What Is Your Bar For Impeachment?

[Oldstyle]

The "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's all agree that if a President shoots a man on Fifth Avenue, he should be impeached, even if he committed the crime before he was President.

That's a pretty high crime.


But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word? I'm going to have to dust off some of my books to see if I can rediscover the reasoning behind that one.

The Republican party set the bar really, really low by impeaching a President over a blowjob.

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Everyone knows most of our Presidents screwed around. JFK was notorious, but even long before Kennedy, the private sex lives of Presidents were filled with mistresses. Yet we kept it private. You didn't make political hay out of it. Only if you were "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl".


I can see how it would be tempting to force Trump to be put under oath and to ask him about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and what pussies he might have grabbed. But I personally really don't want us to go there again.

I do think we need to know if our President cheated on his taxes or defrauded investors or defrauded insurance companies. But even that would not be an impeachable offense in my book.

We need to know those kinds of things so we know something about the character of the man, and then we can decide for ourselves whether to vote him out democratically rather than remove him by force.


So for me, in this current climate, the only potential crime I can foresee which would be a high enough bar for me is money laundering.

Ill-gotten gains are acquired through murder and terrorism and human trafficking and other "high crimes", and anyone who plays a part in aiding and abetting those crimes should be forcibly removed from office.

What is YOUR bar for impeachment?

Bentley's...'cause of their 2 for 1 happy hour and free appetizers!

 

[Lewdog]

I think the Barr has already spoken rather than letting Congress do their job with the report and make their own conclusion.

It was congress that said the report would only be a summary of charging decisions and would be confidential. You commies always want to change the rules mid game. Get over it already.

.

What are you talking about? It shouldn't be up to Barr to make a judgement on obstruction for a couple of reasons. First off, the DoJ is not going to indict a sitting President. Secondly, by Barr saying his own conclusion before the House of Republicans even get the information from the Mueller investigation to decide whether or not Trump committed acts worthy of impeachment, Barr has prejudiced the public. In previous cases similar to this one, neither AG did what Barr did, they instead simply passed along the information to Congress.

Barr didn't believe in the Mueller investigation in the first place, and now he has side tracked the end of it.

BS, he's following the law and long established DOJ policies. Also a president can't obstruct justice unless he is found hiding or destroying evidence (Nixon tapes), or suborns perjury. All federal law enforcement powers are derived from the president, the DOJ is an executive branch department and the president can direct their activities lawfully. That includes personnel decisions.

.

If it is the law then why is there no precedence for it???

 

[Crixus]

The "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's all agree that if a President shoots a man on Fifth Avenue, he should be impeached, even if he committed the crime before he was President.

That's a pretty high crime.


But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word? I'm going to have to dust off some of my books to see if I can rediscover the reasoning behind that one.

The Republican party set the bar really, really low by impeaching a President over a blowjob.

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Everyone knows most of our Presidents screwed around. JFK was notorious, but even long before Kennedy, the private sex lives of Presidents were filled with mistresses. Yet we kept it private. You didn't make political hay out of it. Only if you were "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl".


I can see how it would be tempting to force Trump to be put under oath and to ask him about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and what pussies he might have grabbed. But I personally really don't want us to go there again.

I do think we need to know if our President cheated on his taxes or defrauded investors or defrauded insurance companies. But even that would not be an impeachable offense in my book.

We need to know those kinds of things so we know something about the character of the man, and then we can decide for ourselves whether to vote him out democratically rather than remove him by force.


So for me, in this current climate, the only potential crime I can foresee which would be a high enough bar for me is money laundering.

Ill-gotten gains are acquired through murder and terrorism and human trafficking and other "high crimes", and anyone who plays a part in aiding and abetting those crimes should be forcibly removed from office.

What is YOUR bar for impeachment?

Unpaid traffic violations.

 

[theHawk]

Putting Russia’s interests ahead of the interest of United States while being commander in chief.

