Imgflip Logo Icon

Democrats & Their Supporters Have Been Threatening This Man & His Family For This Testimony

Democrats & Their Supporters Have Been Threatening This Man & His Family For This Testimony | "IF YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT. IF YOU MAKE A HIGH CRIME & MISDEMEANOR OUT OF GOING TO TO COURTS. IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER - IT'S YOUR ABUSE OF POWER. YOU'RE DOING PRECISELY WHAT YOU'RE CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT FOR DOING"; GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR RESPONDS TO DEMOCRATS AT IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. THE DEMOCRATS ARE GUILTY OF PRECISELY WHAT THEY'RE ACCUSING TRUMP OF. THEY ARE USING THEIR POWER TO ADVANCE THEIR OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS. | image tagged in democrats,republicans,politics,2020 election,maga,impeachment hearings | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
846 views • 21 upvotes • Made by CentralNYGuy 4 years ago in politics
democratsrepublicanspolitics2020 electionmagaimpeachment hearings
19 Comments
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y,
2 replies
They're actually the ONLY people who have the power to impeach the President.
phishgoggles
3 ups, 4y,
1 reply
He meant that if Congress impeaches the President for using the Judicial Branch for what it is intended, a means of check and balance over the other two branches, that THEY (The majority Congress) Is guilty of abuse of power.
CentralNYGuy
4 ups, 4y
It's not nonsense. You're conflating separate issues. One is the means by which the president carried out the alleged crime, the other is the review of the evidence. Congress is charging him with obstruction of justice for getting the courts involved because they know they don't have a case and it'll more than likely get thrown out.

This is what happened in the Nixon administration. Nixon's case went to the courts, but in his case, there was a lot of evidence to convict him and the courts ruled against him. Congress doesn't want a repeat of what occurred during the Nixon administration because they know they there's zero evidence of an impeachable offense.

Johnathan Turley said all of what I'm telling you if you actually watched his testimony.
phishgoggles
3 ups, 4y,
1 reply
Mr. Turley was referring to Congress threatening Trump with articles of impeachment for interfering with Congress by his using court system as a check and balance! Did you even watch the hearings? You can go watch Turley's statement and hear what he was referring to on youtube!
[deleted]
2 ups, 4y,
2 replies
Also nonsense. Congress has the sole power to try all impeachments. Read the Constitution.
calronmoonflower
4 ups, 4y,
1 reply
Wow, it's like you couldn't even bother to read the comments you're responding to.
phishgoggles
2 ups, 4y,
1 reply
That's why I stopped discussing with him. I nearly came back to talk about the three little bears. More on his level. Unbelievable! He either had no clue whatsoever what he was talking about or he was attempting to take me in circles.
calronmoonflower
0 ups, 4y
After watching some of the impeachment debates, I think I know what he means. This argument was raised several time in response to congress abusing power as if impeach authority allows them to ignore constitutional limits, as such if the argument would hold they could press someone to death to get a confession and claim they have the sole power to decide how they go about the process of impeachment.
CentralNYGuy
2 ups, 4y,
1 reply
You keep making irrelevant arguments against strawmen. The issue isn't whether or not they have the sole power to impeach. Article 1 of the Constitution says that they do. The only one claiming that someone is disputing that is you. No one is disputing that have the sole authority. What they are disputing is whether or not they're abusing that authority.

If this case goes to the supreme court like Nixon's did, and the supreme court rules in Trump's favor. The merit for Congress wanting to draw up articles of impeachment would be highly dubious. They know this, which is precisely why they don't want it to go to court and charged him with obstruction of justice for getting the court involved. There is zero evidence of an impeachable offense. The court will for sure demonstrate that.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
1 reply
Again - see, the problem here is that there's REEMS of evidence of an impeachable offense. You might not think the evidence is enough to convict on, BUT THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE SETTLED. Nonetheless, the case is there. The witnesses are there. It is quite present. There's a lot to argue against.

Your premise assumes that it isn't there at all. No. It needs to be argued against first.
CentralNYGuy
1 up, 4y
It will be settled - in the supreme court. This is what occurred in the Nixon administration and how he eventually resigned. My premise isn't assuming anything. Other than, if there is a case, there should be no problem with it going to the supreme court - unless Democrats think they have something to lose. Which they do.
CentralNYGuy
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
That's good to know. Problem is. Whether or not they have the authority to impeach the president is not what's being disputed. What's being disputed is whether or not they're abusing that authority. If you watched this testimony you'd know that, because during the testimony Turley actually cites Article I of the constitution giving them that authority. Your complaint is against a strawman that does not exist.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
2 replies
If the President did what they're saying he did then yes, they should be using their authority to discipline the President!

