Biden’s Polling Lead Over Trump Is Getting Seriously Large

userque · Jun 7, 2020

userque said:
My understanding is that The House can impeach for whatever it deems is a high crime or misdemeanor. That's number one.

Secondly, do you really think that if it is later found that a potus, or a justice, was elected/confirmed fraudulently; that no remedy is available?

Thirdly, please cite your source for this statement: "that federal judges will only be impeached for outright criminality while they held their position as a judge."

gwb-trading said:
As I outlined the Samuel Chase impeachment in 1804 established the standard of a independent federal judiciary in the United States. As noted in the Wikipedia summary - "All judges impeached since Chase have been accused of outright criminality."

If Congress followed a standard of that they could vote out anyone they viewed was confirmed fraudulently then every time the power in Congress changed parties we would see dozens of federal judges impeached under this type of claim be removed on political grounds.

Wouldn't you expect a Democratic Congress would have impeached Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by now if they thought they could concoct some sort of claim about "fraudulent confirmation". There was nothing fraudulent about the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh - the confirmation hearing was held, some controversy occurred, and the Senate confirmed him --- end of story.

The Wikipedia entries and cited sources -- including ALL of the federal judge impeachment cases since 1804 clearly demonstrate "that federal judges will only be impeached for outright criminality while they held their position as a judge". If Congress impeached judges for their decisions on the bench or for any supposed crimes they committed before becoming a judge then it would clearly violate the standard of an independent federal judiciary.

You haven't refuted my first point. The House will decide what is and isn't impeachable as they interpret the Constitution and applicable case law, etc.

The Senate will then decide whether or not they agree.

Your same political (witch-hunt) concern also applies to Supreme Court Rulings; but what can we do about that? The same things we can do about a political (witch-hunt) impeachment: Not much. That's the consequence of electing shady officials--you'll get a shady government.

You haven't clearly answered regarding my second point. To the extent that you did respond: Fraud, perjury, etc. can be criminal acts. My points never addressed the specific facts of the case. My questions are general in nature, and stand on their own; and the answers/assertions apply generally, and not to a specific case/judge.

My original response to your post wasn't about a particular case, per se. I prefer to keep the goal posts where they originally were.

Re; my third point. I see you added that language, "while they held their position as a judge." This wasn't in the wiki article. Regardless,

The article is making an observation of past impeachment of judges. You haven't shown where the article means to say, in effect, that a judge shall not be impeached for crimes committed prior to earning the specified judgeship.

Nor were they [the listed impeached judges] accused of fraud, perjury, or other crimes in earning a judgeship.

Simply put, I don't expect to see any past impeachments of fraud/perjury to earn a judgeship, if none of those past judges committed that particular crime.

So I again ask you this simple question, do you really think that if it is later found that a potus, or a justice, was elected/confirmed fraudulently; that no remedy is available?

Note how this question, an exact copy or my original question, did not address a particular case.

Whether or not Kavanaugh committed fraud, perjured himself, or etc. is not the subject of my posts.

gwb-trading · Jun 8, 2020

userque said:
You haven't refuted my first point. The House will decide what is and isn't impeachable as they interpret the Constitution and applicable case law, etc.

The Senate will then decide whether or not they agree.

Your same political (witch-hunt) concern also applies to Supreme Court Rulings; but what can we do about that? The same things we can do about a political (witch-hunt) impeachment: Not much. That's the consequence of electing shady officials--you'll get a shady government.

You haven't clearly answered regarding my second point. To the extent that you did respond: Fraud, perjury, etc. can be criminal acts. My points never addressed the specific facts of the case. My questions are general in nature, and stand on their own; and the answers/assertions apply generally, and not to a specific case/judge.

My original response to your post wasn't about a particular case, per se. I prefer to keep the goal posts where they originally were.

Re; my third point. I see you added that language, "while they held their position as a judge." This wasn't in the wiki article. Regardless,

The article is making an observation of past impeachment of judges. You haven't shown where the article means to say, in effect, that a judge shall not be impeached for crimes committed prior to earning the specified judgeship.

Nor were they [the listed impeached judges] accused of fraud, perjury, or other crimes in earning a judgeship.

Simply put, I don't expect to see any past impeachments of fraud/perjury to earn a judgeship, if none of those past judges committed that particular crime.

So I again ask you this simple question, do you really think that if it is later found that a potus, or a justice, was elected/confirmed fraudulently; that no remedy is available?

Note how this question, an exact copy or my original question, did not address a particular case.

