Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Quote:

---

Actually, no, its very obvious the DNC-MSM cabal is indeed rigging the election against Bernie and setting up to choose the nominee like they always do and did in 2016.

So Trump is just stating the very apparent obvious since both the debates and the NYT endorsement (which lays the path for the MSM in general)

---

Two things can be true at the same time. Trump is not acting with altruism towards "Crazy Bernie". He'd love to face him in the GE.

---

Answer the question.

Was the line-item veto a crime?
Is passing an unconstitutional law a crime?
Was Obama's recess appointments a crime?

Quote:

---

Its particularly of interest since the man wants to be our next POTUS and might pull the same type of thing while in office.

---

"Might" --- a Left Democrat might be corrupt in office.

[not aimed at your point, just funny]

aggiehawg said:

---

This is rich. The House Managers have sent a letter to Pat Cipollone saying he is a fact witness and must recuse himself.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2020-01-21_house_managers_ltr_to_cipollone.pdf

Where do people get such guts? Do they sell them in a store somewhere??

---

Its clear they are throwing everything against the wall for this. I expect more outlandish requests from both the House Managers and Senators. Its insanity personified.

Not asking to be a jerk or anything, but are you a lawyer?

Curious to know because lawyers see that request as an act of desperation. Interesting to see if the non-lawyer (but educated) public sees the same thing.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Line item veto? GTFO.

Irrelevant red herring.

I replied to aggiehawg about the Mcdonnell case and "official acts".

---

You claimed the constitution is a law. I'm providing 3 examples of violations of the constitution. ARE THEY CRIMES?

Answer the question.

Was the line-item veto a crime?
Is passing an unconstitutional law a crime?
Was Obama's recess appointments a crime?

Quote:

---

Rubbish. The Constitution is the highest law.

---

blindey said:

---

Not asking to be a jerk or anything, but are you a lawyer?

Curious to know because lawyers see that request as an act of desperation. Interesting to see if the non-lawyer (but educated) public sees the same thing.

---

No problem. Not a lawyer.

hbtheduce said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Treason is a crime that is defined in the Constitution.

---

The constitution has inspired several laws (probably including the crime of treason, the speedy trial act, etc). But its not a crime to do something unconstitutional.

---

Never said it was. Just pointing out that the crime of treason is defined in the Constitution, making it law. I think it's the only crime that is defined.

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Typical liberal stupidity =

1-Let me show you a pile of crap that the House invented in its weak sham to bring articles of impeachment.

2-And then, let me show you this pile a crap as FACT to disprove all the other logical reasons of why it is a pile crap.

---

Sounds like the process by which the media and FBI "vetted" the dossier when written that way.

4stringAg said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

An investigation, or announcement of an investigation, isn't "something of value".

---

Disagree and so does Donald Trump. That's why he denies it and is attempting to cover it up.

Facing Bernie instead of Biden in the general has immense perceived value to Trump, he's practically campaigning for him.

---

Its also of value to millions of us to know whether or not Biden abused the power of his office in a conflict of personal interest so blatant that a child could see it. Its particularly of interest since the man wants to be our next POTUS and might pull the same type of thing while in office.

You see, this is what you Trump haters don't get. While you are falling all over yourselves claiming Biden can't be investigated because he happens to be running for President and such an investigation might benefit Trump, to many millions of us, the fact that he's running for president is precisely why he should be investigated to ensure no wrongdoing occurred.

---

Additionally those with a mind see the hypocrisy of the entire impeachment fiasco because it is just doing exactly what the Dems are accusing Trump of having done.

Thanks. And interesting that you see it for what it is, too.

In true recusal situations, the person needing to be recused will almost always do it themselves with little prompting (there is even a rule in the federal rules of civil procedure that gives judges the information they need to know to determine if they have a conflict).

When someone else demands it on a weak pretense like what the house managers just tried, that might as well be saying, "I have a horrible case so I'm just throwing everything at the wall that I can think up."

