AG Jeff Sessions resigns....

a reply to: shooterbrody
+

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: shooterbrody​
​
The idea that anything has been obstructed is absurd.
It's continued on for over 16 months since the "obstruction" occurred.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
+
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Guys, you've got very short memories
i'm not casting aspurtions or anything, but y'know...
last year, what follows  sparked a rakeload of threads

Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation

WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”​
Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”
​
The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that the president dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives.

Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.

...snip...

At first, the White House said Mr. Trump had fired Mr. Comey based on the recommendation of the Justice Department, and because of Mr. Comey’s handling of the F.B.I. investigation into Hillary Clinton last year. Officials said the move had nothing to do with the Russia investigation.

But the president undercut that argument a day later, telling NBC News, “When I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.”

After the event, there was a rush around to find a reasoning
other than the patently obious lack of ring kissing...

Ultimately, at the behest of Trump,
Comey's dismissal was 'reasoned out' in a memo by Rosenstein

Did you guy's forget that epiode ?
Even Newt wasn't down with that

Former House Speaker New Gingrich (R-Ga.) criticized President Trump on Sunday for "mishandling" the release of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's memo outlining the firing of former FBI Director James Comey.

Source: Trump mishandled the memo on Comey

Of course, the source article to it all is The Hill





That you all love and behold

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Ok so now with the angry Dem's in the House and their threat to harass our President continuously, the real fight begins. The FISA document will come out un-redacted. All the thousands of indictments against the Clintons, Obamas and maybe the Bushes will finally gain some teeth. This could go from a four dimensional chess game to outright three dimensional war. Interesting!!!

a reply to: soberbacchus

What is silly is bastardizing the definitions of criminal activity just to suit your desired talking point.

Oh, and pretending that impeachment proceedings aren't based on criminal activity, which said activity is found in criminal code books, which includes 18 U.S. Code, doesn't it?

Here's an interesting article about it that is informative, if you are so inclined to read it: Can a President Be Impeached for Non-Criminal Conduct?

Yes, U.S. code matters, because as is specified in the Constitution, impeachment only deals with criminal activity (and to be more specific, the conviction of criminal activity: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

It doesn't get much easier to comprehend than that. So, please, and by all means, tell me again how U.S. criminal code has nothing to do with impeachment proceedings. I'll wait...

originally posted by: [post=23940743]Cassi3l[/post

Did you guy's forget that epiode ?
Even Newt wasn't down with that

Nope. Like I said, Trump never said that it was a reason for firing Comey, but he did cite that he did cite pressure that no longer exists. The pressure, as we have all learned by this point, was from a biased FBI director who was mishandling the investigation and his own agents doing the investigating, allowing obvious biases and political ideologies to invade the investigation in a way that made it impartial.

If you and others don't want to see that or accept it, that's fine--your decisions in what you believe are yours to hold.

But for the record, I don't care what Newt is "down with," nor do I care if a writer for the New York Times thinks that the conversation "reinforces the notion that the president dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation ..." I can make up my own mind with my professional understanding of US codes and federal investigations.

If you disagree, so be it, but even if Comey was fired primarily because of the investigation, that's still not "obstruction of justice" as some people are bastardizing the crime to mean--it's only obstruction if you really, really, really, really want to believe it, even though none of the criminal statutes for obstruction cover the firing of the FBI director in the middle of an investigation.

My memory is just fine on the topic, and my ability to research and understand the law is even better.

originally posted by: [post=23942555]SlapMonkey

Yes, U.S. code matters, because as is specified in the Constitution, impeachment only deals with criminal activity (and to be more specific, the conviction of criminal activity: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

It's not a political debate.
You are wrong.

"Conviction" above refers to a vote in congress, not a court ruling.
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" has still not been defined well after 250 years.

A President can be impeached for pretty much anything congress decides fits the definition of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, it doesn't have to meet US Code or court room standards.

It is a political process, not legal.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

History does tend to repeat itself. Andrew Johnson was Impeached when he removed from office Edwin McMasters Stanton, the Secretary of War.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

One thing Trump is safe the senate is controlled by republicans and they would never impeach him.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So, you didn't read the link, did you?

The bottom line is that it's not necessarily settled, but when you read the actual words of the constitution along with the writings of the founders, you get a better picture, and that picture, IMO, doesn't reflect your claims.

You're correct, impeachment can be started for anything, just like someone can be taken to court for anything, but that doesn't mean that the accusations will have merit nor that the proceedings will run their course completely with the desired outcome.

And I tend to agree with the article that I cited--the reason that the founders mandated the Chief Justice preside over the hearing was in order to have a judge review the legal merits of the charges and ensure that they conform to actual crimes. Otherwise, they would have just kept it in the legislative branch and not bother the judicial branch, which is supposed to be the antithesis of politics.

