... then he has guaranteed immunity.
If he kills Trump before they rule on it, then they will see the err of their ways too soon and rule against him later.
Wanting to hear from a lawyer on the board who is at least semi-knowledgeable about Constitutional law.
Would the Supreme Court's decision apply broadly to most if not all states, when ruled upon in the Colorado case? Or would the Supreme court be able to narrowly rule only on the Colorado case being applied to the state of Colorado, if they so chose?(or something in between the two) I would think that they would have the latitude to rule broadly or narrowly.
Just because the impeachment of Trump did not result in a conviction, doesn't say whether he was guilty of aiding an insurrection does it? I would think the DOJ would still be able to bring about a case on that if they independently decided to, free of the current President's influence.
It's too bad we couldn't put the ghost of congress past, (those in office in Nixon's presidency) in place of our present congress, during Trump's second impeachment. I think there is a good chance they would have convicted him.
Would the Supreme Court's decision apply broadly to most if not all states, when ruled upon in the Colorado case? Or would the Supreme court be able to narrowly rule only on the Colorado case being applied to the state of Colorado, if they so chose?(or something in between the two) I would think that they would have the latitude to rule broadly or narrowly.
Just because the impeachment of Trump did not result in a conviction, doesn't say whether he was guilty of aiding an insurrection does it? I would think the DOJ would still be able to bring about a case on that if they independently decided to, free of the current President's influence.
It's too bad we couldn't put the ghost of congress past, (those in office in Nixon's presidency) in place of our present congress, during Trump's second impeachment. I think there is a good chance they would have convicted him.
Manslaughter is an unintentional unjustified killing of a human being. In this case, President Obama knew in advance that we were targeting a juvenile U.S. citizen. He was a primary target. The drone strike was ordered. The killing was intentional.
President Obama killed at least 565 persons in friendly countries or non-combat zones in non-hostile countries that we know of, mostly in Pakistan, Yemen, and Niger. Roughly ten times as many as President Bush and mostly after major combat operations had begun to end.
This, according to what I’ve seen has not been proven to be true.
Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011, airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[8] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki's son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.
I’m more lenient if it were unintentional, I’m also more lenient when it did involve actual combatants (which can unfortunately result in collateral damage of non-combatants) even so, the situation we’re discussing should certainly have the ability to be punished if it’s severe enough.
Last edited:
We also attacked and killed civilians in a wedding. Imagine if a foreign country carried out such an attack on American soil.
www.hrw.org
A Wedding That Became a Funeral
This 28-page report calls on the US government to investigate the strike, publish its findings, and act in the event of wrongdoing. The December 12 attack killed 12 men and wounded at least 15 other people, including the bride.
You both keep pointing these things out and ignore the fact that I say you’re right. We should not have done that. I don’t believe presidents should be immune for such decisions. If they didn’t believe they had immunity for it, they would not be ordering subordinates to do it.We also attacked and killed civilians in a wedding. Imagine if a foreign country carried out such an attack on American soil.
A Wedding That Became a Funeral
This 28-page report calls on the US government to investigate the strike, publish its findings, and act in the event of wrongdoing. The December 12 attack killed 12 men and wounded at least 15 other people, including the bride.
I don’t care that it was Obama.
We conducted ourselves as a nation for hundreds of years without extra judicial killings. Why should that be allowed to change? Who granted a president that authority? Congress has the right to declare war, and they never declared it on these people. The military and the CIA have been used for things in the name of national security that the founding fathers never would have dreamed of. I can hear Thomas Jefferson saying “YOU DID WHAT!?!?” at the pearly gates.
Last edited:
Just illustrating how broad immunity has been defined for decades. Don’t see that changing. The President and higher ups in the military appear to be able to do just about whatever they please. Activities a foot soldier would almost surely be prosecuted.
Here’s an instance where Biden approved a botched airstrike which killed 7 children. If you don’t believe Obama should be immune then it follows you support Biden being prosecuted in this instance…correct ?
