WTF? Democrat House Judiciary Committee Takes First Step to Hold Bill Barr in Contempt of Congress

[AntonToo]

Yep, where are indictments dummy? Where does all this well-this-one-guy-in-youtube-video-sayz meet with REALITY?

You guys had 2 years and came up empty.

Empty?

Trump''s campaign chair and his right hand going to jail.
Trump's campaign advisor served time in jail.
Trump's top lawyer going to jail.
Trump's top foreign policy advisor going to jail.
Trump's son just got served a subpoena by Republican led congressonal comeetee.
Trump himself is an ININDICITED CO-CONSPIRATOR for campaign fiinance fraud with an outstanding special report documenting his robust efforts at Obstruction of Justice.

Stop smokinig crack.

 

[AntonToo]

We're just getting started Chip.

Dang man, all these years and you are just NOW geting started?

What the fuck were you so busy with when you weren't chanting "Clinton for prison"?

 

[Flopper]

So you think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was just a suggestion from the founding fathers? Another example of what Democrats mean when they say the Constitution is a living document.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of RepresThe Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?entatives and the Senate".

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

I found the following statement by John Marshal interesting because it supports the Senate rules on impeachment which are criticized because they don't offered the accused the same level of legal protection as in court of law.

"Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

The bar should be higher for government officials than ordinary citizens. This is why in the Senate trial the prosecution, the committee of managers do not need to establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Rules of evidence do not preclude as much as in a case being tried in criminal court. Hearsay evidence may also be admissible and intent without actual action can be admissible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

No so. The Constitution states that the president may be impeached and removed for “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4). Although most people today assume that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” require that the president commit some indictable offense, the history of the phrase suggests a broader meaning. The Constitution invites debate about the scope of impeachment, and those subject to impeachment are most likely to insist on its narrowest application.

The first person impeached and removed from office by the Senate, John Pickering was convicted on charges of drunkenness and general low moral character.

So to use your original phrase if Congress thinks the President is unfit for office it can remove him without showing evidence of a crime. But if Congress can remove any president simply by saying he or she is unfit for office what would keep every Congress from removing any president of the opposite party?

As for Pickering, how stupid do you have to be to imagine impeaching a federal judge is equivalent to impeaching a president?

What keeps them from doing it is 1) it's not easy to do, and 2) public opinion would likely crucify them if they did it without being able to show a reason.

The Founding Fathers counted pretty heavily on the populace's ability to rise up and say, "What the fuck are you people DOING?" Maybe more heavily than they should have, given the levels of apathy we've reached, but still . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Roland's opinion about an impeachable offense is very interesting if you are in a debating society or teaching a high school civics class, but he goes on to say,

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

so every president who has told a lie while in office can be impeached for it, and that means every president can be impeached. Obviously, Roland's speculations on impeachment have no reasonable application in the real world.

Yes, it is in the realm of possibility that every President who lied in office COULD be impeached. You say that as though you think that should somehow rule the concept out as "ridiculous". But as I said, impeachment is NOT an easy thing to accomplish, and using it frivolously WOULD put the politicians doing it at risk from negative public opinion.

So it is completely reasonable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

McConnell on Russia investigations: Enough already

Mueller: Here is ton of evidence for Congress to make Obstruction of Justice case.

McConnell: Case closed.

Hmm, whom to believe - the evidence or the plastic man with an assertion?

"Here is what I want to believe it said, so never mind the actual words!"

Hmmm, I wonder why people think you're an ass-kissing, partisan joke.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Mueller: Here is ton of evidence for Congress to make Obstruction of Justice case.

McConnell: Case closed.

Hmm, whom to believe - the evidence or the plastic man with an assertion?

Don't say you weren't warned when you reelect him.

It's not my fault that you deplorables get hard-ons for crooks.

It's your fault that you make yourselves (and by this, I mean the left) a manifestly worse option.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of RepresThe Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?entatives and the Senate".

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

I found the following statement by John Marshal interesting because it supports the Senate rules on impeachment which are criticized because they don't offered the accused the same level of legal protection as in court of law.

"Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

The bar should be higher for government officials than ordinary citizens. This is why in the Senate trial the prosecution, the committee of managers do not need to establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Rules of evidence do not preclude as much as in a case being tried in criminal court. Hearsay evidence may also be admissible and intent without actual action can be admissible.

