IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." - Justice Robert Jackson.
https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-clich-that-the-constitution-is-not-a-suicide-pact.html

There comes a time when common sense has to apply. None of our rights guaranteed by the Constitution are absolute. The same holds, it seems obvious to me, for any claim of Presidential immunity.

FWIW.

168 days to go. We can't get distracted from the fact that we need to do everything we can to win the elections this fall. If we do that, then all the rest will fall into place and we'll get back on the road to something approaching a sensible course.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Might not be a suicide pact, but…
could it be a straitjacket? Certainly the assumption that the “norms” would be preserved has been weaponized and turned against us.

If for whatever reason—insufficient turnout, social media manipulation, gerrymandering, voter suppression, actual hacking of registration/tallying servers, or Russian ratfucking NSPF*—things go sideways in November, “all the rest will not fall into place.” Indeed, although I respect your sunny spirits generally, I do not believe that the rest will ever fall back into place. The election of 2016 has locked a door behind us. We’re never getting “back on the road.” Of the roads before us, some will lead to better or worse destinations than others, but none will get us to where we might have imagined two years ago.

cordially,

*When I first joined the International Division at FCT&D back in the day, this country used a tariff code at odds with that of the rest of the world, finally giving this up in the late eighties. One of the provisions within various categories was “NSPF”—“Not Specially Provided For.” It’s long gone from tariff nomenclature, but it has endured as a major meme in my own personal filing system.
New Well, you're right about that
>> Of the roads before us, some will lead to better or worse destinations than others..



"...If he was to be prosecuted while in office, so too would every president who follows..."

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2018/05/22/katyals-not-too-practical-indictment/
New I take the argument seriously
A future president could be indicted by his political enemies for jaywalking. Or for a blowjob. Such a prosecution would be, has been, frivolous. But what about murder? What about conspiring with multiple foreign powers to subvert and distort popular democracy? How can we address this without, indeed, making subsequent officeholders vulnerable to merely politically-motivated indictments?

We need a rational system that establishes a threshold that oral sex does not cross and treason does. How that’s done, I cannot tell you.

cordially,
New I actually think you might take it seriously
But what about murder? What about conspiring with multiple foreign powers to subvert and distort popular democracy?

on your example, walking out of the whitehouse shooting a small child in front of the cameras (assuming that no Secret Service Agent wouldn't take it away from him, likely in my opinion.) Soon to be president Pence would invoke the incapacity clause and a slam dunk would ensue.

Could the president be indicted in a court of law for treason? Yes if the evidence was very clear, very convincing and without exculpatory evidence, since such a trial would incapacitate the president soon to be president pence would again swiftly invoke the incapacity clause.

However, it has to be more than supposition, circumstantial evidence and hearsay.

An example was the dead brutch hillary email server. President Obama swore that the first he had heard of it was on the news but he was emailing her on the dam thing. Now we all know that according to the fbi she was very careless having classified information on it but didnt really mean it and well she is a democrat after all. Ok, so other people lose their jobs, go to jail for much lesser offenses but ok, thats the way it works in that world.

Now for the drumpster. Lots of noise, the feebs trying to pull an abscam on the peripheral players very early in the election cycle, lots of wheezing and gasping from the media, lots of haruphing and finger pointing by fox news but I dont see an indictment there yet.

Certainly not enough to put a future president in jeopardy because 49% of the people dont like them.

My 2 cents
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New Who the fuck are you, and what have you done w/boxley??
New Indeed The Box wears multi-coloured threads, but do we not mainly pine for
more frequent appearance, as here, in his best Livery?
aka Hyde/Jekyll The Box/a solid, machined cube of W? (er, Tungsten, that is.)
New Nit
... but he was emailing her on the dam thing ...

