How bad does a president have to be to get impeached?

[Lakhota]

This was the question that Washington Post columnist and associate editor Eugene Robinson asked on MSNBC's Ari Melber show, The Beat, a few hours ago.

How much more does Trump have to do to warrant impeachment? Shoot someone on 5th Avenue?

What do you think?

Mueller Reiterates Investigation Didn’t Exonerate Trump, Hints At Impeachment



Mueller report - Department of Justice

 

[Rambunctious]

I guess he doesn't have to be bad at all...all he has to do is be an outsider....

 

[The Purge]

This was the question that Washington Post columnist and associate editor Eugene Robinson asked on MSNBC's Ari Melber show, The Beat, a few hours ago.

How much more does Trump have to do to warrant impeachment? Shoot someone on 5th Avenue?

What do you think?

Hey dimwit tell us exactly what Trump has done to be impeached...exactly what and give us some criminal codes he has broken....we all want to know

 

[S.J.]

He has to commit an impeachable offense, and winning a presidential election is not an impeachable offense (as much as you might like it to be).

 

[MarathonMike]

Good question. As we all know, Obama set a very high bar for Impeachment. Empowering a Terrorist state, failing to protect Americans under attack as Commander-In-Chief, providing arms to the Mexican drug Cartel, etc etc. So to answer your question a president would have to be worse than Obama at a minimum and whoo boy that is a tall task indeed.

 

[Lakhota]

He has to commit an impeachable offense, and winning a presidential election is not an impeachable offense (as much as you might like it to be).

Is the Mueller Report too complicated for you?

 

[emilynghiem]

This was the question that Washington Post columnist and associate editor Eugene Robinson asked on MSNBC's Ari Melber show, The Beat, a few hours ago.

How much more does Trump have to do to warrant impeachment? Shoot someone on 5th Avenue?

What do you think?

Mueller Reiterates Investigation Didn’t Exonerate Trump, Hints At Impeachment

???
Lakhota and Rambunctious

It's not a matter of being bad, disliked, or a political opponent of insiders.

It's a matter of what can be proven in court where it is worth
the legal cost of pursuing.

This is why the ACA was only challenged on particular points
that legal teams could present in court and win on.

(the whole law was arguably unconstitutional by violating standards on process
and discriminating by creed against citizens of opposing beliefs, but that
argument would have been too burdensome to prove in court, so opponents
found it more cost effective to focus on campaigning for elections to
correct the problems by followup legislation instead of going through courts)

Even Clinton could not be cornered on criminal arguments
because "intent" could not be proven. It's possible to prove it now
if you take the information obtained by Judicial Watch as "proof of
criminal intent". (I still don't understand why the breaches based on NEGLIGENCE
weren't pursued, since that was enough to justify punitive actions
and was already confirmed at the very start.)

Trying to argue that Trump committed obstruction (when what he
said, did and ordered still fall within his executive authority and
can equally be argued as consistent without any conflicting intent)
or that any of his business ventures constitute "emoluments"
are just as ambiguous if not harder to prove than Clinton's case
of denying that any actions she took had any conflicting or criminal intent.

It's legally difficult to prove intent without someone admitting it.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, and our legal system
has always been biased on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

We can continue abusing media to "declare people guilty until proven innocent,"
but can't expect "public outcry in the media" to serve as "compelling evidence"
that the legal system can use to judge people that way.

 

[Rambunctious]

This was the question that Washington Post columnist and associate editor Eugene Robinson asked on MSNBC's Ari Melber show, The Beat, a few hours ago.

How much more does Trump have to do to warrant impeachment? Shoot someone on 5th Avenue?

What do you think?

Mueller Reiterates Investigation Didn’t Exonerate Trump, Hints At Impeachment

???
Lakhota and Rambunctious

It's not a matter of being bad, disliked, or a political opponent of insiders.

It's a matter of what can be proven in court where it is worth
the legal cost of pursuing.

This is why the ACA was only challenged on particular points
that legal teams could present in court and win on.

(the whole law was arguably unconstitutional by violating standards on process
and discriminating by creed against citizens of opposing beliefs, but that
argument would have been too burdensome to prove in court, so opponents
found it more cost effective to focus on campaigning for elections to
correct the problems by followup legislation instead of going through courts)

Even Clinton could not be cornered on criminal arguments
because "intent" could not be proven. It's possible to prove it now
if you take the information obtained by Judicial Watch as "proof of
criminal intent".

Trying to argue that Trump committed obstruction (when what he
said, did and ordered still fall within his executive authority and
can equally be argued as consistent without any conflicting intent)
or that any of his business ventures constitute "emoluments"
are just as ambiguous if not harder to prove than Clinton's case
of denying that any actions she took had any conflicting or criminal intent.