Well, it's not surprising that impeachment doesn't offer the same level of legal protection as a court of law, since it's not a criminal prosecution. Looked at one way, it's more akin to your boss firing you.

 

[WEATHER53]

How’s the latest exercise in futility working out?

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

No so. The Constitution states that the president may be impeached and removed for “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4). Although most people today assume that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” require that the president commit some indictable offense, the history of the phrase suggests a broader meaning. The Constitution invites debate about the scope of impeachment, and those subject to impeachment are most likely to insist on its narrowest application.

The first person impeached and removed from office by the Senate, John Pickering was convicted on charges of drunkenness and general low moral character.

So to use your original phrase if Congress thinks the President is unfit for office it can remove him without showing evidence of a crime. But if Congress can remove any president simply by saying he or she is unfit for office what would keep every Congress from removing any president of the opposite party?

As for Pickering, how stupid do you have to be to imagine impeaching a federal judge is equivalent to impeaching a president?

What keeps them from doing it is 1) it's not easy to do, and 2) public opinion would likely crucify them if they did it without being able to show a reason.

The Founding Fathers counted pretty heavily on the populace's ability to rise up and say, "What the fuck are you people DOING?" Maybe more heavily than they should have, given the levels of apathy we've reached, but still . . .

Exactly, that is the essence of the American experiment, that the people and their representatives would behave responsibly to uphold the contract, the Constitution, and not seek weaken it by denying or distorting the meaning of its words.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Roland's opinion about an impeachable offense is very interesting if you are in a debating society or teaching a high school civics class, but he goes on to say,

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

so every president who has told a lie while in office can be impeached for it, and that means every president can be impeached. Obviously, Roland's speculations on impeachment have no reasonable application in the real world.

Yes, it is in the realm of possibility that every President who lied in office COULD be impeached. You say that as though you think that should somehow rule the concept out as "ridiculous". But as I said, impeachment is NOT an easy thing to accomplish, and using it frivolously WOULD put the politicians doing it at risk from negative public opinion.

So it is completely reasonable.

It is a reasonable argument only if you accept the premise that the oath of office covers everything the President says, but when Clinton was deposed, neither he nor anyone else objected to his swearing to tell the truth for the purpose of the deposition. Considering that the founding fathers were all practical men, do you really imagine they considered any lie an impeachable offense?

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

I found the following statement by John Marshal interesting because it supports the Senate rules on impeachment which are criticized because they don't offered the accused the same level of legal protection as in court of law.

"Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

The bar should be higher for government officials than ordinary citizens. This is why in the Senate trial the prosecution, the committee of managers do not need to establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Rules of evidence do not preclude as much as in a case being tried in criminal court. Hearsay evidence may also be admissible and intent without actual action can be admissible.

Well, it's not surprising that impeachment doesn't offer the same level of legal protection as a court of law, since it's not a criminal prosecution. Looked at one way, it's more akin to your boss firing you.

Actually, in this case, it's more akin to your boss gossiping about you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

I found the following statement by John Marshal interesting because it supports the Senate rules on impeachment which are criticized because they don't offered the accused the same level of legal protection as in court of law.

"Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

The bar should be higher for government officials than ordinary citizens. This is why in the Senate trial the prosecution, the committee of managers do not need to establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Rules of evidence do not preclude as much as in a case being tried in criminal court. Hearsay evidence may also be admissible and intent without actual action can be admissible.

Well, it's not surprising that impeachment doesn't offer the same level of legal protection as a court of law, since it's not a criminal prosecution. Looked at one way, it's more akin to your boss firing you.

Actually, in this case, it's more akin to your boss gossiping about you.

In this case, if it gets as far as actual impeachment proceedings, it would be the equivalent of members of upper management trying to fire you over gossip they themselves spread about you.

 

[Flopper]

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

I found the following statement by John Marshal interesting because it supports the Senate rules on impeachment which are criticized because they don't offered the accused the same level of legal protection as in court of law.

"Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

The bar should be higher for government officials than ordinary citizens. This is why in the Senate trial the prosecution, the committee of managers do not need to establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Rules of evidence do not preclude as much as in a case being tried in criminal court. Hearsay evidence may also be admissible and intent without actual action can be admissible.

Well, it's not surprising that impeachment doesn't offer the same level of legal protection as a court of law, since it's not a criminal prosecution. Looked at one way, it's more akin to your boss firing you.

Yes, that's a pretty good analogy. Just as an election is a political process so is impeachment.