Do you generally have any fucking clue what server someone is receiving your email on?
--

Drew
New Thanks for stating that Obvious-ity which moi hadn't copped-to. Either. {sigh}
New yes
brobox@hq.dhs.gov goes to the emaii server at work box@netscrape.net does not go to an gummint email server
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New Wrong question
Does a typical user know?
And if course the answer is no.
New both of the users pres and sec state were specifically told to check that and why
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New Do either have the attention span of a may fly?
"Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable."
~ AMBROSE BIERCE
(1842-1914)
     Indictment or impeachment? - (rcareaga) - (55)
         "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." - Justice Robert Jackson. - (Another Scott) - (12)
             Might not be a suicide pact, but… - (rcareaga) - (11)
                 Well, you're right about that - (dmcarls) - (10)
                     I take the argument seriously - (rcareaga) - (9)
                         I actually think you might take it seriously - (boxley) - (8)
                             Who the fuck are you, and what have you done w/boxley?? -NT - (rcareaga) - (1)
                                 Indeed The Box wears multi-coloured threads, but do we not mainly pine for - (Ashton)
                             Nit - (drook) - (5)
                                 Thanks for stating that Obvious-ity which moi hadn't copped-to. Either. {sigh} -NT - (Ashton)
                                 yes - (boxley) - (3)
                                     Wrong question - (crazy) - (2)
                                         both of the users pres and sec state were specifically told to check that and why -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                             Do either have the attention span of a may fly? -NT - (hnick)
         All of this is entertaining. But it leaves the real problem unaddressed. - (mmoffitt) - (41)
             problems is problems - (rcareaga) - (40)
                 Comey and Vlad won't be working together in 2018, 2020, etc. - (Another Scott) - (39)
                     “We can’t give up” - (rcareaga) - (1)
                         538 - Special Elections Since Trump - (Another Scott)
                     Oh, wait - (rcareaga)
                     Once.. well-before-Recently: this sane analysis/prognosis might have flown, albeit "On - (Ashton)
                     next time for president select a leader that a clown car full of clowns can't beat - (boxley) - (34)
                         She's so unpopular that she got millions of votes more than he did... -NT - (Another Scott) - (20)
                             Think of how many the candidate would have gotten without the deep negatives -NT - (boxley) - (19)
                                 She's so horribly unpopular but she got more votes. Hmmm... - (Another Scott) - (18)
                                     “Who was supposed to beat her in this alternative universe?” - (rcareaga) - (8)
                                         Iknowright!! -NT - (Another Scott)
                                         2020 how about someone not affiliated with Clinton cartel? -NT - (boxley) - (6)
                                             Name someone that you think would win. Quit blaming the Clintons. -NT - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                                 He's right to blame the Clintons. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                                     Blah, blah, blah. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                         He left 18 years ago, but his influence obviously didn't. What's "Charlotte Never" about? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                             Hillary's granddaughter. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                 Ah. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                     Uh, no. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                         We've been through all that. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                             Potentially Uncle Joe -NT - (malraux) - (5)
                                                 Ok. He's flamed out 2x before, but maybe he would do better this time. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     If not for Neil. That'd come back and bite him in the arse again. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                     He wasn't an 8-year VP before. - (malraux) - (2)
                                                         I think nother thinks that with Comey gone, russians warned - (boxley) - (1)
                                                             You're mistaken. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                             Let me flip that back at you. - (mmoffitt)
                         Re: next time for president select a leader that a clown car full of clowns can't beat - (rcareaga) - (12)
                             not me, I didnt vote - (boxley) - (11)
                                 NY and CA aren't "the country", but WY is? -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                     You want to expand on that statement? -NT - (boxley)
                                 What about Michigan? - (Another Scott) - (8)
                                     So then.. making a pretty good case for (..in the end) - (Ashton) - (7)
                                         Voting things are being fixed in many areas. MI is spending money, etc. -NT - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                             Will the next Democratic nominee actually go to Wisconsin? Just asking... -NT - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                                 She got more votes than Feingold. Hmm.... -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     Yep, she brought down Feingold with her. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                         a > b [ magic happens here ] therefore a < b Is that it? ;-p -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                             You think she was good for down-ticket candidates? </me falls over> -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                 If she was so unpopular, why did she get more votes? Maybe Feingold was *less* popular. HTH! -NT - (Another Scott)

You are delightfully evil. Come sit by me.
186 ms