Seems libs are beating the drum pretty hard that Trump's presidency is perpetually "tarnished" due to this impeachment. Is that the whole objective of this effort? Just to have a 2020 campaign issue? Didn't they see how poorly that played out for the GOP with Clinton?

HTownAg98 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Treason is a crime that is defined in the Constitution.

---

The constitution has inspired several laws (probably including the crime of treason, the speedy trial act, etc). But its not a crime to do something unconstitutional.

---

Never said it was. Just pointing out that the crime of treason is defined in the Constitution, making it law. I think it's the only crime that is defined.

---

Defining a term like treason, doesn't make it a law. In fact it is another limitation on the federal government. Rulers like to call sedition, treason, and get their political rivals killed. The definition of treason in the constitution prevents that insanity & witch hunt.

18 U.S. Code 2381.Treason - makes it a law. No one would be brought to court, and killed, with the constitution cited as their crime.

wbt5845 said:

---

Seems libs are beating the drum pretty hard that Trump's presidency is perpetually "tarnished" due to this impeachment. Is that the whole objective of this effort? Just to have a 2020 campaign issue? Didn't they see how poorly that played out for the GOP with Clinton?

---

You nailed it in a nutshell. Their candidates are complete and utter dog***** The economy is rolling, unemployment low, Trump has kept a lot of his promises, etc etc. They have nothing but this desperate attempt to tar and feather him with something prior to 2020.

HTownAg98 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Treason is a crime that is defined in the Constitution.

---

The constitution has inspired several laws (probably including the crime of treason, the speedy trial act, etc). But its not a crime to do something unconstitutional.

---

Never said it was. Just pointing out that the crime of treason is defined in the Constitution, making it law. I think it's the only crime that is defined.

---

Another example is the right to a speedy trial listed in the constitution. The state/federal prosecutor or court makes you wait 2 years for a trial. Would that be a crime in of itself? No. A violation of his rights, probably worth removing he people who violated the constitution. But not criminal.

But because we passed the Speedy Trial Act in the 1970s, made it federal LAW to begin a trial within 45-60 days of indictment. Now its a crime.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Did Breitbart tell you the constitution isn't law?

It is not a news site. It's infotainment.

---

Experiencing some cognitive dissonance?

Your lack of answering is VERY telling.


If the constitution is a law:
Was the line-item veto a crime?
Is passing an unconstitutional law a crime?
Was Obama's recess appointments a crime?

You should answer "Yes" for all of the above.

hbtheduce said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Did Breitbart tell you the constitution isn't law?

It is not a news site. It's infotainment.

---

Experiencing some cognitive dissonance?

Your lack of answering is VERY telling.

---

Very telling.

hbtheduce said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Did Breitbart tell you the constitution isn't law?

It is not a news site. It's infotainment.

---

Experiencing some cognitive dissonance?

Your lack of answering is VERY telling.


If the constitution is a law:
Was the line-item veto a crime?
Is passing an unconstitutional law a crime?
Was Obama's recess appointments a crime?

You should answer "Yes" for all of the above.

---

You've got to give him time to deflect.

wbt5845 said:

---

Seems libs are beating the drum pretty hard that Trump's presidency is perpetually "tarnished" due to this impeachment. Is that the whole objective of this effort? Just to have a 2020 campaign issue? Didn't they see how poorly that played out for the GOP with Clinton?

---

Right. In fact, it maddened people. As this does. Do you have the slightest doubt Bill Clinton would have won re-election in 2000 if it was legal for him to try?

hbtheduce said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Did Breitbart tell you the constitution isn't law?

It is not a news site. It's infotainment.

---

Experiencing some cognitive dissonance?

Your lack of answering is VERY telling.


If the constitution is a law:
Was the line-item veto a crime?
Is passing an unconstitutional law a crime?
Was Obama's recess appointments a crime?

You should answer "Yes" for all of the above.

---

Red herrings everywhere. The Constitution is law. You said it isn't. It's a bizarre claim.

