President Joe Biden

[Grace T.]

The settled precedent is that federal officers can be impeached and tried after they have left office. That Roberts' absence supports your position is just wishful thinking.

And your tell is showing.

The Roberts thing is only one prong. I pointed out several others. Kicker said next you'd be having me write your responses because you get so lost. You know what....I'm going to do it because I have a bit of sadistic streak.

Here's what you should have said: "I didn't mean to use 'settled precedent' in its legal sense. Perhaps I did overspeak. But there is precedent, and it's very good precedent, even though it's old and not directly on point. It establishes federal officers can be impeached and tried after they have left office, even if it doesn't address the issue of the president himself."

But you didn't. Because you are stubborn and will hold onto any foolish point even when it's evident you've gone off the rails and are lost.

And as we've discussed before, that tell actually says more about where you are, than where I am.

 

[espola]

The Roberts thing is only one prong. I pointed out several others. Kicker said next you'd be having me write your responses because you get so lost. You know what....I'm going to do it because I have a bit of sadistic streak.

Here's what you should have said: "I didn't mean to use 'settled precedent' in its legal sense. Perhaps I did overspeak. But there is precedent, and it's very good precedent, even though it's old and not directly on point. It establishes federal officers can be impeached and tried after they have left office, even if it doesn't address the issue of the president himself."

But you didn't. Because you are stubborn and will hold onto any foolish point even when it's evident you've gone off the rails and are lost.

And as we've discussed before, that tell actually says more about where you are, than where I am.

Your ad hominem attack is not advancing your position.

 

[Grace T.]

Your ad hominem attack is not advancing your position.

You couldn’t even say “yeah sorry I missed your post. Thank you for getting back to me. I respect that”. Instead you missed my post and then tried to tweak me for still waiting. And now rather than answer the charge you deflect citing an ad when I was making no such argument...I was making an observation about you which you did to me with the “tell” which is also wrong because that says more about you than me (ie that you are really far off the road). How wrong can you get in one day?

 

[espola]

You couldn’t even say “yeah sorry I missed your post. Thank you for getting back to me. I respect that”. Instead you missed my post and then tried to tweak me for still waiting. And now rather than answer the charge you deflect citing an ad when I was making no such argument...I was making an observation about you which you did to me with the “tell” which is also wrong because that says more about you than me (ie that you are really far off the road). How wrong can you get in one day?

" you are stubborn and will hold onto any foolish point even when it's evident you've gone off the rails and are lost."

That's pretty much textbook ad hominem. It's Latin for "at the person", implying not addressing the content or logic of the question at issue. It is generally regarded as a weak tactic in a debate, usually indicative of a failed position.

It appears your rebuttal is just more of the same.

q.e.d.

Please continue.

 

[Grace T.]

" you are stubborn and will hold onto any foolish point even when it's evident you've gone off the rails and are lost."

That's pretty much ad hominem. It's Latin for "at the person", implying not addressing the content or logic of the question at issue. It is generally regarded as a weak tactic in a debate, usually indicative of a failed position.

It appears your rebuttal is just more of the same.

q.e.d.

Please continue.

It’s hilarious you think we are debating. Detecting a pattern here? Once you are off that road you have a tendency to keep going further and further out.

This isn’t a debating society. I did competitive debate in high school (finished top ten in the state). If I were to choose an opponent it wouldn’t be you because of the simple reason you have a hard time understanding what the issue even is at times.

It says a lot about you that you think you are debater and that’s what we are doing. We aren’t and even if we were you aren’t really capable of it.

And all this deflection just simply because you can’t admit you overreached, which is also a classic debating mistake. A bigger person would have just said yeah maybe I did but my point still stands.

 

[espola]

It’s hilarious you think we are debating. Detecting a pattern here? Once you are off that road you have a tendency to keep going further and further out.

This isn’t a debating society. I did competitive debate in high school (finished top ten in the state). If I were to choose an opponent it wouldn’t be you because of the simple reason you have a hard time understanding what the issue even is at times.

It says a lot about you that you think you are debater and that’s what we are doing. We aren’t and even if we were you aren’t really capable of it.

And all this deflection just simply because you can’t admit you overreached, which is also a classic debating mistake. A bigger person would have just said yeah maybe I did but my point still stands.

That's a whole paragraph of ad hominem. You have totally abandoned the question.

One good reason for studying formal debate (forensics) in high school is so that one will know how to argue effectively in adult life. My debate team was given the "for" position on the then-new topic of Medicare, many years ago. We assumed that our opponents on the "against" side would bring up "socialized medicine", so my task was to prepare a "so what" counter with data gathered from countries with public health care systems, comparing the relative costs and benefits.

 

[Grace T.]

That's a whole paragraph of ad hominem. You have totally abandoned the question.

One good reason for studying formal debate (forensics) in high school is so that one will know how to argue effectively in adult life. My debate team was given the "for" position on the then-new topic of Medicare, many years ago. We assumed that our opponents on the "against" side would bring up "socialized medicine", so my task was to prepare a "so what" counter with data gathered from countries with public health care systems, comparing the relative costs and benefits.

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”

 

[espola]

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.

 

[Grace T.]

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.

 

[espola]

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?

 

[Grace T.]

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.

 

[espola]

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"?

 

[Grace T.]

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

 

[Desert Hound]

Worth a read.

The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot

Insisting on factual accuracy does not make one an apologist for the protesters. False reporting is never justified, especially to inflate threat and fear levels.

greenwald.substack.com

 

[crush]

Hound, did you see this? My wife worked with AC and went to parties with the crew.

 

[Desert Hound]

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.”

Judge refuses to ban Capitol riot suspect from Twitter and Facebook

But the court ordered John Sullivan of Utah, a videographer, to stop work with his Insurgence USA website and social media platforms.

www.politico.com

 

[espola]

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.”

Judge refuses to ban Capitol riot suspect from Twitter and Facebook

But the court ordered John Sullivan of Utah, a videographer, to stop work with his Insurgence USA website and social media platforms.

www.politico.com

Facebook posts say activist ‘incited’ Capitol mob

UPDATE, Jan. 15, 2021: Following the publication of this fact-check, John Sullivan was arrested Jan. 14 in Utah, the U.S

www.politifact.com

 

[Desert Hound]

Facebook posts say activist ‘incited’ Capitol mob

UPDATE, Jan. 15, 2021: Following the publication of this fact-check, John Sullivan was arrested Jan. 14 in Utah, the U.S

www.politifact.com

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?

 

[Hüsker Dü]

DOW WOW! LOL!

 

[Kicker4Life]

Why kill Operation Talon?