I find it strange that today, articles of impeachment must include at least one or more violations of the law when it's clear that an official can be impeached without actually violating the law. IMHO, there are actions or inaction of a president that can be far more serious than a claim of obstruction of justice or lying to congress. In other countries where there is legal or constitution basis for removing a leader, the question of leadership, bad decisions, and catastrophic results seem to be at the top of the list of reasons for removal from office. In the US, the primary reason for removal from office is being caught in lie, something every president does with great frequency.

 

[easyt65]

Proving how desperate they are to prevent the US AG from completing on-going investigations Into the Obama DOJ's & FBI's FISA Court Abuses, FBI / Democrat Leaking of classified, the faux Hillary Clinton investigation, and more, Democrats are now talking about wanting to attempt to have the US AG PROSECUTED for refusing to illegally release Grand Jury information in the Mueller Report that Mueller's team helped him redact.

Calls to jail Attorney General Barr grow from Democratic ranks

“We know how to arrest people around here,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., told Politico. “And if we need to arrest someone, the [House] sergeant-at-arms will know how to do it. I’m not afraid of that.”

Really?!

Despite the FBI publicly stating it had recovered more than 15,000 official subpoenaed documents Hillary Clinton attempted to destroy instead of turn into the FBI as she was legally required to do, despite the fact that Hillary and her team illegally destroyed classified government devices and withheld other devices' sim cards, despite the fact that Hillary attempted to wipe her subpoenaed private hard-drive instead of turn it over to the FBI -- all of which were criminal acts of Obstruction of Justice during the FBI's investigation of her, and despite then-FBI Director James Comey publicly declaring Hillary Clinton had broken laws (but was too stupid to know she was doing so), the Democrats proved they did not even know the definition of Obstruction of Justice let alone how to hold someone accountable for doing so.

After Special Counsel Mueller's report failed to deliver the 'Guilty' verdict against the President Democrats had hoped and facing overwhelming evidence of exposed Democrat crimes and on-going DOJ and US IG investigations into those crimes, the Democrats have become desperate to 'take down' the United States Attorney General who has vowed to investigate these crimes and hold the guilty accountable before he can actually do so.

Democrats continue to insinuate that US AG has completely mis-represented Mueller's report, despite the fact that Democrats have refused to even look at the approx. 98.9% redact-LESS report the US AG has made available to them. (The redactions that remain are the ones Mueller's own investigation team helped the US AG to make.)

"The Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March. Mueller pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office. However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice."


When you cut through all the Democrat political theatrics about not being able to see approx. 1% of the Mueller Report still redacted by Mueller's own team IAW current law that prohibits Grand Jury Information being released - especially after they continue to refuse to make any effort to see the almost completely redacted version of the report, you get to the real reason Democrats are doing all of this:

Barr openly declared he believes the Democrats perpetrated FISA Court abuses, illegally spied on Trump and his team, and leaked classified information, and he is already conducting numerous investigations of these possible crimes.

This has put 'the fear of God' into the Democrats, and they MUST take Barr out before the US IG report on FISA Court Abuses or before Barr's DOJ complete their investigations into possible crimes.


Calls to jail Attorney General Barr grow from Democratic ranks


.

 

[koshergrl]

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

I found the following statement by John Marshal interesting because it supports the Senate rules on impeachment which are criticized because they don't offered the accused the same level of legal protection as in court of law.

"Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

The bar should be higher for government officials than ordinary citizens. This is why in the Senate trial the prosecution, the committee of managers do not need to establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Rules of evidence do not preclude as much as in a case being tried in criminal court. Hearsay evidence may also be admissible and intent without actual action can be admissible.

Well, it's not surprising that impeachment doesn't offer the same level of legal protection as a court of law, since it's not a criminal prosecution. Looked at one way, it's more akin to your boss firing you.

Yes, that's a pretty good analogy. Just as an election is a political process so is impeachment.

I find it strange that today, articles of impeachment must include at least one or more violations of the law when it's clear that an official can be impeached without actually violating the law. IMHO, there are actions or inaction of a president that can be far more serious than a claim of obstruction of justice or lying to congress. In other countries where there is legal or constitution basis for removing a leader, the question of leadership, bad decisions, and catastrophic results seem to be at the top of the list of reasons for removal from office. In the US, the primary reason for removal from office is being caught in lie, something every president does with great frequency.

That is complete and utter bullshit.

