A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?
PackBacker07 said:
A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?
RunsWithWolves26 said:PackBacker07 said:
A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?
I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.
PackBacker07 said:RunsWithWolves26 said:PackBacker07 said:
A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?
I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.
Yeah all this talk and bs has me thinking about this question, and not necessarily related to Trump. Is there a Mendoza line on criminality for impeachment? Or should any crime committed while holding the office be grounds for impeachment, no matter how small? It does state misdemeanors. Are we to brush that aside and go more towards "high crimes?" Who decides the definition of high crimes? And shouldn't this be expanded to all elected officials? (Maybe it already is and I am not aware?) A lot to ponder while the country goes to Hell and Guiliani grabs another whiskey.
cowboypack02 said:PackBacker07 said:RunsWithWolves26 said:PackBacker07 said:
A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?
I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.
Yeah all this talk and bs has me thinking about this question, and not necessarily related to Trump. Is there a Mendoza line on criminality for impeachment? Or should any crime committed while holding the office be grounds for impeachment, no matter how small? It does state misdemeanors. Are we to brush that aside and go more towards "high crimes?" Who decides the definition of high crimes? And shouldn't this be expanded to all elected officials? (Maybe it already is and I am not aware?) A lot to ponder while the country goes to Hell and Guiliani grabs another whiskey.
Impeachment is a purely political process. The guy might jaywalk and Congress could decide that it fits the bill of high crimes and misdemeanors.
There may be a political cost for going after a president by the use of impeachment, but that doesn't mean that Congress won't go through with it anyway.
PackBacker07 said:cowboypack02 said:PackBacker07 said:RunsWithWolves26 said:PackBacker07 said:
A question I have is can POTUS commit a crime but it not rise to the level of impeachment?
I wonder that myself. It states "high crimes and misdemeanors" but on reality it only matters what the opposing political party wants. With this situation now, IMO, it blows up Pandora's box and allows any party that isn't in power to scream and yell impeachment for anything. This will work about as well as Harry Reid changing the way voting is for supreme Court nominees and then the Dems screaming and yelling it ain't fair when it happens to them.
Yeah all this talk and bs has me thinking about this question, and not necessarily related to Trump. Is there a Mendoza line on criminality for impeachment? Or should any crime committed while holding the office be grounds for impeachment, no matter how small? It does state misdemeanors. Are we to brush that aside and go more towards "high crimes?" Who decides the definition of high crimes? And shouldn't this be expanded to all elected officials? (Maybe it already is and I am not aware?) A lot to ponder while the country goes to Hell and Guiliani grabs another whiskey.
Impeachment is a purely political process. The guy might jaywalk and Congress could decide that it fits the bill of high crimes and misdemeanors.
There may be a political cost for going after a president by the use of impeachment, but that doesn't mean that Congress won't go through with it anyway.
I am open to the idea it is purely political, but am currently in the other side of that fence. Why would the old fogeys back in '76 put a purely political mechanism in the Constitution? That seems pretty counter to the rest of the document. Could be wrong though, who knows.
The video below from the BBC seems to indicate that the sacking of the prosecutor in Ukraine because he wasn't doing enough to fight corruption, not because Joe Biden didn't want him investigating the company his son was on the Board of Directors for.cowboypack02 said:
But Trump didn't ask Ukraine to interfere in the election. He didn't ask Ukraine to so on some hunting expedition to manufacture or find evidence against a candidate. He asked Ukraine to work with his attorney general to investigate corruption (that was admitted to on tape). That's it. He didn't threaten to withhold aide or anything like that if he didn't to get his way.
The only way that what has happened can be viewed as interference is if you are saying that if any political candidate that is investigated for anything it should be considered as interfering in an election. If that is the standard since Trump is running for president again then every democrat who wants to investigate him for anything is interfering in next years presidential election and should be removed from office. You sure that's where you want to go there?
statefan91 said:The video below from the BBC seems to indicate that the sacking of the prosecutor in Ukraine because he wasn't doing enough to fight corruption, not because Joe Biden didn't want him investigating the company his son was on the Board of Directors for.cowboypack02 said:
But Trump didn't ask Ukraine to interfere in the election. He didn't ask Ukraine to so on some hunting expedition to manufacture or find evidence against a candidate. He asked Ukraine to work with his attorney general to investigate corruption (that was admitted to on tape). That's it. He didn't threaten to withhold aide or anything like that if he didn't to get his way.
The only way that what has happened can be viewed as interference is if you are saying that if any political candidate that is investigated for anything it should be considered as interfering in an election. If that is the standard since Trump is running for president again then every democrat who wants to investigate him for anything is interfering in next years presidential election and should be removed from office. You sure that's where you want to go there?
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.htmlQuote:
Trump and his allies, including his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, accuse Biden of using his position as vice president and point man on relations with Kyiv in 2016 to help Burisma -- a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Biden's son Hunter, who was on its board of directors -- avoid damage from a criminal investigation.
They assert that Shokin was overseeing an active criminal investigation into Burisma and that Biden at the time told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired.
But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies.
Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.
...
For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.
"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added.
Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.
Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin's predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.
"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
statefan91 said:
Joe Biden was bragging about pushing Ukraine to fire a prosector that wasn't doing enough to fight corruption:https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.htmlQuote:
Trump and his allies, including his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, accuse Biden of using his position as vice president and point man on relations with Kyiv in 2016 to help Burisma -- a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Biden's son Hunter, who was on its board of directors -- avoid damage from a criminal investigation.
They assert that Shokin was overseeing an active criminal investigation into Burisma and that Biden at the time told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired.
But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies.
Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.
...
For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.
"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added.
Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.
Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin's predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.
"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
statefan91 said:
Joe Biden was bragging about pushing Ukraine to fire a prosector that wasn't doing enough to fight corruption:https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.htmlQuote:
Trump and his allies, including his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, accuse Biden of using his position as vice president and point man on relations with Kyiv in 2016 to help Burisma -- a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Biden's son Hunter, who was on its board of directors -- avoid damage from a criminal investigation.
They assert that Shokin was overseeing an active criminal investigation into Burisma and that Biden at the time told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired.
But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies.
Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.
...
For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.
"There was no pressure from anyone from the United States" to close the case against Zlochevskiy, Vitaliy Kasko, who was a deputy prosecutor-general under Shokin and is now first deputy prosecutor-general, told Bloomberg News in May. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," he added.
Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.
Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin's predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.
"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.
statefan91 said:
If Republicans were smart they would let him get impeached and then get Romney in for 2020. So many moderates are looking for someone to vote for and assume a lot would swing that way if it was someone like Romney, especially with Warren trending up.
PackBacker07 said:
Seems like the Trump Administration is going to defy all Congressional subpoenas. Didn't Nixon try this and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him?
Its not like he provided guns to drug cartels that ended up killing border agents or anything....that would just be crazyChetManley said:
It's very worrying and border lining on a cult of personality. It's to a point where I'm actually starting to believe his supporters would be unfazed if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. With their inability to take a step back and recognize how unhinged he is becoming you can forget about holding him to the same standard as Obama. That would require them to be self aware of their own hypocrisy.
.statefan91 said:
I haven't seen anywhere that says Trump / WH would cooperate if there was a vote, or that a vote is actually required anywhere in the Constitution. Please send if you have found somewhere.
I'm drifting further towards supporting impeachment each day. You can't stonewall congress. One of their main functions is to be a check on the executive branch.PackBacker07 said:
Seems like the Trump Administration is going to defy all Congressional subpoenas. Didn't Nixon try this and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him?
statefan91 said:
That's interesting on Tillis. I have noticed a hard right turn for him into more of the conspiracy / full-throated support of Trump. I think he is banking on R's in NC coming out strong in 2020. He hasn't talked much about the money that is being taken from NC Military Bases to go toward the wall, rather deflecting that it's the Democrats fault. He's also posted recently about checking on criminal referrals from Kavanaugh's confirmation process and how the Impeachment is a witchhunt.
I don't think Tillis has much of a chance at picking up Independents, his twitter replies are usually full of people excited to vote him out.
cowboypack02 said:PackBacker07 said:
Seems like the Trump Administration is going to defy all Congressional subpoenas. Didn't Nixon try this and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him?
Difference is that Congress actually voted to start impeachment proceedings with Nixon. Trump has already said that he would provide Congress with what they had requested if they took a vote so maybe that should be the next step before continuing.