American Politics

[xi0]

But how would you prove that Trump told them to do that?

That wasn't my point? Whether he or his campaign willingly collaborated with them or not, they still benefited from it. He publicly asked Russia to try to get Clinton's emails as well. Maybe I'm nuts, but that should be enough for any American to distance themselves from a candidate or administration regardless of policy.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 19, 2019, Original Post Date: Apr 19, 2019 ---

It was highly unlikely that Mueller investigation was going to result in direct charges for Trump, as we knew the DOJ's position on this far ahead of time, and unlike Kenneth Starr, Mueller worked for the DOJ. It was always going to be up to Congress IMO.

 

[kkck]

It was highly unlikely that Mueller investigation was going to result in direct charges for Trump, as we knew the DOJ's position on this far ahead of time, and unlike Kenneth Starr, Mueller worked for the DOJ. It was always going to be up to Congress IMO.

Isn't the issue here that there are two distinct legal processes at work? One would be an indictment over obstruction and the other would be the impeachment procedures. The indictment is a legal procedure over specific crimes, impeachment is an inherently political process. The way I see it congress already has a path to impeachment though it is not necessarily a likely one. And one way or the other once trump is out of office it would be perfectly reasonable for him to be prosecuted for obstruction. And that does not even consider the 12-14 other investigations muller outsourced...

 

[xi0]

Isn't the issue here that there are two distinct legal processes at work? One would be an indictment over obstruction and the other would be the impeachment procedures. The indictment is a legal procedure over specific crimes, impeachment is an inherently political process. The way I see it congress already has a path to impeachment though it is not necessarily a likely one. And one way or the other once trump is out of office it would be perfectly reasonable for him to be prosecuted for obstruction. And that does not even consider the 12-14 other investigations muller outsourced...

Well yeah, but while Impeachment is more of a political process, it's still almost always going to be invoked due to alleged specific criminality of some sort. The difference being the penalty is removal of office, not a prison sentence. I believe there are something like a dozen different instances of obstruction mentioned in the report.

I'm not necessarily saying impeachment is likely either, but that doesn't mean there's no grounds to proceed with it. It could most likely result the same way the Clinton impeachment did, with the Senate acquitting Trump due to numbers. Unless there's some sort of egregious smoking gun and like I said, Republicans actually become the "moral party" for once. The next general election is more likely to happen before anything comes of it, and who knows what the landscape would be then.

 

[kkck]

Well yeah, but while Impeachment is more of a political process, it's still almost always going to be invoked due to alleged specific criminality of some sort. The difference being the penalty is removal of office, not a prison sentence. I believe there are something like a dozen different instances of obstruction mentioned in the report.

I'm not necessarily saying impeachment is likely either, but that doesn't mean there's no grounds to proceed with it. It could most likely result the same way the Clinton impeachment did, with the Senate acquitting Trump due to numbers. Unless there's some sort of egregious smoking gun and like I said, Republicans actually become the "moral party" for once. The next general election is more likely to happen before anything comes of it, and who knows what the landscape would be then.

I kinda have to wonder how you impeach based on criminality when you can't indict a president. Imagine the scenario of trump getting impeached over obstruction, THEN he gets indicted but when he goes to trial they determine trump didn't obstruct justice. That, to put it mildly, is an awkward scenario they should avoid. Since impeachment is a political process it would make sense to me if they frame this around fitness for office. While the muller does not prove criminality, it does prove without a shadow of a doubt that the trump administration is morally and ethically bankrupt and they actually at a minimum had willingness too coordinate with russia and also has at a minimum a compelling case for obstruction. Along with so many other lies and just generally gross things.

 

[xi0]

I kinda have to wonder how you impeach based on criminality when you can't indict a president. Imagine the scenario of trump getting impeached over obstruction, THEN he gets indicted but when he goes to trial they determine trump didn't obstruct justice. That, to put it mildly, is an awkward scenario they should avoid. Since impeachment is a political process it would make sense to me if they frame this around fitness for office. While the muller does not prove criminality, it does prove without a shadow of a doubt that the trump administration is morally and ethically bankrupt and they actually at a minimum had willingness too coordinate with russia and also has at a minimum a compelling case for obstruction. Along with so many other lies and just generally gross things.

To the best of my recollection, the impeachment process serves as a trial of sorts, that's why with Clinton he was impeached in the House but "acquitted" in the Senate. Criminality is almost always going to be to be the basis for which impeachment is invoked, of course no judgment made during it is going to result in jail-time, fitness for office is why it's done. Fitness for office due to a President appearing to commit a crime of sorts.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2019, Original Post Date: Apr 20, 2019 ---

When you bring up the scenario you did, this is usually why charges aren't brought against a president when they leave office. With Nixon, I guess Ford felt it was good enough that he left office in disgrace, which is why he pardoned him. I'm not actually sure if Nixon had been formally charged with a crime, but the action was good enough for courts to drop it, I suppose.