"The primary reason for removal from office is being caught in lie" hahahaha

Seriously, you mentally ill leftists just make shit up and bloviate and think nobody notices. It's how I can tell that the only people you ever talk to or listen to are retards just like yourself.

 

[jc456]

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

I found the following statement by John Marshal interesting because it supports the Senate rules on impeachment which are criticized because they don't offered the accused the same level of legal protection as in court of law.

"Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

The bar should be higher for government officials than ordinary citizens. This is why in the Senate trial the prosecution, the committee of managers do not need to establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. Rules of evidence do not preclude as much as in a case being tried in criminal court. Hearsay evidence may also be admissible and intent without actual action can be admissible.

Well, it's not surprising that impeachment doesn't offer the same level of legal protection as a court of law, since it's not a criminal prosecution. Looked at one way, it's more akin to your boss firing you.

Actually, in this case, it's more akin to your boss gossiping about you.

In this case, if it gets as far as actual impeachment proceedings, it would be the equivalent of members of upper management trying to fire you over gossip they themselves spread about you.

and obstructing their path to do that.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's are obstructing the AG of the United States.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Proving how desperate they are to prevent the US AG from completing on-going investigations Into the Obama DOJ's & FBI's FISA Court Abuses, FBI / Democrat Leaking of classified, the faux Hillary Clinton investigation, and more, Democrats are now talking about wanting to attempt to have the US AG PROSECUTED for refusing to illegally release Grand Jury information in the Mueller Report that Mueller's team helped him redact.

Calls to jail Attorney General Barr grow from Democratic ranks

“We know how to arrest people around here,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., told Politico. “And if we need to arrest someone, the [House] sergeant-at-arms will know how to do it. I’m not afraid of that.”

Really?!

Despite the FBI publicly stating it had recovered more than 15,000 official subpoenaed documents Hillary Clinton attempted to destroy instead of turn into the FBI as she was legally required to do, despite the fact that Hillary and her team illegally destroyed classified government devices and withheld other devices' sim cards, despite the fact that Hillary attempted to wipe her subpoenaed private hard-drive instead of turn it over to the FBI -- all of which were criminal acts of Obstruction of Justice during the FBI's investigation of her, and despite then-FBI Director James Comey publicly declaring Hillary Clinton had broken laws (but was too stupid to know she was doing so), the Democrats proved they did not even know the definition of Obstruction of Justice let alone how to hold someone accountable for doing so.

After Special Counsel Mueller's report failed to deliver the 'Guilty' verdict against the President Democrats had hoped and facing overwhelming evidence of exposed Democrat crimes and on-going DOJ and US IG investigations into those crimes, the Democrats have become desperate to 'take down' the United States Attorney General who has vowed to investigate these crimes and hold the guilty accountable before he can actually do so.

Democrats continue to insinuate that US AG has completely mis-represented Mueller's report, despite the fact that Democrats have refused to even look at the approx. 98.9% redact-LESS report the US AG has made available to them. (The redactions that remain are the ones Mueller's own investigation team helped the US AG to make.)

"The Washington Post first reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller contacted Barr, both in a letter and in a phone call, to express concerns after Barr released his four-page summary of Mueller’s findings in March. Mueller pushed Barr to release the executive summaries written by the special counsel’s office. However, according to both the Post and the Justice Department, Mueller made clear that he did not feel that Barr’s summary was inaccurate. Instead, Mueller told Barr that media coverage of the letter had “misinterpreted” the results of the probe concerning obstruction of justice."


When you cut through all the Democrat political theatrics about not being able to see approx. 1% of the Mueller Report still redacted by Mueller's own team IAW current law that prohibits Grand Jury Information being released - especially after they continue to refuse to make any effort to see the almost completely redacted version of the report, you get to the real reason Democrats are doing all of this:

Barr openly declared he believes the Democrats perpetrated FISA Court abuses, illegally spied on Trump and his team, and leaked classified information, and he is already conducting numerous investigations of these possible crimes.

This has put 'the fear of God' into the Democrats, and they MUST take Barr out before the US IG report on FISA Court Abuses or before Barr's DOJ complete their investigations into possible crimes.


Calls to jail Attorney General Barr grow from Democratic ranks


.

Desperate Democrats Want to Send US AG To Jail Before He Can Send Them To Jail

You are truly insane.

 

[Moonglow]

So it is now okay to ignore a subpoena or a coc claim?