It's legally difficult to prove intent without someone admitting it.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, and our legal system
has always been biased on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

We can continue abusing media to declare people guilty until proven innocent,
but can't expect that to compel the legal system to judge people that way.

The establishment would have done the same thing to Bernie Sanders had he won...and actually...they did....in the primary...the Clinton/Bush lovers in DC took Bernie out for Hillary...remember the DNC leaked Hillary the debate questions in the DNC debate?....its the Establishment vs the people....

 

[Lakhota]

Trump's crimes are far worse than Nixon's.

 

[S.J.]

He has to commit an impeachable offense, and winning a presidential election is not an impeachable offense (as much as you might like it to be).

Is the Mueller Report too complicated for you?

The best you're gonna get out of the Mueller report is "I couldn't prove he committed a crime but neither could I prove he didn't". That ain't enough to impeach him and if you think it is, why don't you try it?

 

[The Purge]

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has peddled two different stories. Only one can be true.



In his final act before resigning his position, Mueller told the gathered media on Wednesday that his non-decision decision on whether the president obstructed justice was “informed” by a long-standing opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime. But according to William Barr, that’s not what Mueller told the attorney general and others during a meeting on March 5, 2017. Here’s what Barr told Senators during his May 1st testimony:



“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”



Barr said there were others in the meeting who heard Mueller say the same thing – that the OLC opinion played no role in the special counsel’s decision-making or lack thereof. The attorney general repeated this in his news conference the day Mueller’s report was released to the public:



“We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking a position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that was not his position.”



Yet, on Wednesday Mueller was telling a different tale. He seemed to argue that he could...



~snip~



Mueller’s actions were not only noxious but patently unfair to Trump. The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior instead of stated evidence that rose to the level of criminality.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...<

 

[The Purge]

Trump's crimes are far worse than Nixon's.

Still cant name them...you are a fucking loser!

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Lakhota
Sorry if you think the tragedy and travesty of a monopolized, inaccessible legal system
is "funny."

If OBAMA cannot even be held accountable for pushing, signing and enforcing UNCONSTITUTIONAL
legislation such as ACA, when that is a BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL OATH AND DUTY,

What makes you think Trump can be impeached for running his mouth
when that is within his free speech rights.

I don't think this is funny but sad!

 

[Lakhota]

Mueller report - Department of Justice

It's sad that so few have read the Mueller report.

 

[Rustic]

This was the question that Washington Post columnist and associate editor Eugene Robinson asked on MSNBC's Ari Melber show, The Beat, a few hours ago.

How much more does Trump have to do to warrant impeachment? Shoot someone on 5th Avenue?

What do you think?

Mueller Reiterates Investigation Didn’t Exonerate Trump, Hints At Impeachment



Mueller report - Department of Justice

Washington redskin,
...and still no Russian connection

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dear Lakhota
Sorry if you think the tragedy and travesty of a monopolized, inaccessible legal system
is "funny."

If OBAMA cannot even be held accountable for pushing, signing and enforcing UNCONSTITUTIONAL
legislation such as ACA, when that is a BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL OATH AND DUTY,

What makes you think Trump can be impeached for running his mouth
when that is within his free speech rights.

I don't think this is funny but sad!

You blew your credibility with Judicial Watch.

Obama used the IRS to target political opponents.... Not a peep from democrats..
Obama allowed Russian interference in our elections and KNEW it was happening.... Not a peep from democrats.
Obama used the whole of the US government to spy on Trump, lied to obtain FISA warrants, created a dossier, lied to the courts, and unmasked US CITIZENS without probable cause. And not one peep from democrats...

IF were comparing one to another, Obama should be swinging from a damn tree with Hillary... and ever other conspirator involved..

 

[Lakhota]

Dear Lakhota
Sorry if you think the tragedy and travesty of a monopolized, inaccessible legal system
is "funny."

If OBAMA cannot even be held accountable for pushing, signing and enforcing UNCONSTITUTIONAL
legislation such as ACA, when that is a BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL OATH AND DUTY,

What makes you think Trump can be impeached for running his mouth
when that is within his free speech rights.

I don't think this is funny but sad!

You blew your credibility with Judicial Watch.

 

[keepitreal]

This was the question that Washington Post columnist and associate editor Eugene Robinson asked on MSNBC's Ari Melber show, The Beat, a few hours ago.

How much more does Trump have to do to warrant impeachment? Shoot someone on 5th Avenue?

What do you think?

Mueller Reiterates Investigation Didn’t Exonerate Trump, Hints At Impeachment



Mueller report - Department of Justice

Well, he has a ways to go to catch up to Bill

 

[edthecynic]

But according to William Barr, that’s not what Mueller told the attorney general and others during a meeting on March 5, 2017.

The same Billy Barr who was caught lying to Congress and refused to turn over notes of that very meeting when Congress asked for them, that Billy Barr.