You have a very liberal (not in the political sense) approach to what impeachment can be used for--I prefer to err on the side of caution and actually accept the direct words of the Constitution. Just because it has been liberally applied before doesn't mean that it's correct to do so.

We'll just agree to disagree on the matter, I suppose.

a reply to: dragonridr

Yes, but the Tenure of Office Act was at the core of that impeachment, and it doesn't have history on its side. It was deemed an invalid (unconstitutional) law by the SCOTUS in 1926 while ruling on the Myers v US case:

In 1926, a similar law (though not dealing with Cabinet secretaries) was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Myers v. United States, which affirmed the ability of the President to remove a Postmaster without Congressional approval. In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court stated in its majority opinion (though in dicta), "that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, insofar as it attempted to prevent the President from removing executive officers who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was invalid".

So, really, the impeachment of Johnson, while having merit at the time because it was based on the breaking of an actual law, does not really have merit historically because the law was unconstitutional anyway.

But like you say, it doesn't matter, because in the end, he was never fully impeached, but if he had been, it would have been unfortunate when looking at it through the eyes of the Constitution--to impeach a president based on a law that ends up being unconstitutional is not a good look for America.

But that's 20/20 hindsight talking, so it is...well, was what it was.

The Reconstruction Era was chock full of illegal and unconstitutional things, as well as poorly written amendments based on knee-jerk reactions, some of which cause issues today.

*cough* birthright citizenship *cough*

a reply to: Cassi3l

Trump is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. Hiring, firing, and prosecutorial discretion all belong to him ultimately. Exercising prosecutorial discretion is not "Obstruction of Justice".

He could say, stop investigating this tomorrow for any or no reason, and it would not be a crime; it would be fulfilling his Constitutional role within the powers enumerated to him. He could even simply pardon everyone in his campaign or the White House preemptively. He might even be able to pardon himself (has never come before the court and is a subject of much theoretical debate) Those powers are given to him unfettered by the Constitution.

I would not agree with those actions, and would find them grossly problematic and highly unethical, but it would not be criminal.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

It is a political process, not legal.

And yet, "crimes and misdemeanors" are both legal terms. Odd that.

"High" in my personal opinion refers to crimes and misdemeanors undertaken using the power of office. But there is much debate, obviously.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: soberbacchus

You have a very liberal (not in the political sense) approach to what impeachment can be used for--I prefer to err on the side of caution and actually accept the direct words of the Constitution. Just because it has been liberally applied before doesn't mean that it's correct to do so.

We'll just agree to disagree on the matter, I suppose.

My view is not based on how impeachment proceedings should go (opinion). It is based on history.
That doesn't speak to my personal opinion.
Votes by congress determine the charges and the outcome.
It is a political process without appeal.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: soberbacchus

It is a political process, not legal.

And yet, "crimes and misdemeanors" are both legal terms. Odd that.

"High" in my personal opinion refers to crimes and misdemeanors undertaken using the power of office. But there is much debate, obviously.

I heard an hour long program with historians maybe a year ago discussing nothing else but what "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means.

Going back to shortly after the constitution was written, people were arguing about what the definition was.

It has never been properly defined and most suspect it was designed to be ambiguous and confusing.

Since it is a political act, case law doesn't really serve as a guidepost.

Love it or hate it, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is more a political Rorschach test than a fixed definition.

a reply to: Cassi3l

You can believe what you like.
The potus can fire the fbi director for no reason at all.
The current potus had a recommendation from his boss and the ag to fire comey.
There is congressional testimony under oath that firing comey in no way effected any investigation.
If it did not effect the investigation then how would it be obstruction?

How firing comey effected trump, and how firing comey effected the investigation are 2 vastly different things. Perhaps you have confused them.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Good luck pursuing a purely Rorschach-impeachment with an evenly divided population wherein the Senate is held by the opposition. At least the GOP had an actual crime when they impeached/tried Clinton. He was even disbarred. It was still stupid.

Danger: enter at own risk


I believe they are possibly that dumb though.

Attorney Generals being fired from Presidents or resigning is hardly breaking big news.

Trump: "surround myself only with the best and most serious people" ... "We want top-of-the-line professionals."

Casulties of the Trump Administration

Whitaker should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation or be impeached.

originally posted by: Erno86
Whitaker should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation or be impeached.

For the same reasons Schiff should recuse himself from HIC investigations into Trump, right?

I know i shouldn't be replying to fools and tools...

Just to get your head straight : which comes first, the chicken or the egg ?
For a bonus million points, which comes first: the Comey firing or the Mueller investigation ?

a reply to: [post=23943112]shooterbrody[/post