 

[kkck]

To the best of my recollection, the impeachment process serves as a trial of sorts, that's why with Clinton he was impeached in the House but "acquitted" in the Senate. Criminality is almost always going to be to be the basis for which impeachment is invoked, of course no judgment made during it is going to result in jail-time, fitness for office is why it's done. Fitness for office due to a President appearing to commit a crime of sorts.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 20, 2019, Original Post Date: Apr 20, 2019 ---

When you bring up the scenario you did, this is usually why charges aren't brought against a president when they leave office. With Nixon, I guess Ford felt it was good enough that he left office in disgrace, which is why he pardoned him. I'm not actually sure if Nixon had been formally charged with a crime, but the action was good enough for courts to drop it, I suppose.

If criminality is indispensable to the process then what I said definitely does not apply at least. I tried reading a bit more on this but as far as I can tell the law is less than clear on what exactly is or not impeachable. Nothing I have read so far suggests criminality is indispensable to the process but it might be the case that that is how lawmakers handle the issue since, well, they have freedom to choose how they handle it.

I read a bit on nixon but I am also not too clear yet on what happened. He was never formally charged. He was then pardoned after resigning. But he could have been tried for some crimes which weren't covered by the pardon in columbia or something. And he wasn't because... luck? I also found something about pardons by their nature imply guilt on the receivers end.

 

[xi0]

If criminality is indispensable to the process then what I said definitely does not apply at least. I tried reading a bit more on this but as far as I can tell the law is less than clear on what exactly is or not impeachable. Nothing I have read so far suggests criminality is indispensable to the process but it might be the case that that is how lawmakers handle the issue since, well, they have freedom to choose how they handle it.

I read a bit on nixon but I am also not too clear yet on what happened. He was never formally charged. He was then pardoned after resigning. But he could have been tried for some crimes which weren't covered by the pardon in columbia or something. And he wasn't because... luck? I also found something about pardons by their nature imply guilt on the receivers end.

Hmm, the impeachment process doesn't follow normal legal procedure. Congress does it's own investigation if needed and votes on different articles of impeachment. In Clinton's case, 4 were brought against him, but 2 of them of them failed to pass the vote. Then it goes to the Senate where the Chief Justice presides over a "trial" with different Senators acting as prosecutors. Of course there are reasons other than criminality to impeach a president, but thus far that hasn't been relevant in history. Plus, the President's own cabinet can replace a sitting president in those cases if need be.

Ford pardoned Nixon out of mercy. It still pissed people off due to him being able to skirt the law, but many people were also sick of the years of Watergate. The guy left office in disgrace, and while the pardon only covered any Federal crimes, the crimes in question happened in DC, which isn't a state. If Nixon had committed a crime anywhere else in the country he could have very easily done jail time.

--- Double Post Merged, May 1, 2019, Original Post Date: Apr 23, 2019 ---

Barr shows he's truly a stooge... imagine my shock. Well, tomorrow should be interesting.

 

[SharkBait]

Thankfully the hearing finally got back to the real questions. Hilary needs to address those emails.

 

[xi0]

Ah, yes. That really needs to be addressed at a hearing intended to provide insight on Barr's treatment of the Mueller Report. Totally. How many more years will it take Republicans to stop going all "BUTTERY MALES" at any mention of the investigation of Trump?

Lindsey Graham is a hypocritical stooge. Just pull up any clip of him during the Clinton years and you'll see it. He has no backbone, cuddling up to Trump and his stooges as soon as his "friend" John McCain passed away. And not a peep from him regarding the insults thrown his way.


@SharkBait you know you supported Hillary right?

 

[SharkBait]

@SharkBait you know you supported Hillary right?

I voted only cause she was best of the choices and I had reservations about her in regards to Benghazi and these emails.

 

[M3J]

Have you read her emails? DO you know anything about her emails outside of what the news have told you?

 

[SharkBait]

Have you read her emails? DO you know anything about her emails outside of what the news have told you?

We cant read that which is Lost.

 

[M3J]

so how do you know it's as bad as they claim? Or that they're telling the truth and not just bullshitting to get people against Clinton?

 

[SharkBait]

so how do you know it's as bad as they claim? Or that they're telling the truth and not just bullshitting to get people against Clinton?

Clinton isn't in office so why would they have an agenda to turn us against Clinton?

 

[xi0]

The Russians clearly had an agenda to turn us against Clinton, and they're not in office here either.

 

[SharkBait]

democrats continue to make a mockery of the government and justice institutions. I'm offended.

 

[kkck]

The only victims here are chickens all over the world...

 

[xi0]

democrats continue to make a mockery of the government and justice institutions. I'm offended.

And not offended by Barr not showing up? Riiight.

 

[SharkBait]

And not offended by Barr not showing up? Riiight.

He didnt need to come a 2nd day

Mueller needs to testify.

 

[xi0]

He didnt need to come a 2nd day

Mueller needs to testify.

He didn't "need" to come to the senate hearing. But he went because he had more allies/apologists there than he would in a House hearing. That and he couldn't get away with dictating the nature of the hearing either.