What Is Your Bar For Impeachment?

[OldLady]

"High crimes and misdemeanors."

And?

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

What?

Don't forget campaign finance violations. Another dud, imo.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

I see you still have difficulty reading. The Congress wouldn't use the obstruction to indict Trump. They would use the power given to them as part of the system of check and balances to impeach him. It was not Barr's responsibility to make the decision if there was obstruction or not. Even if he decided there was obstruction, would he had said it publicly? What would he had done after that? He has NO POWER to do anything with it. The only power at this moment with any power to do anything is Congress. Learn the fucking laws.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Wait a minute. If "lying about a blowjob" is a crap excuse for impeachment, then you need to stop siting the Trump associate incitements as proof of corruption because all of them aside from Manafort was for lying.

It was purjury, not lying about a blowjob.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

That's a pretty high crime.

That's not what "high crimes" means.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I see you still have difficulty reading. The Congress wouldn't use the obstruction to indict Trump. They would use the power given to them as part of the system of check and balances to impeach him. It was not Barr's responsibility to make the decision if there was obstruction or not. Even if he decided there was obstruction, would he had said it publicly? What would he had done after that? He has NO POWER to do anything with it. The only power at this moment with any power to do anything is Congress. Learn the fucking laws.

As I already explained, dumbass, one of the basic functions of the AG is to make decisions about whether to prosecute. Who else do you believe is supposed to do it, Schiff for brains? Barr and Rosenstein both determined there was no evidence of obstruction. End of story.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

Sex with an impressionable intern and then lying about it and asking others to lie for you.

 

[anynameyouwish]

That's a pretty high crime.

That's not what "high crimes" means.

isn't "high crimes" just about smoking pot? (a bad attempt at a joke)

 

[sartre play]

Not for impeachment, when people are dishonest it should always be pointed out. then the public can weigh the level, check the facts and not vote for people proven to be dishonest. even sadly if their in your own political party of choice. overlooking the dishonesty is on us, they would not do it so much if they knew we would hold them accountable.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

I see you still have difficulty reading. The Congress wouldn't use the obstruction to indict Trump. They would use the power given to them as part of the system of check and balances to impeach him. It was not Barr's responsibility to make the decision if there was obstruction or not. Even if he decided there was obstruction, would he had said it publicly? What would he had done after that? He has NO POWER to do anything with it. The only power at this moment with any power to do anything is Congress. Learn the fucking laws.

As I already explained, dumbass, one of the basic functions of the AG is to make decisions about whether to prosecute. Who else do you believe is supposed to do it, Schiff for brains? Barr and Rosenstein both determined there was no evidence of obstruction. End of story.

So the AG, appointed by the President, and below the President, has oversight of the President? You need to back to junior high school and take Social Studies over again. BARR HAD NO REASON TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION! The President wasn't going to be indicted, and the AG doesn't have oversight to determine obstruction for impeachment. That's Congress's responsibility.

You can explain your side over and over a million times and it will be wrong every single time.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I see you still have difficulty reading. The Congress wouldn't use the obstruction to indict Trump. They would use the power given to them as part of the system of check and balances to impeach him. It was not Barr's responsibility to make the decision if there was obstruction or not. Even if he decided there was obstruction, would he had said it publicly? What would he had done after that? He has NO POWER to do anything with it. The only power at this moment with any power to do anything is Congress. Learn the fucking laws.

As I already explained, dumbass, one of the basic functions of the AG is to make decisions about whether to prosecute. Who else do you believe is supposed to do it, Schiff for brains? Barr and Rosenstein both determined there was no evidence of obstruction. End of story.

So the AG, appointed by the President, and below the President, has oversight of the President? You need to back to junior high school and take Social Studies over again. BARR HAD NO REASON TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION! The President wasn't going to be indicted, and the AG doesn't have oversight to determine obstruction for impeachment. That's Congress's responsibility.

You can explain your side over and over a million times and it will be wrong every single time.

Mueller reports to the President. Are you saying he didn't have the authority to indict the President?

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. Congress can impeach Trump for whatever reason it likes.

 

[sakinago]

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?

Misdemeanors was a much more serious term back then.

 

[Lesh]

Do you ever get anything right. Mueller does NOT report to the President. And he is acting on behalf of the DOJ which has a policy stating that a President can not be indicted.

 

[Lesh]

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?

Misdemeanors was a much more serious term back then.

Explain

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Do you ever get anything right. Mueller does NOT report to the President. And he is acting on behalf of the DOJ which has a policy stating that a President can not be indicted.

Cannot?

 

[sakinago]

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?

Misdemeanors was a much more serious term back then.

Explain

Misdemeanors I guess would best be described as class 4-3 felonies, and high crimes would be like our class 1-2 felonies.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you ever get anything right. Mueller does NOT report to the President. And he is acting on behalf of the DOJ which has a policy stating that a President can not be indicted.

The DOJ reports to the President, dumbass. It's not a fourth branch of government.

 

[Lesh]

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?

Misdemeanors was a much more serious term back then.

Explain

Misdemeanors I guess would best be described as class 4-3 felonies, and high crimes would be like our class 1-2 felonies.

Thanks for your opinion . Now show us how it relates to anything real. Like how misdemeanors we viewed in 1789

 

[Lewdog]

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.

I see you still have difficulty reading. The Congress wouldn't use the obstruction to indict Trump. They would use the power given to them as part of the system of check and balances to impeach him. It was not Barr's responsibility to make the decision if there was obstruction or not. Even if he decided there was obstruction, would he had said it publicly? What would he had done after that? He has NO POWER to do anything with it. The only power at this moment with any power to do anything is Congress. Learn the fucking laws.

As I already explained, dumbass, one of the basic functions of the AG is to make decisions about whether to prosecute. Who else do you believe is supposed to do it, Schiff for brains? Barr and Rosenstein both determined there was no evidence of obstruction. End of story.

So the AG, appointed by the President, and below the President, has oversight of the President? You need to back to junior high school and take Social Studies over again. BARR HAD NO REASON TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION! The President wasn't going to be indicted, and the AG doesn't have oversight to determine obstruction for impeachment. That's Congress's responsibility.

You can explain your side over and over a million times and it will be wrong every single time.

Mueller reports to the President. Are you saying he didn't have the authority to indict the President?

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. Congress can impeach Trump for whatever reason it likes.

No he didn't. He said he wouldn't even try due the the DoJ memo that said a sitting President could not be indicted.

 

[Toro]

Banning whiskey.

 

[sakinago]

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?

Misdemeanors was a much more serious term back then.

Explain

Misdemeanors I guess would best be described as class 4-3 felonies, and high crimes would be like our class 1-2 felonies.

Thanks for your opinion . Now show us how it relates to anything real. Like how misdemeanors we viewed in 1789

Sorry, the chapter on early American law that has been out of existence for 200 years is in the next chapter of my Things You Will Never Need to Know law text book. Btw that’s not opinion that misdemeanors were much heavier back in the day. Since there are 2 classes laid out, Hugh crimes and misdemeanors, it’s probably safe to assume misdemeanors were what we’d call a lower class felony (3-4).