it does if someone criticizes Israel (which is why they came up with that), as people think anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
What does? It's not a ban.
HR 183 was literally titled "Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States. "
“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred”
Why impeach him or do anything of the like? Nothing about it throws into question if he has or does not have the capability to continue to admirably run or country. Again all of those was about election stuff in the past that ought not hold any weight or bearing on his current state in office.
Because if a case could be made against a President for committing a felony, maybe even multiple times over, then why should that person hold office?
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, , Original Post Date: ---
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 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, , Original Post Date: ---
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.
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.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---