Similarly, if Trump gave the state of Florida to Russia no statutory law would be broken. We would consider this an impeachable offense, a violation of the constitution, with a constitutional remedy. Because the constitution is law too, despite the poor scholarly opinions of hbthedeuce.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Did Breitbart tell you the constitution isn't law?

It is not a news site. It's infotainment.

---

Experiencing some cognitive dissonance?

Your lack of answering is VERY telling.


If the constitution is a law:
Was the line-item veto a crime?
Is passing an unconstitutional law a crime?
Was Obama's recess appointments a crime?

You should answer "Yes" for all of the above.

---

Red herrings everywhere. The Constitution is law. You said it isn't. It's a bizarre claim.

---

You are the one contradicting your own theories.

A law is a bill passed by both houses of congress and then signed by the president.

The Constitution is a framework that outlines the functions of the US federal government and was ratified by thr states prior to entry into the union.

They are not the same thing. Not even close. Your illogical argument to conflate the two is why you seem unable to answer some simple question. Like, is it a crime to appoint certain cabinet members during a recess?

You know the answer is no. that mean admitting that means violating the constitution isn't committing a crime.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Similarly, if Trump gave the state of Florida to Russia no statutory law would be broken. We would consider this an impeachable offense, a violation of the constitution, with a constitutional remedy. Because the constitution is law too, despite the poor scholarly opinions of hbthedeuce.

---

Talk about red herrings. I bring up actual constitutional violations, you have a conniption.

But now you want me to discuss a president giving a state to a foreign power.

I'll come back to this in a bit.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Similarly, if Trump gave the state of Florida to Russia no statutory law would be broken. We would consider this an impeachable offense, a violation of the constitution, with a constitutional remedy. Because the constitution is law too, despite the poor scholarly opinions of hbthedeuce.

---

But giving California to Russia would be great.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Similarly, if Trump gave the state of Florida to Russia no statutory law would be broken. We would consider this an impeachable offense, a violation of the constitution, with a constitutional remedy. Because the constitution is law too, despite the poor scholarly opinions of hbthedeuce.

---

After digesting this masterpiece of a post. It has come to my attention that my examples fit this as well.

Line-item veto was struck down by Supreme Court, whole bill must be implemented.
Unconstitutional law passed? Supreme Court strikes it down and it's removed
Recess appointments? Supreme Court rules they were unconstitutional and the appointments were removed.

Constitutional remedy to violations.

So please, try again. Are the three examples above consider a violation of the law, and therefore a crime?

Oh, think see the distinction you are trying to make. For something to be unconstitutional doesn't require that it also be a crime.

It just is ruled unconstitutional ---not necessarily unlawful. This in the sense it is not about law but limits. Is that it?

Maybe they can move the trial to the House basement and conduct it in private.

Shouldn't she be on knee-pads somewhere?

titan said:

---

Oh, think see the distinction you are trying to make. For something to be unconstitutional doesn't require that it also be a crime.

It just is ruled unconstitutional ---not necessarily unlawful. This in the sense it is not about law but limits. Is that it?

---

It's even more fundamental than that. "A Law" has a definition. By definition, the constitution is not a law. Its two
different systems run and put into place by two different branches of government, voted on by two different groups, and governs two different groups.

Which is why chance is in a rhetorical pickle. Violating a law is a crime, by definition.
Violating the constitution is unconstitutional, by definition.

The other pickle he is in: Trump "violated" the constitution according to him. Fine but so has every president, and every congress, and every state since the founding. Which makes the grounds for removal look ****ing pathetic, which is why many constitutional scholars think there should be actual violations of laws and statutes. Even then it should be "high crimes" at the level of bribery or treason.

Giving away a state to another country probably would reach the level of treason, but is closer to sedition. But it's an extreme case he had to jump to, because the "violation of trust" amounts to not giving millions of dollars to a Historically corrupt country. WGAS. Obama droned American citizens fighting for ISIS. Who cares about a rounding error for Ukraine.

Sorry for bleeding all over this thread. But it's simple stuff.