I recommend talking about the emergency declaration.

And legalizing prostitution maybe? I know where KO and I stand. That would be fun.

Posted by cccp1014 on 3/11/2019 9:22:00 AM (view original):
We have $22Trn in debt and budget won't be balanced for 15 years? I recommend a 2% Federal Sales Tax on everything. That would be a great topic.

It’s a ****** idea. Go away.

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/11/2019 8:36:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Should Trump be impeached? If so, on what grounds?

Yes.

He’s an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple felonies. Regardless of whether or not those crimes can be proven in criminal court, he should lose the most powerful and prestigious job in the world.

Fortunately for literally everyone living and working in the United States, we have laws making it illegal to fire people for alleged criminal activity that cannot be proven in court. They're difficult to enforce. But at least in theory, someone accusing us of something that can't be proven in a court of law is not enough to deny employment. You know, to protect people from baseless accusations as a means of getting out of contracts, etc.

To be clear - as of this moment, there are probably sufficient grounds for impeachment. But conviction in theory requires the same burden of evidence as conviction in a criminal court. Certainly no publicly-available evidence supports that burden. So as of right now, regardless of BL's personal opinions, I don't see a legally justifiable path to Trump "losing the most powerful and prestigious job in the world." That may or may not remain true once the Mueller report is filed.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/11/2019 8:36:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Should Trump be impeached? If so, on what grounds?

Yes.

He’s an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple felonies. Regardless of whether or not those crimes can be proven in criminal court, he should lose the most powerful and prestigious job in the world.

It would be simpler for the Democrats to run someone in 2020 that can beat Trump in a few critical states.

"Fortunately for literally everyone living and working in the United States, we have laws making it illegal to fire people for alleged criminal activity that cannot be proven in court. They're difficult to enforce. But at least in theory, someone accusing us of something that can't be proven in a court of law is not enough to deny employment. You know, to protect people from baseless accusations as a means of getting out of contracts, etc."

EXACTLY! The Mueller report will either speed the snowball's tumble to the inevitable OR (should) give pause to all the other Dem. led investigations into all things Trump.

That is, UNLESS they come up with something real on their own. And I mean REAL evidence, not just items that LOOK questionable. We've had questions on King Don for-EVAR!

I await the results of Mueller's work before I dare breath life into a real, live impeachment hearing!

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/11/2019 11:14:00 AM (view original):
To be clear - as of this moment, there are probably sufficient grounds for impeachment. But conviction in theory requires the same burden of evidence as conviction in a criminal court. Certainly no publicly-available evidence supports that burden. So as of right now, regardless of BL's personal opinions, I don't see a legally justifiable path to Trump "losing the most powerful and prestigious job in the world." That may or may not remain true once the Mueller report is filed.

I agree with this.

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 3/11/2019 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 3/11/2019 8:36:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Should Trump be impeached? If so, on what grounds?

Yes.

He’s an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple felonies. Regardless of whether or not those crimes can be proven in criminal court, he should lose the most powerful and prestigious job in the world.

It would be simpler for the Democrats to run someone in 2020 that can beat Trump in a few critical states.

For sure. That wasn’t the question though.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/11/2019 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Fortunately for literally everyone living and working in the United States, we have laws making it illegal to fire people for alleged criminal activity that cannot be proven in court. They're difficult to enforce. But at least in theory, someone accusing us of something that can't be proven in a court of law is not enough to deny employment. You know, to protect people from baseless accusations as a means of getting out of contracts, etc.

I don’t think this is actually true. For example, a board of directors can remove a CEO when he’s been accused of sexual harassment before it’s been proven in court. Credible allegations of criminal activity are enough to cost you your job.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/11/2019 11:14:00 AM (view original):
To be clear - as of this moment, there are probably sufficient grounds for impeachment. But conviction in theory requires the same burden of evidence as conviction in a criminal court. Certainly no publicly-available evidence supports that burden. So as of right now, regardless of BL's personal opinions, I don't see a legally justifiable path to Trump "losing the most powerful and prestigious job in the world." That may or may not remain true once the Mueller report is filed.

Impeachment is a political process, not criminal court. There is no burden of evidence. Just what the House decides to do.

The Senate trial after impeachment is also a political process. The constitution does not specify the burden of proof required for conviction.

I did see the words "in theory" used. But I think you're correct that (specifically) the impeachment process is political not legally based.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/11/2019 11:14:00 AM (view original):
To be clear - as of this moment, there are probably sufficient grounds for impeachment. But conviction in theory requires the same burden of evidence as conviction in a criminal court. Certainly no publicly-available evidence supports that burden. So as of right now, regardless of BL's personal opinions, I don't see a legally justifiable path to Trump "losing the most powerful and prestigious job in the world." That may or may not remain true once the Mueller report is filed.

Impeachment is a political process, not criminal court. There is no burden of evidence. Just what the House decides to do.

The Senate trial after impeachment is also a political process. The constitution does not specify the burden of proof required for conviction.

This is not correct. It's supposed to be a criminal and not a political process. Process of impeachment isn't spelled out at all in the Constitution because it was sufficiently standardized under Common Law.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/11/2019 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/11/2019 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Fortunately for literally everyone living and working in the United States, we have laws making it illegal to fire people for alleged criminal activity that cannot be proven in court. They're difficult to enforce. But at least in theory, someone accusing us of something that can't be proven in a court of law is not enough to deny employment. You know, to protect people from baseless accusations as a means of getting out of contracts, etc.

I don’t think this is actually true. For example, a board of directors can remove a CEO when he’s been accused of sexual harassment before it’s been proven in court. Credible allegations of criminal activity are enough to cost you your job.

If those persons have contracts the employers are still liable for remaining pay, or to negotiate a mutually-agreeable buyout. If employment is at-will then this wouldn't apply. But POTUS is clearly under an established term contract.