Can you name one instance of that happening. Be specific.

 

[OKTexas]

I think the Barr has already spoken rather than letting Congress do their job with the report and make their own conclusion.

It was congress that said the report would only be a summary of charging decisions and would be confidential. You commies always want to change the rules mid game. Get over it already.

.

What are you talking about? It shouldn't be up to Barr to make a judgement on obstruction for a couple of reasons. First off, the DoJ is not going to indict a sitting President. Secondly, by Barr saying his own conclusion before the House of Republicans even get the information from the Mueller investigation to decide whether or not Trump committed acts worthy of impeachment, Barr has prejudiced the public. In previous cases similar to this one, neither AG did what Barr did, they instead simply passed along the information to Congress.

Barr didn't believe in the Mueller investigation in the first place, and now he has side tracked the end of it.

BS, he's following the law and long established DOJ policies. Also a president can't obstruct justice unless he is found hiding or destroying evidence (Nixon tapes), or suborns perjury. All federal law enforcement powers are derived from the president, the DOJ is an executive branch department and the president can direct their activities lawfully. That includes personnel decisions.

.

If it is the law then why is there no precedence for it???

Read the damn law for yourself.

§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.
(a)Budget.

(1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice. Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General's review and approval. Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel. The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.

(2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.

(b)Notification of significant events. The Special Counsel shall notify the Attorney General of events in the course of his or her investigation in conformity with the Departmental guidelines with respect to Urgent Reports.

(c)Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

You tell me why there is no precedent for violating the law. Perhaps you're thinking about the Independent Counsel statute, it expired long ago.

.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually committing a crime is one of them

 

[Avatar4321]

Putting Russia’s interests ahead of the interest of United States while being commander in chief.

As that hasn't happened got seems as we are good.

But if you are against putting Russian interests ahead of US interests, why are you doing it? You realize every time you lie and sow seeds of division you are doing just thst, rignt? You've done far more to help Russia than anyone you complain about.

Russia wants a divided and weak US. So why not stop giving Russia what they want and back the president as he does good for our nation?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Let's all agree that if a President shoots a man on Fifth Avenue, he should be impeached, even if he committed the crime before he was President.

That's a pretty high crime.


But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word? I'm going to have to dust off some of my books to see if I can rediscover the reasoning behind that one.

The Republican party set the bar really, really low by impeaching a President over a blowjob.

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Everyone knows most of our Presidents screwed around. JFK was notorious, but even long before Kennedy, the private sex lives of Presidents were filled with mistresses. Yet we kept it private. You didn't make political hay out of it. Only if you were "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl".


I can see how it would be tempting to force Trump to be put under oath and to ask him about Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal and what pussies he might have grabbed. But I personally really don't want us to go there again.

I do think we need to know if our President cheated on his taxes or defrauded investors or defrauded insurance companies. But even that would not be an impeachable offense in my book.

We need to know those kinds of things so we know something about the character of the man, and then we can decide for ourselves whether to vote him out democratically rather than remove him by force.


So for me, in this current climate, the only potential crime I can foresee which would be a high enough bar for me is money laundering.

Ill-gotten gains are acquired through murder and terrorism and human trafficking and other "high crimes", and anyone who plays a part in aiding and abetting those crimes should be forcibly removed from office.

What is YOUR bar for impeachment?

‘But how low do you go with "Misdemeanors"? Why did our Founders use that word?’

In the 18th Century – and today, for that matter – the term refers to bad acts or bad conduct.

It means that a president can be removed from office via the impeachment process absent alleged criminal wrongdoing.

For example, a president can be impeached because of his unwarranted attacks on the judiciary, because he has violated his oath of office, because of his incessant lying, or because of his ignorance and incompetence rendering him unfit to be president.

It was clearly not the intent of the Framers that only presidents who are criminals should be removed from office before a General Election, that a president should be removed from office via the impeachment process because he’s incapable of functioning as president.