Whether or not Kavanaugh committed fraud, perjured himself, or etc. is not the subject of my posts.

Find me a single example since 1804 where Congress has impeached a federal judge for anything but outright criminality while they were seated as a judge.

You have over 200 years of American history to extract an example from. Provide us with an example. Just one.

Congress will never impeach a judge for crimes prior to the judge being confirmed or anything in the confirmation process since this violates the entire principle of an independent federal judiciary. Doing so would open the door for politics to drive the removal of federal judges.

Anyone claiming that a Democratic Congress will impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh does not understand the basis of an independent federal judiciary or the American history that brought it about.

gwb-trading · Jun 8, 2020

Trump losing ground to Biden amid chaotic week
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-chaotic-week/index.html

As protesters gather daily near the White House and the coronavirus pandemic rages on, the American public is souring on President Donald Trump. A new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS finds Trump's approval rating down 7 points in the last month as the President falls further behind presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, whose support now stands at its highest level in CNN polling.

The survey also finds a growing majority of Americans feel racism is a big problem in the country today and that the criminal justice system in America favors whites over blacks. More than 8 in 10 also say that the peaceful protests that have spread throughout the nation following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers are justified. Americans now consider race relations as important a campaign issue as the economy and health care, according to the survey.

Overall 38% approve of the way Trump is handling the presidency, while 57% disapprove. That's his worst approval rating since January 2019, and roughly on par with approval ratings for Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush at this point in their reelection years. Both went on to lose the presidency after one term.

In the race for the White House, among registered voters, Trump stands 14 points behind Biden, who officially secured enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination in CNN's delegate estimate on Saturday. The 41% who say they back the President is the lowest in CNN's tracking on this question back to April 2019, and Biden's 55% support is his highest mark yet.

The result comes amid a week in which Trump's response to protests outside the White House led to condemnation from some fellow Republicans and a rebuke from former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who served under the President.

The poll finds the public broadly disapproves of Trump's handling of race relations (63% disapprove), and 65% say the President's response to recent protests has been more harmful than helpful.

(More at above url)

userque · Jun 8, 2020

gwb-trading said:
Find me a single example since 1804 where Congress has impeached a federal judge for anything but outright criminality while they were seated as a judge.

You have over 200 years of American history to extract an example from. Provide us with an example. Just one.

Again, my posts have nothing to do with past impeachments. Again, none of those past impeachments address crimes committed prior to confirmation, as none of those judges were charged with that offense. Again, I prefer that the goal posts remain in there original locations.

gwb-trading said:
Congress will never impeach a judge for crimes prior to the judge being confirmed or anything in the confirmation process since this violates the entire principle of an independent federal judiciary. Doing so would open the door for politics to drive the removal of federal judges.

No. it doesn't violate that principle. Prove your argument and cite your source that says what you allege here.

gwb-trading said:
Anyone claiming that a Democratic Congress will impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh does not understand the basis of an independent federal judiciary or the American history that brought it about.

Again, you want to make my posts about a particular Judge. They still, are not.

Again, you avoid answering the simple question: do you really think that if it is later found that a potus, or a justice, was elected/confirmed fraudulently; that no remedy is available?

My previous response:

userque said:
You haven't refuted my first point. The House will decide what is and isn't impeachable as they interpret the Constitution and applicable case law, etc.

The Senate will then decide whether or not they agree.

Your same political (witch-hunt) concern also applies to Supreme Court Rulings; but what can we do about that? The same things we can do about a political (witch-hunt) impeachment: Not much. That's the consequence of electing shady officials--you'll get a shady government.

You haven't clearly answered regarding my second point. To the extent that you did respond: Fraud, perjury, etc. can be criminal acts. My points never addressed the specific facts of the case. My questions are general in nature, and stand on their own; and the answers/assertions apply generally, and not to a specific case/judge.

My original response to your post wasn't about a particular case, per se. I prefer to keep the goal posts where they originally were.

Re; my third point. I see you added that language, "while they held their position as a judge." This wasn't in the wiki article. Regardless,

The article is making an observation of past impeachment of judges. You haven't shown where the article means to say, in effect, that a judge shall not be impeached for crimes committed prior to earning the specified judgeship.

Nor were they [the listed impeached judges] accused of fraud, perjury, or other crimes in earning a judgeship.

Simply put, I don't expect to see any past impeachments of fraud/perjury to earn a judgeship, if none of those past judges committed that particular crime.

So I again ask you this simple question, do you really think that if it is later found that a potus, or a justice, was elected/confirmed fraudulently; that no remedy is available?

