President Joe Biden

It’s funny too now you rail against ads but you are the king of them. Indeed the entire conversation started off with your error of tweaking me for not replying when I did. Apparently your rules apply only in one direction. Then you yourself raise every deflection in the book to avoid admitting you overreached which was the central question. It’s really quite comical.

Ps it’s not my burden to prove. I only have to show there a questions. You’ve done everything but show there aren’t on the “settled precedent”

You continue with the "over-reach" thing despite the fact that I have shown validation for every position I have posted.
 
You continue with the "over-reach" thing despite the fact that I have shown validation for every position I have posted.
That’s funny. You haven’t. You just stubbornly can’t admit you made a mistake which undermined your initial position. Had you said “strong precedent” instead of “settled precedent” we could have disagreed but you at least would have been on solid ground.
 
That’s funny. You haven’t. You just stubbornly can’t admit you made a mistake which undermined your initial position. Had you said “strong precedent” instead of “settled precedent” we could have disagreed but you at least would have been on solid ground.

The existence of several impeachment proceedings in our history against former officeholders is settled precedent.

There are no grounds to exclude the President from the general class of federal officers.

The only distinction in the Constitution between the impeachment of a President and any other federal officer is the position of the Chief Justice as the presiding judge at the trial in the Senate. Chief Justice Roberts took an apparent, but unspoken, position that he need not preside at the trial of a former President. I know of no one who disagrees with that position.

Do you see anything wrong with that logic?
 
The existence of several impeachment proceedings in our history against former officeholders is settled precedent.

There are no grounds to exclude the President from the general class of federal officers.

The only distinction in the Constitution between the impeachment of a President and any other federal officer is the position of the Chief Justice as the presiding judge at the trial in the Senate. Chief Justice Roberts took an apparent, but unspoken, position that he need not preside at the trial of a former President. I know of no one who disagrees with that position.

Do you see anything wrong with that logic?
You just used the words settled precedent wrong in the first sentence. I’ve told you now several times it means as a term of legal art “beyond dispute”. It can’t be beyond dispute because 2 of the cases can be easily distinguished as I outlined above, 1 is a close case involving a resignation not expiration of office, the precedents are old, and none of them are exactly on point. Add to that Robert’s. You can argue it’s “strong precedent” but it’s not “settled precedent”. You are using it wrong, and as always you don’t even understand your own arguments. Your first sentence should just read “office holders is precedent” but now you are trying to word smith and bend things because you are too stubborn to admit you overreached.
 
You just used the words settled precedent wrong in the first sentence. I’ve told you now several times it means as a term of legal art “beyond dispute”. It can’t be beyond dispute because 2 of the cases can be easily distinguished as I outlined above, 1 is a close case involving a resignation not expiration of office, the precedents are old, and none of them are exactly on point. Add to that Robert’s. You can argue it’s “strong precedent” but it’s not “settled precedent”. You are using it wrong, and as always you don’t even understand your own arguments. Your first sentence should just read “office holders is precedent” but now you are trying to word smith and bend things because you are too stubborn to admit you overreached.

There is nothing wrong with the first sentence.

What is wrong with "old" precedents?

What do you mean by "Add that to Robeert's"?
 
There is nothing wrong with the first sentence.

What is wrong with "old" precedents?

What do you mean by "Add that to Robeert's"?

yes there is. To show settled precedent you have to show no doubt

there’s a premise in law that the older the precedent that the weaker it is

what we discussed before.

In other words your case would have to be perfect to argue it’s settled precedent. It’s not
 
Grace T.

You pointed out this BLM/Antifa guy a few weeks ago. Or maybe right after Jan 6.

Turns out he was got paid 35K each from CNN and NBC for filming. He has a company he uses for just these activities...ie filming and encouraging riots. And yet CNN and NBC paid him.

Sullivan’s defense attorney even filed invoices with the court showing that CNN and NBC each paid Sullivan’s firm $35,000 last month for rights to video he filmed of chaotic scenes outside and inside the Capitol, including the deadly shooting of protester Ashli Babbitt by a U.S. Capitol Police officer.

