What Is Your Bar For Impeachment?

[Hutch Starskey]

Congress doesn't need an indictment or a crime to impeachment the president... and it is up to them to look at the facts and decide obstruction, NOT Barr.

The special counsel law requires Mueller to deliver the report to the AG, and no one else. Publishing any part of the report is solely at the AG's discretion. He can keep it all confidential if he wants. The law specifically bars him from releasing Grand Jury testimony and classified material, so you are wrong about 5 different ways to Sunday.

Yes, "deliver" it to him. He is then tasked with going over it to see if there are any parts that are part of grand jury testimony or any parts that divulge intelligence practices that can not be shared with anyone except those with the clearance to see it.

He is NOT tasked with reading it and then interpreting HIS opinion and making that opinion public. He overstepped his duties.

Are you trolling? I'm being serious, because this is not that difficult to understand.

Except for releasing Grand Jury testimony and classified information, What he does with it is totally up to him.

You legal theories are made up from whole cloth.

Idiocy is seldom difficult to understand.

I said he could withhold that... Do try to keep up. That was the whole purpose of delivering it to Barr first, so he could go through and redact that information before making the rest available to Congress... I've said this to you about 10 times now.

The special council law says nothing about delivering it to Congress. You're just making that up.

Congress has oversight over the executive branch.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Both Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment over obstruction of justice.

not happening. was never happening. Pelosi tried to warn people

We can't know without seeing the full report.

You aren't ever going to see the full report, you fucking moron. It's illegal for Barr to publish it.

No one if fooled by this whining about seeing the full report. It's just an excuse to continue the "collusion" jihad against Trump.

 

[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?

Both Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment over obstruction of justice.

not happening. was never happening. Pelosi tried to warn people

We can't know without seeing the full report.

stop. You view is actually making defeating Trump less likely. There will NOT be any impeachment proceedings in the House.

 

[bripat9643]

The special counsel law requires Mueller to deliver the report to the AG, and no one else. Publishing any part of the report is solely at the AG's discretion. He can keep it all confidential if he wants. The law specifically bars him from releasing Grand Jury testimony and classified material, so you are wrong about 5 different ways to Sunday.

Yes, "deliver" it to him. He is then tasked with going over it to see if there are any parts that are part of grand jury testimony or any parts that divulge intelligence practices that can not be shared with anyone except those with the clearance to see it.

He is NOT tasked with reading it and then interpreting HIS opinion and making that opinion public. He overstepped his duties.

Are you trolling? I'm being serious, because this is not that difficult to understand.

Except for releasing Grand Jury testimony and classified information, What he does with it is totally up to him.

You legal theories are made up from whole cloth.

Idiocy is seldom difficult to understand.

I said he could withhold that... Do try to keep up. That was the whole purpose of delivering it to Barr first, so he could go through and redact that information before making the rest available to Congress... I've said this to you about 10 times now.

The special council law says nothing about delivering it to Congress. You're just making that up.

Congress has oversight over the executive branch.

ROFL! You're such a fucking dumbass. "Oversight" doesn't extend to telling the AG how to do his job if he's following the law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Both Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment over obstruction of justice.

not happening. was never happening. Pelosi tried to warn people

We can't know without seeing the full report.

You aren't ever going to see the full report, you fucking moron. It's illegal for Barr to publish it.

No one if fooled by this whining about seeing the full report. It's just an excuse to continue the "collusion" jihad against Trump.

It is not illegal, dope.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

 

[Andylusion]

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?

It is impossible to make that judgement without knowing the details of the case.

I need to see the evidence at hand on the crime in question, and then I can say if it is impeachable.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, "deliver" it to him. He is then tasked with going over it to see if there are any parts that are part of grand jury testimony or any parts that divulge intelligence practices that can not be shared with anyone except those with the clearance to see it.

He is NOT tasked with reading it and then interpreting HIS opinion and making that opinion public. He overstepped his duties.

