They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[S2M]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ZTKaMcqCM

[Andrew]

Reports are that the DOJ has reopened the Hillary private email server case.

But that's exactly what Drumpf and his Klingon family are using.

[Boomchild]

Here we go Boomie, F.F.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/36 ... estigation

https://www.thedailybeast.com/justice-d ... n?ref=home

While it is highly likely that there is pay to play and criminal\negligent issues with the email sever, there may be something far worse involving the Clintons and their foundation. Something that has been under investigation and about to drop. Look to recent executive orders Trump has signed and what they pertain to.

[Boomchild]

Sessions is worried about legal weed voted and approved by State voters instead of whats importent. Sessions NEEDS TO GO.

You know what happens when you smoke weed right? You blow smoke.

[The_Noble_Cause]

But that's exactly what Drumpf and his Klingon family are using.

Reportedly, Trump doesn't use email at all.

[Monker]

There does not need to be a "crime" to impeach the President. If Democrats controlled congress, they could write up articles of impeachment for "Conduct unbecoming of the office of President of the United States" and we would be dealing with President Pence in a few months. Judges have been impeached for the same.

Once again, you are being obtuse... or ignorant.

[/quote]

Three out of four "schools of thought" IN WHAT YOU COPY/PASTED explicitly say that no indictable crime needs to be committed. .

Couple that with the FACT that several federal judges have been impeached, some even removed from the bench, with NO ACCUSATION OF A CRIME in the articles of impeachment. Hell, the first impeachment ever brought by congress did not involve a crime...and the accusation was the judge was showing a bad temperament and signs of loss of cognitive abilities....some of the VERY THINGS that some Democrats and liberals are saying about Trump. My God, his bad temperament and judgement could reignite the Korean war with his ridiculous Tweets. That alone should be enough to impeach him.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-sys ... edure.html

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure

The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the U.S. House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the U.S. Senate when voting whether to convict and remove from office a President of the U.S., as well as the procedure to be followed.

Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:

"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."

Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.

There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.


Congressional Interpretation

The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:

"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.


An Indictable Crime

The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature.

In the past, England had used impeachment of the King's ministers as a means of controlling policy (Parliament could not get rid of the King, but could get rid of his ministers who carried out acts Parliament believed to be against the best interest of the country). However, in English impeachments, once convicted that person was not only removed from office but was also punished (usually by execution).


Misdemeanor

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.


Relating to the President's Official Duties

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. (Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statue be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)


How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.


Impeachment Trials

The trial in the Senate is handled by "Managers" from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).

If the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is then presented. Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I § 3 of the Constitution states:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..."

For many years, the conventional view was that the forgoing section of the Constitution meant that the Senate was the final arbiter when it came to impeachments (at least as to Federal Judges) and that what constituted an impeachable offense would be unreviewable. See Ritter v. U.S., 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936) cert denied 300 U.S. 668 (1937).

However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one -- "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors"), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer -- the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority "on all fours" for the proposition either way. However, there is authority which would shed some light on this complicated question.


The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the "political question" doctrine to sidestep the issue. Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon's case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.

Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon's removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

This article was written by Ronald Arthur Lowry.

[/quote]

[Boomchild]

They need to look at the Clinton Foundation also. They can find plenty of Rubles there.

My point was that they have been looking into things that involve the Clinton Foundation as well as other things. Meaning something far worse then pay to play.

[S2M]

See? Even kids know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ZTKaMcqCM

And before someone says that kids are too young to understand politics, save it....Kids don't need to know about politics to discern what kind of a PERSON he is.

[slucero]

[slucero]

They need to look at the Clinton Foundation also. They can find plenty of Rubles there.

My point was that they have been looking into things that involve the Clinton Foundation as well as other things. Meaning something far worse then pay to play.

I caught a typo in my rush this morning which I corrected just now with the word Canadian. I left it out. Sorry about that Boomie.

[slucero]

There does not need to be a "crime" to impeach the President. If Democrats controlled congress, they could write up articles of impeachment for "Conduct unbecoming of the office of President of the United States" and we would be dealing with President Pence in a few months. Judges have been impeached for the same.

Once again, you are being obtuse... or ignorant.

Three out of four "schools of thought" IN WHAT YOU COPY/PASTED explicitly say that no indictable crime needs to be committed. .

Couple that with the FACT that several federal judges have been impeached, some even removed from the bench, with NO ACCUSATION OF A CRIME in the articles of impeachment. Hell, the first impeachment ever brought by congress did not involve a crime...and the accusation was the judge was showing a bad temperament and signs of loss of cognitive abilities....some of the VERY THINGS that some Democrats and liberals are saying about Trump. My God, his bad temperament and judgement could reignite the Korean war with his ridiculous Tweets. That alone should be enough to impeach him.

So according to you..... "some of the VERY THINGS that some Democrats and liberals are saying about Trump" is the standard for impeachment... Just because the Democrats say it.. for you that means it's true?


I was leaning towards the "you're being obtuse" side, ..... now I'm just thinking you're just plain ignorant..

[verslibre]

So you guys all like Bannon, right? Because he just said some shit about Trump.

[S2M]

Going to pick up my copy of 'Fire and Fury' by Michael Wolff tomorrow...should be an AWESOME read.

[slucero]

So you guys all like Bannon, right? Because he just said some shit about Trump.

O-M-G!

... using the "Monker Rule" which is sorta like the "Tuck Rule"... Trump should be impeached ASAP...

[tj]

See? Even kids know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0ZTKaMcqCM

And before someone says that kids are too young to understand politics, save it....Kids don't need to know about politics to discern what kind of a PERSON he is.

