Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[crashcourse]

speaking of cutty sark swilling swisher sweet smoking nurse administrating mike price loving trumpsters---where is the alum these days?

this loon in Alexandra wasn't a good shot thank god

[iam416]

The problem remains that reasonable voices in Congress continue to raise the specter of political wrong doing for DJT and his associates without differentiating between the law with respect to obstruction of justice and the rules set forth in the Constitution with regard to impeachment.

Impeachment is fundamentally a political action. They need to find something that qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors," but that's not much of a bar. Personally, I think it requires an actual crime, but I don't think the absence of criminal activity by the President would preclude the House from impeaching him. Now, I do think you absolutely need criminal activity to actually get 67 votes in the Senate.

So, I very much mean it when I say that, absent the Mueller stuff I mentioned, the Ds will impeach DJT if they win the House in 2018. I'm with you -- I don't think it's appropriate based on what I know today. But, that's where we are heading. It would, at least, occur within the proper procedural framework -- an election; a constitutional action; an election shortly thereafter to account for that action.

Trump's detractors in particular, having the biggest political ax to grind, won't let go of their positions even though the facts are plainly understandable.

This should surprise no one reading this here.

Yeah, there's no talking to them. That said, spend 5 minutes talking to a legitimate Trumpkin and you'll walk away stunned.

[SeattleLionsFan]

A couple of things about that.

1) I don't know that I agree that reasonable voices in congress are calling for impeachment. I think several people have said there may be impeachable offenses, and maybe one or two people have said impeachment is appropriate now. I think the vast majority of folks have just said they want to know wtf is going on with Russia given the administration's uncanny ability to look guilty constantly. Once they know what's going on they can make other decisions. That seems sensible to me.

2) I don't think I agree that impeachment requires a criminal offense. It's a political not a legal tool. It's my understanding that the phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors" had a specific meaning to include abuse of power type charges, and not violation of a specific criminal code. But, that is based largely off of Wikipedia and not legal research. I am definitely willing to look at any cites you have to the contrary. (Btw, this should not be read as an endorsement of impeaching trump at this point.)

[crashcourse]

sounds like the shooter was targeting republicans

evidently asked if the softball team was the republican one or the democratic one

[iam416]

I don't think I agree that impeachment requires a criminal offense. It's a political not a legal tool. It's my understanding that the phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors" had a specific meaning to include abuse of power type charges, and not violation of a specific criminal code.

Functionally, it's absolutely political. I think it ought to require some sort of criminal conduct, but that's JMO. I think it works better when you have an actual definable threshold to curtail legislative action.

That said....can you imagine what happens if Congress impeaches the President for something really weak (a brazen political move) and then the President challenges the impeachment in the Supreme Court? Whoa. That would be wild.

Finally, I think you'd probably agree that in order to get 67 votes in the Senate you need a pretty damn good case. IMO, that requires criminality as a practical matter.

[froot loops]

I'm not sure you are going to get a lot of evidence from the Comey hearings or the Sessions hearings. Any time they were asking Comey for something that would constitute as evidence for the collusion, he said he couldn't or shouldn't discuss in an open hearing. His last hearing was more about his interactions with Trump and why Trump fired him.

It's an ongoing investigation, it involves classified info.

As far as the media going with a narrative, Trump has created the narrative by his actions. The media had nothing to do with firing James Comey, that action alone will keep the story going for a year. They aren't acting like innocent people and really for a guy who campaigned on Lock Her Up, what did he expect? That is an anti-corrupt platform, you better not appear to be corrupt.

[Jeff Buchanan]

A couple of things about that.

1) I don't know that I agree that reasonable voices in congress are calling for impeachment.

I said reasonable voice in Congress are raising the specter of political wrong doing....... big difference. I know you know this but I didn't want to be misquoted on this. Other's might have said those words but not me.

......(2) I don't think I agree that impeachment requires a criminal offense. It's a political not a legal tool. It's my understanding that the phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors" had a specific meaning to include abuse of power type charges, and not violation of a specific criminal code. But, that is based largely off of Wikipedia and not legal research. I am definitely willing to look at any cites you have to the contrary. (Btw, this should not be read as an endorsement of impeaching trump at this point.)

Point taken on what it takes for the house to move forward on impeachment proceedings. There is plenty of room here for interpretation on that political action and what it takes for the impeachment process to be undertaken.

My position is that it takes a crime to move forward or such egregious conduct that it is clear that the official, in this case the President, Congress intends to impeach, has breached some ill-defined bar of inappropriate conduct.

Some are raising the point that the President, in his business dealings and not separating himself from these as President (the Emoluments clause), IS acting in an egregious manner.

These same people talking about this are suggesting that the suits being brought by the DC and Maryland Attorney's General along with a group of Dems in the House are working to establish the basis for an impeachment proceeding in the House.

The question will be in these three civil law suits who has been harmed? That is going to be difficult to assert for any court to hear these cases in the first place. I'll be interested to hear about that because if the courts hear the suits (my bet is that they won't), I think the accused party, namely DJT, is going to be in trouble. That will get the ball rolling for impeachment.

This is a two pronged attack on DJT then: Mueller, who as Special Council is doing his thing and the 3 civil suits being brought against Trump.

Good times!

[THE_WIZARD_]

Every damn presidency since Reagan has had the threat of impeachment thrown in the air at a minimum. Yawn.

[Wild Hoss]

This shooting is a terrifying new precedent for political violence in this country. The rhetoric needs to be cooled.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Dr. Strangelove]

sounds like the shooter was targeting republicans

evidently asked if the softball team was the republican one or the democratic one

This has NOT been verified, FWIW

Someone asked if they were Republicans or Democrats. That's coming from Rep. DeSantis. He says the man wasn't carrying anything. No one has confirmed that guy was the shooter.

Furthermore Jeff Flake says the shooter was wearing pants. The guy who asked about the teams was wearing shorts from other accounts.

[Wild Hoss]

speaking of cutty sark swilling...

:::golf clap:::

Good one, lol.


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[froot loops]

Just a reminder, first info on incidents are highly flawed, often wrong and sticks in people's heads. Humans are often terrible eyewitnesses.

[hack]

Every damn presidency since Reagan has had the threat of impeachment thrown in the air at a minimum. Yawn.

Not Obama's. He gave no cause. Looks like that was an exceptionally corruption-free 8 years, unless something comes out. But as of now, his was the only administration post-watergate without any criminal indictment of an executive-branch official. Could go back further. Dunno. But the Obama years were objectively the least corrupt in at least 50 years. Nixon officials collected the most prison sentences, at 15, and then we had 7 years of relatively clean living before they were back at it.

IMO the point is that you don't play politics with corruption. Public servants get to put their hands in the cookie jar. They need to be supervised. 15 people went to jail and it took less than a decade for them to be back at it. Heads must roll by the dozens from this administration, but that won't be enough. People have to participate.

[SeattleLionsFan]

This shooting is a terrifying new precedent for political violence in this country. The rhetoric needs to be cooled.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Is it really new? Gabby Giffords may disagree. (Not to mention JFK RFK MLK Lincoln etc )

Threats of violence are also not new.

You are completely correct though that the world needs to stop going crazy any time now.

[froot loops]

I don't remember much in the way of impeachment for either Bush presidencies. W had some real issues with the decision for the Iraq war.and it's aftermath but I don't remember anything about impeachment. I may have forgotten something. HW definitely didn't have anything.