Are you trolling? I'm being serious, because this is not that difficult to understand.

Except for releasing Grand Jury testimony and classified information, What he does with it is totally up to him.

You legal theories are made up from whole cloth.

Idiocy is seldom difficult to understand.

I said he could withhold that... Do try to keep up. That was the whole purpose of delivering it to Barr first, so he could go through and redact that information before making the rest available to Congress... I've said this to you about 10 times now.

The special council law says nothing about delivering it to Congress. You're just making that up.

Congress has oversight over the executive branch.

ROFL! You're such a fucking dumbass. "Oversight" doesn't extend to telling the AG how to do his job if he's following the law.

Actually, it does. Congress cannot fulfill their oversight duties without the required information. Barring access, pun intended, is nothing more than a cover up.

 

[NightFox]

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.

You're lying again, he said there was insufficient evidence that a crime was committed, regardless of the DOJ policy that a sitting president can't be indicted. You need to stop listening to MSLSD.

.

"Insufficient evidence" means no evidence.

Er..umm... NO means zero and insufficient means NOT ENOUGH, they aren't synonymous in this context which probably explains why they're not used interchangeably.

You either obstructed or you didn't.

That's not the question, the question for the investigation was "does sufficient credible evidence exist to reasonably justify the conclusion that he committed obstruction", which isn't the same thing as "guilty or not guilty" which is a question for the courts or in the case of a sitting President, The Senate.

Zero evidence is also "not enough," and that's what they have.

ZERO means ZERO, it's an absolute, "not enough" is subjective, which explains why anybody concerned with accuracy doesn't use those terms interchangeably either.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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?

/——/ Being a democRAT is grounds for impeachment

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Both Nixon and Clinton faced impeachment over obstruction of justice.

not happening. was never happening. Pelosi tried to warn people

We can't know without seeing the full report.

You aren't ever going to see the full report, you fucking moron. It's illegal for Barr to publish it.

No one if fooled by this whining about seeing the full report. It's just an excuse to continue the "collusion" jihad against Trump.

It is not illegal, dope.

It's illegal for him to publish it unredacted, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're lying again, he said there was insufficient evidence that a crime was committed, regardless of the DOJ policy that a sitting president can't be indicted. You need to stop listening to MSLSD.

.

"Insufficient evidence" means no evidence.

Er..umm... NO means zero and insufficient means NOT ENOUGH, they aren't synonymous in this context which probably explains why they're not used interchangeably.

You either obstructed or you didn't.

That's not the question, the question for the investigation was "does sufficient credible evidence exist to reasonably justify the conclusion that he committed obstruction", which isn't the same thing as "guilty or not guilty" which is a question for the courts or in the case of a sitting President, The Senate.

Zero evidence is also "not enough," and that's what they have.

ZERO means ZERO, it's an absolute, "not enough" is subjective, which explains why anybody concerned with accuracy doesn't use those terms interchangeably either.

Zero is a subset of "not enough," dumbass. There is either evidence of obstruction, or there isn't. The only "evidence" is the leftwing delusion that firing Comey is obstruction. Those who have a firm grip on reality understand that Trump could have fired Comey for any reason he liked. Even Comey understands that.

 

[NightFox]

You're lying again, he said there was insufficient evidence that a crime was committed, regardless of the DOJ policy that a sitting president can't be indicted. You need to stop listening to MSLSD.

.

"Insufficient evidence" means no evidence.

Er..umm... NO means zero and insufficient means NOT ENOUGH, they aren't synonymous in this context which probably explains why they're not used interchangeably.

You either obstructed or you didn't.

That's not the question, the question for the investigation was "does sufficient credible evidence exist to reasonably justify the conclusion that he committed obstruction", which isn't the same thing as "guilty or not guilty" which is a question for the courts or in the case of a sitting President, The Senate.

Zero evidence is also "not enough," and that's what they have.

ZERO means ZERO, it's an absolute, "not enough" is subjective, which explains why anybody concerned with accuracy doesn't use those terms interchangeably either.

