What Is Your Bar For Impeachment?

[Shrimpbox]

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?

So for you Clinton’s sex life was not important, but trumps is. It’s just amazing how convoluted and vacuous your brain is.

 

[Shrimpbox]

My bar for impeachment is if you have been cleared of all charges for actions while you were in office you are innocent. Next!

 

[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???

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.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.

.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.

.

WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.

 

[NightFox]

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.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.

.

WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.

Actually it IS up to Barr given that the Special Counsel wasn't able to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence was sufficient to pursue a charge of Obstruction, however Barr did NOT say that "the President did not obstruct the investigation". What he actually said was that "after reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

In other words he made no determination of whether the President was innocent or guilty, He and Rosenstein determined that there was insufficient evidence in the report to justify moving forward on the question. This has NO bearing on whether or not the House of Representatives chooses to pursue impeachment on the matter, it just means the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE believes based on the evidence that action isn't justified.

Barr was well within the scope of his authority on this one since the Special Council punted the question of obstruction to him.

 

[percysunshine]

Parking in a handicap spot without being handicapped.

That would do it.

 

[bendog]

I seem to recall calls for Comey to release Hill's emails on the same reasoning.

Nevertheless my response to the OP is Nixon should have been convicted of impeachment unless he quit. Slick and Trump didn't come close to bar of what should be impeachable. Fight it out in the elections.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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?

Perjury is impeachable offense, so get Trump to perjure himself and stop excusing William Jefferson Blythe III perjury...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.

.

WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.

Yes it was. The law stipulates that the AG will publish his findings. It certainly isn't up to the douchebags in the House to do it. Deciding who to prosecute is one of the main functions of the DOJ.

 

[bendog]

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?

Perjury is impeachable offense, so get Trump to perjure himself and stop excusing William Jefferson Blythe III perjury...

Why try and set any perjury traps? I think Trump is a horrible person, and his tariffs on Europe are literally socialism of the worst kind. He's taken sanctions off of Kim because the Mueller headlines drowned out what should have been outrage and catcalls over his failure. He's blown up the deficit not just with tax cuts that haven't produced revenue but also INCREASED pork domestic spending and defense. His wall is a joke unless he backs it up with fines on employers.

On the other hand, no one has tried with China before. Illegal immigration is a scourge. Nato didn't carry its water. The fed was raising rates too fast ... again.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.

.

WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.

Actually it IS up to Barr given that the Special Counsel wasn't able to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence was sufficient to pursue a charge of Obstruction, however Barr did NOT say that "the President did not obstruct the investigation". What he actually said was that "after reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

In other words he made no determination of whether the President was innocent or guilty, He and Rosenstein determined that there was insufficient evidence in the report to justify moving forward on the question. This has NO bearing on whether or not the House of Representatives chooses to pursue impeachment on the matter, it just means the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE believes based on the evidence that action isn't justified.

Barr was well within the scope of his authority on this one since the Special Council punted the question of obstruction to him.

No, it isn't. It would be up to Barr if the President could be indicted. It isn't up to Barr to make a judgement on obstruction in this sense because the decision on whether to impeach Trump due to obstruction is up to Congress.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.

.

WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.

Yes it was. The law stipulates that the AG will publish his findings. It certainly isn't up to the douchebags in the House to do it. Deciding who to prosecute is one of the main functions of the DOJ.

He didn't just publish the findings. He made a JUDGEMENT OF HIS OWN on whether there is a case for obstruction. That isn't in his responsibilities. Read the fucking law.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.

.

WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.

Actually it IS up to Barr given that the Special Counsel wasn't able to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the evidence was sufficient to pursue a charge of Obstruction, however Barr did NOT say that "the President did not obstruct the investigation". What he actually said was that "after reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."

In other words he made no determination of whether the President was innocent or guilty, He and Rosenstein determined that there was insufficient evidence in the report to justify moving forward on the question. This has NO bearing on whether or not the House of Representatives chooses to pursue impeachment on the matter, it just means the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE believes based on the evidence that action isn't justified.

Barr was well within the scope of his authority on this one since the Special Council punted the question of obstruction to him.

No, it isn't. It would be up to Barr if the President could be indicted. It isn't up to Barr to make a judgement on obstruction in this sense because the decision on whether to impeach Trump due to obstruction is up to Congress.

They have no power to indict the President, and we all know impeachment is never going to happen.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

.

Great, I didn't argue that part. I argued that it doesn't say the AG is supposed to make a decision and public say there was no obstruction, before Congress sees the report and decides if there is anything in the report worthy of impeachment.

What you seem to fail to understand is congress has no right to see the raw report. They said so in the law THEY passed, it is confidential between the Special Counsel and the AG. It's up to the AG to decide what to relay to congress if anything. The law was written in a manor to protect the rights of un-indicted individuals form the very political disparagement you commies are trying to pursue. Face it, all your fantasies have been dashed, deal with it.

.

WHY? Part of their Constitutional responsibilities is to be the monitoring branch of the President in the checks in balances system. Because of that, it was not up to Barr to publicly make a decision on his own to say the President did not obstruct the investigation. It's very simple and your post does not show that in the law.

Yes it was. The law stipulates that the AG will publish his findings. It certainly isn't up to the douchebags in the House to do it. Deciding who to prosecute is one of the main functions of the DOJ.

He didn't just publish the findings. He made a JUDGEMENT OF HIS OWN on whether there is a case for obstruction. That isn't in his responsibilities. Read the fucking law.

Of course it's his responsibility. That's what an AG does, moron.

 

[buckeye45_73]

"High crimes and misdemeanors."

And?

Is grabbing a pussy a low enough bar for you? Tax evasion? Defrauding an insurance company?

What?

Well you have to prove those first.....Anonymous sources from the WaPo are garbage.......but If Tim Geinter can commit tax evasion....no reason the President cant.

 

[mikegriffith1]

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

Sigh. . . . Such amazing ignorance. Go read the articles of impeachment against Clinton. They involved perjury to federal and civil court officials, genuine obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. Not one of them sought to impeach him for his sexual conduct.

 

[jknowgood]

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?

Lol, I quit reading after getting impeached for a blow job. Clinton got impeached for lying under oath. DUMBASS! Sheesh.

 

[Fang]

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.

How can we have a discussion when your facts used to frame the question are wrong. Clinton wasn't impeached for the blowjob. He was impeached for perjury. On that note, let's be honest. The bar has never been set lower than Clinton's stunt in the Oval Office with the intern.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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?

you make a good case that by default no democrat or republican can be POTUS,,,

both parties are no more than terrorist groups

"both parties are no more than terrorist groups"

I wouldn't go THAT far but I agree that neither party truly represents the MAJORITY of Americans NOR what America and the constitution stands for.

I oppose parties. At least these 2 parties.