US military releases videos of August drone strike that killed 10 Afghan civilians
The US military released videos Wednesday of the botched August 29 drone strike in Kabul that killed 10 Afghan civilians, including seven children.
amp.cnn.com
And what people have been arguing for decades is that such an undefined and unrestricted power held by one person is dangerous and doesn’t exist in the spirit of the constitution. Also it allows for more cans of worms like the one that Trump is trying to open.
Its also one reason why I say the balance of power between the branches isnt nearly the same anymore as it was in 1800
It’s a loophole that is open for an opportunist or several opportunists to exploit.
So you approve of prosecuting Biden and other DOD personnel who approved the botched airstrike which killed multiple children ?
Actually, Thomas Jefferson paid off Algeria and Tunisia to avoid a three front conflict and launched an extended war with present day Libya over Muslim piracy in the Mediterranean. Given the number of US ships seized and their crews sold into slavery, Im pretty sure he would pretty much be OK with our strategic and tactical decisions in the Middle East lately.
For his trouble, Jefferson was accused by Adams of secretly being a Muslim. History does repeat itself. Adams proposed paying all of the piracy states off, as Europe had for centuries, because it would be cheaper than raising a navy to defeat them. Reasoning not too dissimilar from the logic of Reagan and Trump and their tactics in the Middle East.
Lawpoke, this is not directed at you specifically, but the board in general. It is directed towards the last several comments, and toward general comments from the board in the past.We also attacked and killed civilians in a wedding. Imagine if a foreign country carried out such an attack on American soil.
A Wedding That Became a Funeral
This 28-page report calls on the US government to investigate the strike, publish its findings, and act in the event of wrongdoing. The December 12 attack killed 12 men and wounded at least 15 other people, including the bride.
All these terrorists kill indiscriminately, and we are powerless to act because of the covert guerilla warfare tactics they use. That is unless we use them ourselves. I don't ever hear Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, or Trump attacked for their policies on terrorism unless it's by the Democrats on this board. I also don't ever hear Carter, Clinton, Obama, or Biden attacked on this board, for their terrorist policies, unless it's by the Republicans.
I don't think there are as many differences in their policies or justifications toward terrorists, no matter the party. We kill terrorists with policies that go against our general bent about what is morally right in many instances because if we didn't, we would be losing the war. That's the case with Democratic and Republican presidents, because it is necessary in order to combat terrorism.
It's not like it's a conventional war, in which the other side even thinks about UN conventions, or ever has to face any charges. They kill themselves for their cause. We don't have anything to combat that, except at best, morally ambiguous actions. They hide in ways that demand those actions. They hide behind some innocent, and some not so innocent civilians.
I just find it odd that any criticisms of these actions almost always follow partisan lines. No one comes on here criticizing both parties or excusing both parties. Seems a little hypocritical to me, considering that the policies don't really seem to differ overall between parties IMO. The justifications and actions don't seem that different to me. It's just another chance to jump on the actions of the other party. Sometimes I think if a Republican administration did something to the Jews, or the Democrats did something to the Ukrainians(just current examples to apply) that the arguments and sympathies would be reversed by republicans and democrats on this board.
All these actions being brought up are military actions on foreign soil. Not actions toward Americans for an insurrection on American soil. Seems like convenient times to bring up all the bugaboos of the past military actions to excuse the actions of Trump on American congressmen and VP's with the aid of fellow citizens, breaking the law. And then throw them all into the same pot in order to muddy the waters of what is justified as a defense.
Yeah, every president has had to do things in foreign policy which could be put into a prosecutorial light, if one wanted to. Military actions lend to that more with the passing of every year. Comparing military actions to Jan 6, with Americans on American soil didn't used to hold a lot of the same ambiguous arguments that military actions have inherent to them post WWII. They should still be that way. They should be apples and oranges, and not be able to be used in arguments between the two.
We aren't dealing with Muslim justifications by Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Al Quedah, etc. We aren't dealing with the idealogical musings of Putin's new Russian Empire/old Soviet Union, or China's attempt to rebuild their past communist Empire, or the Talibani dictates of the last millenia or two, or the lunatic fringe of North Korea. We are dealing with our system of law, our constitution, and our laws on insurrection. That used to be easy to interpret. Now it seems to be a lot of double speak.