Zero is a subset of "not enough," dumbass.

Maybe on your Planet, but here on Earth, zero is an absolute and people concerned with accuracy don't use zero and "not enough" interchangeably when discussing evidence, of course you've never seemed to be overly concerned with accuracy in your statements so I can understand why such a concept would completely befuddle you.

*** NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED TRUMPKIN FOAMING AT THE MOUTH TEMPER TANTRUM ***

 

[basquebromance]

The Robert Mueller fetishization cottage industry is collapsing!

For now, at least, there remains a strong contingent of Trump-Russia truthers who are determined to squeeze every last ounce of click juice they can from the Mueller story before it turns rancid. In this crowd, the most popular theory of the moment is that Barr’s summary of the Mueller report—which has not been released to the public—is part of a sinister “cover-up” to protect the president.

 

[bripat9643]

"Insufficient evidence" means no evidence.

Er..umm... NO means zero and insufficient means NOT ENOUGH, they aren't synonymous in this context which probably explains why they're not used interchangeably.

You either obstructed or you didn't.

That's not the question, the question for the investigation was "does sufficient credible evidence exist to reasonably justify the conclusion that he committed obstruction", which isn't the same thing as "guilty or not guilty" which is a question for the courts or in the case of a sitting President, The Senate.

Zero evidence is also "not enough," and that's what they have.

ZERO means ZERO, it's an absolute, "not enough" is subjective, which explains why anybody concerned with accuracy doesn't use those terms interchangeably either.

Zero is a subset of "not enough," dumbass.

Maybe on your Planet, but here on Earth, zero is an absolute and people concerned with accuracy don't use zero and "not enough" interchangeably when discussing evidence, of course you've never seemed to be overly concerned with accuracy in your statements so I can understand why such a concept would completely befuddle you.

*** NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED TRUMPKIN FOAMING AT THE MOUTH TEMPER TANTRUM ***

You're such a jackass. You're arguing semantics, which means you haven't got a point.

 

[basquebromance]

brothers & sisters: Obama did all that he could to make Putin stop meddling in our elections. he told Putin to "cut it out" & Putin shaked in his boots!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Selling uranium to the Rooskies while SecState

 

[Lewdog]

You're lying again, he said there was insufficient evidence that a crime was committed, regardless of the DOJ policy that a sitting president can't be indicted. You need to stop listening to MSLSD.

.

"Insufficient evidence" means no evidence.

Er..umm... NO means zero and insufficient means NOT ENOUGH, they aren't synonymous in this context which probably explains why they're not used interchangeably.

You either obstructed or you didn't.

That's not the question, the question for the investigation was "does sufficient credible evidence exist to reasonably justify the conclusion that he committed obstruction", which isn't the same thing as "guilty or not guilty" which is a question for the courts or in the case of a sitting President, The Senate.

Zero evidence is also "not enough," and that's what they have.

ZERO means ZERO, it's an absolute, "not enough" is subjective, which explains why anybody concerned with accuracy doesn't use those terms interchangeably either.

Zero is a subset of "not enough," dumbass. There is either evidence of obstruction, or there isn't. The only "evidence" is the leftwing delusion that firing Comey is obstruction. Those who have a firm grip on reality understand that Trump could have fired Comey for any reason he liked. Even Comey understands that.

You must have failed logic or have no idea how Venn Diagrams work.

Zero can be within the circle of insufficient, but insufficient includes many more subsets than zero.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Selling uranium to the Rooskies while SecState

At the time we were buying tons of uranium from decommissioned Russian Nuclear warheads.

But they did buy the mining rights to a few mines here that produce about 4% of the fuel we need for our reactors. And none of that gets sold or shipped to Russia.

But don't let reality intrude on your world of make believe.

 

[basquebromance]

"the Americans are really impressionable, they see what they want to see. if they want to see the devil let them see him" - Putin