Note how this question, an exact copy or my original question, did not address a particular case.

Whether or not Kavanaugh committed fraud, perjured himself, or etc. is not the subject of my posts.

exGOPer · Jun 8, 2020

What's large ? A man baby acts like a juvenile delinquent for 3 1/2 years and now he's dragging bottom in the polls.............What is seriously large?

gwb-trading · Jun 8, 2020

userque said:
Again, my posts have nothing to do with past impeachments. Again, none of those past impeachments address crimes committed prior to confirmation, as none of those judges were charged with that offense. Again, I prefer that the goal posts remain in there original locations.

No. it doesn't violate that principle. Prove your argument and cite your source that says what you allege here.

Again, you want to make my posts about a particular Judge. They still, are not.

Again, you avoid answering the simple question: do you really think that if it is later found that a potus, or a justice, was elected/confirmed fraudulently; that no remedy is available?

My previous response:

Explain your concept of "confirmed fraudulently" to us. There is no such thing as "confirmed fraudulently" for a federal judge.

A confirmation hearing is held to debate the judicial record, past behavior, and criminal history of a potential candidate for a federal judicial position. It is up to the confirmation committee to investigate and bring up any issues -- beyond information that has been submitted by the candidate.

A confirmation hearing is held, a confirmation vote is held, and the federal judge is confirmed (or not confirmed) -- end of story. There is no such thing as a "fraudulent confirmation" - this simply doe not exist from a legal or constitutional perspective. If you claim it does then provide an example, just one, form over 200 years of American history.

userque · Jun 8, 2020

gwb-trading said:
Explain your concept of "confirmed fraudulently" to us. There is no such thing as "confirmed fraudulently" for a federal judge.

A confirmation hearing is held to debate the judicial record, past behavior, and criminal history of a potential candidate for a federal judicial position. It is up to the confirmation committee to investigate and bring up any issues -- beyond information that has been submitted by the candidate.

A confirmation hearing is held, a confirmation vote is held, and the federal judge is confirmed (or not confirmed) -- end of story. There is no such thing as a "fraudulent confirmation" - this simply doe not exist from a legal or constitutional perspective. If you claim it does then provide an example, just one, form over 200 years of American history.

By confirmed fraudulently, I mean a judge who has lied under oath during the confirmation process.

Feel free to call it whatever you like.

Here is the now simplified and rephrased question with wording more to your liking:

Do you really think that if it is later found that a justice, was confirmed after they lied under oath; that no remedy is available?

gwb-trading · Jun 8, 2020

userque said:
By confirmed fraudulently, I mean a judge who has lied under oath during the confirmation process.

Feel free to call it whatever you like.

Here is the now simplified and rephrased question with wording more to your liking:

Do you really think that if it is later found that a justice, was confirmed after they lied under oath; that no remedy is available?

There is no evidence whatsoever that Brett Kavanaugh or any other Supreme Court Justice lied under oath. Produce some evidence proving so rather than just your politically driven feelings.

You question is meaningless because it never happened.

and BTW it would not in any way lead to an impeachment by Congress. It is the job of Congress to vet the testimony before the confirmation vote.

userque · Jun 8, 2020

gwb-trading said:
There is no evidence whatsoever that Brett Kavanaugh or any other Supreme Court Justice lied under oath. Produce some evidence proving so rather than just your politically driven feelings.

You question is meaningless because it never happened.

and BTW it would not in any way lead to an impeachment by Congress. It is the job of Congress to vet the testimony before the confirmation vote.

gwb-trading · Jun 8, 2020

userque said:
You do realize that everyone has witnessed this conversation? A recap in chronological order, for reference:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ng-seriously-large.345694/page-4#post-5120593

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ng-seriously-large.345694/page-4#post-5120787

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ng-seriously-large.345694/page-4#post-5120969

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ng-seriously-large.345694/page-5#post-5121001

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ng-seriously-large.345694/page-5#post-5121202

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ng-seriously-large.345694/page-5#post-5121228

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ng-seriously-large.345694/page-5#post-5121236

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ng-seriously-large.345694/page-5#post-5121246

Yes... let's hope rational people look at the conversation. Understand how off base you are. And then go look up the references (you posted none) showing the that never since 1804 has a federal judge been impeached by Congress except for outright criminality while on the bench. This is due to the independent federal judiciary principle that has been established in the U.S. for over 200 years. Once again, if you find an example demonstrating differently then you can post a link to it.