 

[bripat9643]

I will never support the impeachment of a Republican president, period. It can only happen if Democrats are behind it, and they are all lying scumbags..

That was revealing...and refreshingly honest for a Trumper.

He ain't kidding folks.

They ALL think like that

That's because we all know what enormous douchebags leftwingers are.

 

[Lesh]

That's because we all know what enormous douchebags leftwingers are.

This from a Trumpbot who has stated that there is NOTHING Trump could possibly do that would be impeachable

 

[bripat9643]

That's because we all know what enormous douchebags leftwingers are.

This from a Trumpbot who has stated that there is NOTHING Trump could possibly do that would be impeachable

Nothing that's actually plausible. I suppose I would support impeachment if he barbecued and ate a baby on the capital steps, but we all know nothing like that is going to happen.

 

[bripat9643]

I think the Barr has already spoken rather than letting Congress do their job with the report and make their own conclusion.

It was congress that said the report would only be a summary of charging decisions and would be confidential. You commies always want to change the rules mid game. Get over it already.

.

What are you talking about? It shouldn't be up to Barr to make a judgement on obstruction for a couple of reasons. First off, the DoJ is not going to indict a sitting President. Secondly, by Barr saying his own conclusion before the House of Republicans even get the information from the Mueller investigation to decide whether or not Trump committed acts worthy of impeachment, Barr has prejudiced the public. In previous cases similar to this one, neither AG did what Barr did, they instead simply passed along the information to Congress.

Barr didn't believe in the Mueller investigation in the first place, and now he has side tracked the end of it.

The AG makes the conclusions about the report, not the Dim scumbags in the House.

 

[CowboyTed]

Now, some will simp and say they impeached him over LYING about a blowjob, but come on. Why are you even asking him about a blowjob under oath, for chrissakes.

Why did he, a licensed lawyer, commit perjury about a blowjob?

You may recall, the line of questioning came about through the Paula Jones investigation. Ken Starr uncovered the affair with Lewinsky, thus the questioning.

Personally, I don't give two shits about a president cutting off a little strange in the Oval Office (though it does speak to a man's character, especially if married... and yes, Trump has no character...), but don't lie about it while your pants are still down around your ankles...

Like I always told my kids, if I'm asking you the question, odds are I already know the answer so don't lie, that will just piss me off...

Yet Trump lies everyday continuously... His lawyers knew he lie so much they couldn't put him under Oath.. Not impeachable but it shouldn't there be a higher standard set by America...

 

[Care4all]

the bar being really high makes sense, IF WE HAD a functional congress-house and senate, that actually did their jobs to keep a wild and crazy to boot president, in check...

 

[NightFox]

What Is Your Bar For Impeachment?

Well... I'll be the first to admit, I have an extremely high bar for contemplating the impeachment of a government "official" but just for the sake of discussion, I'll toss out a few offenses that I think warrant it:

1. Wearing white after labor day
2. Talking with a mouth full of bullshit
3. Making statements or giving stump speeches without prefacing them with the disclaimer that "Nothing that I'm about to tell you is true"

 

[Mac1958]

Being a buffoon and all-around national embarrassment is not enough. There are no "high crimes & misdemeanors".

And at this moment in time, he's only slightly more of an embarrassment than are the Dems, and the distance is closing.

So maybe they should start concentrating on getting their OWN shit together.
.

 

[Meathead]

I suppose I would support impeachment if he barbecued and ate a baby on the capital steps, but we all know nothing like that is going to happen.

Great! Now you laid the foundation for a breaking Madcow report and a House investigation! Now all we're going to hear about for the next two years is the barbecued baby

 

[Norman]

It sure is higher than a fake Russian conspiracy story.

Now a juicy email server where the mail is deleted using bleach bit... that should get you there.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It has to be higher than fake russian boogeymen. That one just got shot down .

 

[Manonthestreet]

I use a variation of the OJ model, if the frame doesn't fit, you must aquit