Kids "know" what they are exposed to by adults. That's how 6yo children in Syria, Lebanon, etc. are convinced that the "infidels" should be killed and that they would be doing a service by allowing themselves to be a suicide bomber.

[slucero]

Going to pick up my copy of 'Fire and Fury' by Michael Wolff tomorrow...should be an AWESOME read.

Save your money...


Wolff (aptly named) is just taking his shot at fleecing liberals..

The author of the explosive new Trump book says he can't be sure if parts of it are true
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael- ... rue-2018-1

The author of the explosive new book about Donald Trump's presidency acknowledged in an author's note that he wasn't certain all of its content was true.

Michael Wolff, the author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," included a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages.

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

[slucero]

breaking...

FBI Chief FOIA Officer: "Every Single Memo Comey Leaked Was Classified"

We have a sworn declaration from David Hardy who is the chief FOIA officer of the FBI that we obtained just in the last few days, and in that sworn declaration, Mr. Hardy says that all of Comey's memos - all of them, were classified at the time they were written, and they remain classified. -Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch

This means Comey, who authored those documents, mishandled national defense information when he "knowingly and willfully" leaked them to "persons unauthorized" (his friend) at Columbia University.

That's a national security crime.

Comey should have been read his rights back on June 8th when he testified before the Senate.

[The_Noble_Cause]

So you guys all like Bannon, right? Because he just said some shit about Trump.

Last time I checked, alleged Bannon quotes were published in the Wolf book. Bannon then drafted a statement denying those quotes, but was beaten to the punch by Trump's White House release attacking him. At this point, Bannon has chosen really not to say anything. As recently as a few days ago, he was praising the president.

[verslibre]

So you guys all like Bannon, right? Because he just said some shit about Trump.

Last time I checked, alleged Bannon quotes were published in the Wolf book. Bannon then drafted a statement denying those quotes, but was beaten to the punch by Trump's White House release attacking him. At this point, Bannon has chosen really not to say anything. As recently as a few days ago, he was praising the president.

Was just wondering, since the release said "When [Bannon] lost his job, he lost his mind."

[S2M]

Going to pick up my copy of 'Fire and Fury' by Michael Wolff tomorrow...should be an AWESOME read.

Get some klenex, you'll need them. If you know what I mean.

This thread has become a place where the dregs of humanity hang out. Peace out. I hope Drew gets fed up with the fucking lot of you, and shuts this thread down.

[steveo777]

Going to pick up my copy of 'Fire and Fury' by Michael Wolff tomorrow...should be an AWESOME read.

Get some klenex, you'll need them. If you know what I mean.

This thread has become a place where the dregs of humanity hang out. Peace out. I hope Drew gets fed up with the fucking lot of you, and shuts this thread down.

Why? You and Monker seem to be the only two that have a problem with the thread. The rest of us are having discussions and reading important information. Seems the heat is coming down on Clintons and that must be making your and your dem friends very uncomfortable.

Go buy that book that is targeted at Trump haters. Apparently there's a market for it, while most objective people, who are not consumed, understand it for the satire piece it is.

[The_Noble_Cause]

This thread has become a place where the dregs of humanity hang out. Peace out. I hope Drew gets fed up with the fucking lot of you, and shuts this thread down.

You were the guy calling people cum stains that should have dribbled down their mothers' legs, right? You are quite the class act yourself. Hypocrite.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Was just wondering, since the release said "When [Bannon] lost his job, he lost his mind."

That's a statement released in response to Bannon quotes found in the new Wolf book. Not to anything Bannon ever said directly. The guy has his own website and radio show. He could very easily tell the president (and the world) what he thinks.

[verslibre]

Was just wondering, since the release said "When [Bannon] lost his job, he lost his mind."

That's a statement released in response to Bannon quotes found in the new Wolf book. Not to anything Bannon ever said directly. The guy has his own website and radio show. He could very easily tell the president (and the world) what he thinks.

Has Bannon denied saying that stuff?

[The_Noble_Cause]

When asked about it on the Sirius radio show, he complimented the president.

[verslibre]

So he didn't?

[The_Noble_Cause]

So he didn't?

Maybe Wolf is being honest when he says everybody is on tape. Either way, Bannon doesn't work for the White House and in his own words, he is playing the long game. You think he should stomp out every little media brushfire that breaks out every week? Nobody really cares.

[verslibre]

It's just funny how the remark "he lost his mind" is publicized when the two were practically promoted as Buttman & Rubbin' mere months ago.

Anyway...

[Boomchild]

breaking...

FBI Chief FOIA Officer: "Every Single Memo Comey Leaked Was Classified"

We have a sworn declaration from David Hardy who is the chief FOIA officer of the FBI that we obtained just in the last few days, and in that sworn declaration, Mr. Hardy says that all of Comey's memos - all of them, were classified at the time they were written, and they remain classified. -Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch

This means Comey, who authored those documents, mishandled national defense information when he "knowingly and willfully" leaked them to "persons unauthorized" (his friend) at Columbia University.

That's a national security crime.

Comey should have been read his rights back on June 8th when he testified before the Senate.

Maybe Comey will be having a little stay at GITMO.

[Boomchild]

This thread has become a place where the dregs of humanity hang out. Peace out. I hope Drew gets fed up with the fucking lot of you, and shuts this thread down.

Why do you "hope" he shuts this thread down? What are you afraid of? Is it the fact that people have opinions and beliefs different from yours? No one forced you to enter this thread, read the posts and reply to them. Perhaps you have no self control.