What you do not hear on MSNBC is that the Supreme Court ruled on this exact issue 100 years ago. They construed the disqualifying portions of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment together with Section 5, as any honest lawyer should. Section 5 states that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are to be enforced exclusively by the U.S. Congress to the exclusion of all others. This necessarily includes enforcement by inferior courts such as the Colorado Supreme Court, even so far as it would apply to whether particular candidates or parties appear on the federal ballots in their particular states.
Congress actually passed legislation regarding acts related to insurrection and provided for civil and criminal penalties. Though the word "insurrection" appears only in the title and is not defined in the statute, the code prohibits 5 different types of activities. The Biden political team has attempted to boot strap that into insurrection. The first two clearly do not apply: (1) conspiracy “to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States,” and (2) conspiracy “to levy war against” the United States. The mob was a riot that intended, misguided in their minds, to preserve the government and maintain Trump in the Presidency. While observers might view their actions as an attempt to overthrow the government, that was not their intent, and the prosecutors know it. They obviously did not declare war on the United States. And in any event Congress convened three hours later.
The remaining three parts of the code is what the Biden DOJ appears to be relying upon: (3) “to oppose by force the authority” of the United States government, and (4) conspiracy “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” (5) conspire to forcibly seize U.S. Government property.
The most serious indictments to date have focused on 3 and 4, but none of those cases has named President Trump as an un-indicted co-conspirator. Neither charge, although very serious, is sedition, much less, insurrection as the word was used with the general public meaning at the time the amendment was adopted.
The people filing these lawsuits all know this. This isnt really difficult legal analysis. A third year law student can get through it all over a weekend. The Supreme Court decision will bind every jurisdiction and remind everyone that this issue was decided before we were all born - that Congress decides what insurrection is, not Colorado judges. Something the Colorado trial judge pointed out and was overruled on appeal by judges directly appointed by democratic governors.
The only question is whether and how the decision can be rendered without tearing the country apart. I have confidence that the court will act to preserve the dignity of our institutions and the integrity of the court, just as they did with Obamacare. I am hopeful it will be in the form of a 9-0 decision solely on the Section 5 argument and the remaining issues left until after the conclusion of any trial convicting the party to be disqualified, in this case, President Trump, of seditious conspiracy or insurrection.
Whether they intended it or not, the people out there and on here advocating for the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump are doing exactly what they condemn Trump and his allies for doing. Hanging on to highly dubious, nearly universally rejected legal theories to try and hamstring or interfere the orderly election of a President.
I wont speak to all of your points here, but I will say that most public opinion is not organic, especially since the rise of social media. You are told what to be upset about. Selected facts are shown to you to influence your opinion in one direction or another. Remember The Maine. And typically, the folks driving those narratives have enough familiarity with how we operate outside traditional military and diplomatic channels to realize that most of these actions are not partisan policy based. Its our intelligence assets or our allies that propose using things like targeted killings when military force or diplomacy wont work. Indeed, after an incident and our covert responses, the partisan public debate is typically that. Diplomacy or military actions? Meanwhile, the silent services continue doing the work that needs to get done to preserve the safety and security of all Americans. And that is what is most disturbing to a lot of people when they hear about the politicization of portions of the intelligence community. It needs to be viewed, especially amongst those in Washington, as apolitical, to get done what needs to get done overseas.
I understand all of that and agree with it. I am not making an argument for the Supreme Court to rule against Trump. I agree that the court should and will probably rule in his favor.
I am talking about the general guilt of Trump who should have been convicted, but was let off by cowardly, greedy, power hungry, supplicant republicans in his 2nd impeachment. Using justifications of military actions by any president to justify Trump's innocence isn't right. It is not applicable. Republicans congressmen should have been 100% behind Liz Cheney, and championed her moral fortitude, in the face of many ignorant Americans who supported Trump. We have got ourselves into this morass, with one more step in favor of Trump, followed by another step, and another. Somebody should have stopped this march with a wall of serious action a long time ago. His cabinet tried to hinder him and that didn't work. Liz Cheney was too late, regrettably. With that conviction, it would be a totally different argument with this Supreme Court's ruling. It might have never even reached the Supreme Court and been moot.
Last edited:
