IG's FISA Probe May Hamper Dems' Impeachment Plans

[lilpixieofterror]

But it does list the evidence of crimes, and that is what the impeachment process is for. It's a trial by Congress. A detail you seem not to understand.

No Jimmy it doesn’t. It list out stuff that doesn’t reflect let great on Trump, but the fact no crime is listed indicates none can be found.

[JimL]

No Jimmy it doesn’t. It list out stuff that doesn’t reflect let great on Trump, but the fact no crime is listed indicates none can be found.

Evidence of criminal activity requires a trial in order to either exonerate the accused or prove them guilty. You can't even recognize evidence or you spin it to ease you own mind by calling it something else such as "stuff that doesn't reflect great" on Trump. Read the report Lilpix, it's loaded with what is called evidence, evidence gathered by the Special Councils investigation, which yes, doesn't reflect well on Trump, and impeachment is a trial by Congress which is the only way a sitting President can be put on trial.

[tabibito]

"Stuff that doesn't reflect well" might lead to impeachment proceedings - maybe even impeachment.
but "stuff that doesn't reflect well" isn't a complaint that a crime has been committed.

Near as I can tell it is what the military might, were it bad enough, consider grounds for court-martial under the term, "conduct unbecoming."

I can't recall anyone claiming Trump was clear of a "conduct unbecoming" charge - but is his conduct so bad that impeachment is warranted?

[Bill the Cat]

That's just ignorant nonsense. There doesn't have to be criminal action to impeach, but that doesn't mean there wasn't criminal action. Congress can determine whether or not to impeach in either case, whether it be due to criminal behavior, or just behavior unbefitting of the office. In this case there is both, in boatloads.

I don't understand your particular brand of stupid, but I admire your unwavering dedication to its mastery...

[Mountain Man]

And made no provision to criminally charge him after he leaves office.

A point I brought up earlier when I said that Mueller was apparently trying to establish a scenario where a president is removed from office but never charged with a crime. The fact that liberals are prepared to happily support such an obvious miscarriage of justice is disturbing.

[Mountain Man]

I can't recall anyone claiming Trump was clear of a "conduct unbecoming" charge - but is his conduct so bad that impeachment is warranted?

The Constitution explicitly limits impeachment and removal from office as a remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Earlier proposals suggested "maladministration" as another reason, but our Founding Fathers rejected it on the grounds that such a standard would be open to political abuse.

[lilpixieofterror]

Evidence of criminal activity requires a trial in order to either exonerate the accused or prove them guilty. You can't even recognize evidence or you spin it to ease you own mind by calling it something else such as "stuff that doesn't reflect great" on Trump. Read the report Lilpix, it's loaded with what is called evidence, evidence gathered by the Special Councils investigation, which yes, doesn't reflect well on Trump, and impeachment is a trial by Congress which is the only way a sitting President can be put on trial.

Sorry Jimmy, but the Starr report clearly list out the crimes Clinton committed. The Muller report doesn’t list a single crime. I know this might shock you, but you first need to bring forth a crime before a trial can even take place. Since you can’t even name the crime to charge with, what does that mean?

[tabibito]

Ah - 'tis tighter than I had realised. All things considered, that might be for the best.

[JimL]

Sorry Jimmy, but the Starr report clearly list out the crimes Clinton committed. The Muller report doesn’t list a single crime. I know this might shock you, but you first need to bring forth a crime before a trial can even take place. Since you can’t even name the crime to charge with, what does that mean?

Would you like to make a bet on that Lilpix. Not a single crime has to be committed for Congress to put the President on trial, a process we call impeachment, nor does a crime have to be proven in order for the Senate to convict.

[Mountain Man]

If no "high crimes and misdemeanors" were committed then what is the Constitutional basis for impeachment?

[tabibito]

That would depend on who got to define "misdemeanour" would it not?

[JimL]

If no "high crimes and misdemeanors" were committed then what is the Constitutional basis for impeachment?

First off, crimes were committed, or if you wish, there is abundent evidence of crimes having been committed. The Constitutional bases for impeachment is called congressional oversight. That's a trial by congress which is based on that evidence as put forth by the Special Councils investigation. You shouldn't be afraid of impeachment, it's a trial, and if the President is innocent then there is nothing to be concerned about. Apparently you are all very afraid which makes it look as though you believe Trump is guilty as well.

[Mountain Man]

That would depend on who got to define "misdemeanour" would it not?

Misdemeanor is a well-defined legal term.

[Mountain Man]

First off, crimes were committed, or if you wish, there is abundent evidence of crimes having been committed.

Not according to Mueller's report and the Department of Justice.

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I think Bob said that he was not going to engage in the analysis. He was, he was not going to make a determination one way or the other. And he also said that he could not say that the president clearly did not violate the law, which of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction. [...] We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient.

...

Well let’s take the firing of Comey for example [...] One of the elements is that you have to show that the act objectively speaking will have the probable effect of obstructing a proceeding and we don’t believe that the firing of an agency head could be established as having the probable effect, objectively speaking, of sabotaging a proceeding. There was also we would have to prove corrupt intent, the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately and refusing to correct the record. So that would not have been a corrupt intent. So for each of these episodes we thought long and hard about it, we looked at the facts and we didn’t feel the government could establish obstruction in these cases.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...nd-transcript/

[tabibito]

Misdemeanor is a well-defined legal term.

So is religion, as the word was used in the American constitution. That fact hasn't stopped people imposing their own definitions on the word to bend the way things are done to their will.