However, prosecutors contend that Sullivan is not a mere bystander or chronicler of protests. Instead, they say, he actively encourages violence, telling viewers how to make Molotov cocktails and evade identification by police. He was arrested last month on charges stemming from the Jan. 6 riot, including interfering with police during a civil disorder. Sullivan was later hit with an additional charge: obstruction of Congress.
--

“Insurgence USA is absolutely the instrumentality through which Mr. Sullivan committed the relevant acts,” she said. “It is Mr. Sullivan’s reason for being there and for his criminal participation in the riot.”


 
Grace T.

You pointed out this BLM/Antifa guy a few weeks ago. Or maybe right after Jan 6.

Turns out he was got paid 35K each from CNN and NBC for filming. He has a company he uses for just these activities...ie filming and encouraging riots. And yet CNN and NBC paid him.

Sullivan’s defense attorney even filed invoices with the court showing that CNN and NBC each paid Sullivan’s firm $35,000 last month for rights to video he filmed of chaotic scenes outside and inside the Capitol, including the deadly shooting of protester Ashli Babbitt by a U.S. Capitol Police officer.

However, prosecutors contend that Sullivan is not a mere bystander or chronicler of protests. Instead, they say, he actively encourages violence, telling viewers how to make Molotov cocktails and evade identification by police. He was arrested last month on charges stemming from the Jan. 6 riot, including interfering with police during a civil disorder. Sullivan was later hit with an additional charge: obstruction of Congress.
--

“Insurgence USA is absolutely the instrumentality through which Mr. Sullivan committed the relevant acts,” she said. “It is Mr. Sullivan’s reason for being there and for his criminal participation in the riot.”



 
Fantastic.

The article talks about what the prosecution in the case says this guy is doing. It also points out some news orgs paid him for his "work" that day.

So why you bring up a fact check related to FB posts isn't relevant is it?
 
@Grace T.

Thoughts?

"What jumps out regarding all these promises to investigate is that no crime has been identified—only a target of prosecution, of whom it is simply assumed that he has committed crimes. But this manner of criminal jurisprudence is totally contrary to the spirit of American law, a bedrock principle of which is the assumption of innocence, both for the accused, but even more importantly, for people who have not been accused. Prosecutors running around pledging to investigate people they consider political enemies embody the apothegm of Stalin’s top secret policeman Lavrenty Beria, who famously said, “Show me the man, and I will find you the crime.”

 
Today's scandal in the B administration -- the GOP twitter account pointed out B's failure to execute his promise to get schools open in his first 100 days, 36 days into his Presidency.

I can see that somebody needs to go to school.
 
Today's scandal in the B administration -- the GOP twitter account pointed out B's failure to execute his promise to get schools open in his first 100 days, 36 days into his Presidency.

I can see that somebody needs to go to school.
Nothing about how effective and promising the COVID relief bill looks? Things are looking good for underground rail and international bridges - both are critical to COVID relief. Nothing but great stewardship on display.
 
I know there are many families out there who are economically barely hanging on and in desperate need of help, and I strongly agree that we should help.
It's just a bit concerning that some really smart people are warning that Biden and the Dem lead Congress's plan is likely to lead to hyper inflation. What do you suppose will happen to the value of everyone's homes if interest rates jumps up to 17% like it did under Jimmy Carter?

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ul-singer-warns-of-trouble-ahead?srnd=premium
 
Biden has a tall mountain to climb to reset American policy to a more sane long haul vision. Then he will be a game manager.

Actually I'd say the American people have a tall mountain to climb.

Which is why I'm a bit concerned that Biden doesn't make it worse... if pandering to the extreme left doesn't work- he's not the one who is going to have to pay that money back.

(I only bring it up because living in NYC, I see progressive policies in action everyday)
 
To round this out....courts have been quietly questioning some procedures used in the November elections....


1 of the 2 events that would have provided the Rs with a basis to remove Trump (the other being the pressuring of Pence to act unconstitutionally during the count), does not appear to have happened.


And Biden isn't looking too good. My mom has dementia but hers isn't as advanced. She'll loose things and forget she had a conversation or told us something hours earlier, but she's not at a point yet where her walking gait is affected or she looses her way midway through sentences.

 
Back
Top