I don't get this - the entire premise of this speech assumes the president's innocence to begin with - which is exactly what needs to be established anyway. You're calling strawman on me but how is this not circular logic on his part?
OhWell
2 ups, 4y
Actually, innocence doesn't have to be established - guilt does. We don't live in Italy or China. Are you even American? Speaking out in support of guilty until proven innocent should make most Americans cringe.
CentralNYGuy
1 up, 4y,
1 reply
That can't just " say " he did anything nor is it their job to discipline anyone. They have to prove that. What do you think this is grade school?

In regards to them assuming this president's innocence. That's correct. That's how our courts have always worked. Innocent until proven guilty. This is basic civics and ethics.
[deleted]
0 ups, 4y,
2 replies
No. No no no no no and no.

If the prosecution has a case against you, they present it before a grand jury for an indictment, or in this case before the House for an impeachment but it's essentially the same thing. This happens whether you are guilty or whether you are innocent. It is a test of "is there an issue here that needs to go to trial."

For the purposes of fairness, you are presumed to be innocent BUT CAN BE PROVEN GUILTY, and the courts do not EVER close the possibility that you need to be treated as a guilty person at some point in the future until the matter is settled. You have gravely misunderstood what "innocent until proven guilty" means. It means you are entitled to a trial, it means you are entitled to language in the courtroom that opens the possibility that you might not be guilty, but it does not release you from the obligation to cooperate with the prosecution and turning in all evidence for discovery - which is what Trump has been accused of, withholding evidence from the impeachment inquiry. You cannot withhold evidence from the prosecution's investigation - not you, not trump, not anyone, not for a civil case, not for a criminal case, and not for an impeachment case.
CentralNYGuy
2 ups, 4y
“No. No no no no no and no. “ 1 of 2.

Yes, Yes, Yes. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

“If the prosecution has a case against you, they present it before a grand jury for an indictment, “

Correct. This is what occurred with the Nixon administration. However, in his case there was no doubt with anyone about his guilt or the ethics of those prosecuting like there is with Trump..

“or in this case before the House for an impeachment but it's essentially the same thing. “

No it's not the same thing. You don't know what you're talking about. It's not the same when they're being suspected of abusing their power – which they are.

Credible law scholars have said that they are. If Trump is guilty like they say – they should have no issue with it going to court. They do have an issue, because they don't have a case.

“This happens whether you are guilty or whether you are innocent. “

Yes it does. What's this have to do with assuming his innocence until he is proven guilty? Nothing other than the fact that you're assuming he's guilty and engaging in irrelevant posturing.

“It is a test of "is there an issue here that needs to go to trial."

Which is nothing but an empty claim. There is an issue and the entire senate and many house Republicans - as well as legal scolars, agree there is. There is no “ test “ except the one in which you've manufactured in your own mind. You're pulling stuff that doesn't exist our of your arse like you were with your prior strawmen.

“For the purposes of fairness, “

It has nothing to do with “ fairness “ You're making crap up on the fly. This is established legal precedent since the 1800s.

“you are presumed to be innocent BUT CAN BE PROVEN GUILTY, “

Ok captain obvious. Was there more? Or was stating the obvious and irrelevant posturing here about it?

“and the courts do not EVER close the possibility that you need to be treated as a guilty person at some point in the future until the matter is settled. “

Which is nothing but an empty claim. They would never allow bond if this were the case. This is also why the seriousness of the charges is in direct proportion to the amount of the bond.

“You have gravely misunderstood what "innocent until proven guilty" means.”

No, you have bud. It means no charges can be filed until a verdict of guilt has been handed down. You went on a tirade over a side issue diverging from the original topic.
CentralNYGuy
2 ups, 4y
2 of 2. but it does not release you from the obligation to cooperate with the prosecution and turning in all evidence for discovery “

It does when they are suspected of abuse of power – which they are. You are offering what typically occurs in normal, legal proceedings – which these aren't. Here you have Democrats witch highly, dubious, political motives.

“which is what Trump has been accused of, withholding evidence from the impeachment inquiry.”

Which he was right to do. If there is weight to the prosecutions case – it can go to court. If they have zip – they will continue the clown show. This is how it works.

“You cannot withhold evidence from the prosecution's investigation - not you, not trump, not anyone, not for a civil case, not for a criminal case, and not for an impeachment case.”

This is what's known in logic as a faulty comparison fallacy. You are comparing normal legal proceedings with a kangaroo court abusing their power.
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
"IF YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT. IF YOU MAKE A HIGH CRIME & MISDEMEANOR OUT OF GOING TO TO COURTS. IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER - IT'S YOUR ABUSE OF POWER. YOU'RE DOING PRECISELY WHAT YOU'RE CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT FOR DOING"; GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR RESPONDS TO DEMOCRATS AT IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. THE DEMOCRATS ARE GUILTY OF PRECISELY WHAT THEY'RE ACCUSING TRUMP OF. THEY ARE USING THEIR POWER TO ADVANCE THEIR OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS.