The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[T.Lex]

I got the same impression, without the actual intelligence community bona fides.

The complaint itself has enough alarming language to make it seem like something significant, but also alludes to other issues with POTUS using his position to benefit his personal interests. That suggests that there is more smoke out there that isn't the subject of the complaint.

What's perhaps worse is that the IG should've had access to the actual transcripts so as to determine that the actual substance of this complaint as it relates to the Ukrainian call is NOT credible. It was not as direct or quid pro quo for personal gain as the complaint makes it sound.

 

[bwframe]

Interesting to watch Adam Schiff talk. It's almost like he crafts the narrative for all the TDS crowd to mimic, right?

 

[nonobaddog]

Impeachment should be for something REAL, something substantial and obvious. It should never be based on something like "I think he might have implied this here so lets impeach him because... well I don't like him."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Impeachment should be for something REAL, something substantial and obvious. It should never be based on something like "I think he might have implied this here so lets impeach him because... well I don't like him."

Impeachment is a political process. It IS essentially because "we don't like what he did." And that those actions maybe perfectly legal for a president, but still justify impeachment. I think impeachment is completely justified in this instance, and I'm enjoying seeing the WH squirm.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Impeachment is a political process. It IS essentially because "we don't like what he did." And that those actions maybe perfectly legal for a president, but still justify impeachment. I think impeachment is completely justified in this instance, and I'm enjoying seeing the WH squirm.

Kinda a scary slope to go down isn’t it? Pretty sure the other party will never like what the other side did, so it’ll just be a endless cycle of impeachment’s if that’s the standard you set.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kinda a scary slope to go down isn’t it? Pretty sure the other party will never like what the other side did, so it’ll just be a endless cycle of impeachment’s if that’s the standard you set.

I don't think so. If the president declassified sensitive material, and shared it with Russia. That would be perfectly legal, and you could bet that he would probably be impeached over it because Congress wouldn't like it. My only point is, is that a criminal action isn't need to be impeached.

 

[T.Lex]

Impeachment is a political process. It IS essentially because "we don't like what he did." And that those actions maybe perfectly legal for a president, but still justify impeachment. I think impeachment is completely justified in this instance, and I'm enjoying seeing the WH squirm.

Kut - you know I love you in every manly sense of the word - but that's just not right.

Again, read up on the Andrew Johnson impeachment. The process is political - as anything conducted by a legislative body inevitably is. But the triggers should not be. It should not include things that are legal for a POTUS to do, because then it elevates the political above the electoral.

As Obama succinctly put it, elections have consequences. Not just for those other people who happen to get elected, but for the people who do the electing.

For impeachment to be applied to policy decisions is for Congress to proclaim that they know better than the voters who should (or should not) be president.

That's just wrong. And unconstitutional. Treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. That's it. "Bad policy" is not listed.

 

[nonobaddog]

Impeachment is a political process. It IS essentially because "we don't like what he did." And that those actions maybe perfectly legal for a president, but still justify impeachment. I think impeachment is completely justified in this instance, and I'm enjoying seeing the WH squirm.

I couldn't agree less. So not much new here.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I don't think so. If the president declassified sensitive material, and shared it with Russia. That would be perfectly legal, and you could bet that he would probably be impeached over it because Congress wouldn't like it. My only point is, is that a criminal action isn't need to be impeached.

I understand what you’re saying, and in certain circumstances I could agree. I just think, in my not so important opinion, if we allow the standard for impeachment to strictly be “I don’t like what they did” then every time a political party has the power to do so they’re going to pursue impeachment. The last 20 years have already been enough of a political circus, I don’t wanna see it continue and get worse.

Politics bum me out anymore. I’ll be in the break room

 

[nonobaddog]

This whole charade will reduce impeachment to a nothing burger. Might as well just start the process immediately after each election.

Maybe just keep the impeachment processes coming one right after the other and hope something sticks someday. It is just another way to obstruct government from doing anything useful.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut - you know I love you in every manly sense of the word - but that's just not right.

Again, read up on the Andrew Johnson impeachment. The process is political - as anything conducted by a legislative body inevitably is. But the triggers should not be. It should not include things that are legal for a POTUS to do, because then it elevates the political above the electoral.

As Obama succinctly put it, elections have consequences. Not just for those other people who happen to get elected, but for the people who do the electing.

For impeachment to be applied to policy decisions is for Congress to proclaim that they know better than the voters who should (or should not) be president.

That's just wrong. And unconstitutional. Treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. That's it. "Bad policy" is not listed.

I disagree. Allow me to give an extreme case. Let's the president decided to live in abroad 6 days a week, returning back to the US only on Saturday. On Saturdays, he would sit at his desk, and flip a coin to make decisions of state. Is his conduct subject to impeachment?

 

[T.Lex]

I disagree. Allow me to give an extreme case. Let's the president decided to live in abroad 6 days a week, returning back to the US only on Saturday. On Saturdays, he would sit at his desk, and flip a coin to make decisions of state. Is his conduct subject to impeachment?

Absolutely not. Not ever. Totally political issue.

Elections have consequences. The voters shouldn't have elected a lazy rat bastard.

That would be closer to presidential incapacitation. That's the 25th Amendment.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Absolutely not. Not ever. Totally political issue.

Elections have consequences. The voters shouldn't have elected a lazy rat bastard.

That would be closer to presidential incapacitation. That's the 25th Amendment.

Right. I though we agreed that impeachment was a political act? Do you also think that if the president used his pardon power to pardon someone who may implicate him in wrongdoing is also not something can be impeached for?

 

[T.Lex]

Right. I though we agreed that impeachment was a political act? Do you also think that if the president used his pardon power to pardon someone who may implicate him in wrongdoing is also not something can be impeached for?

A political process with a defined set of triggers.

Congress can't vote on a bill that hasn't been introduced. There's a process.

POTUS can't sign a bill into law until it has been approved by both houses. There's a process.

Now, CAN the House pass articles of impeachment for non-crimes? Sure, that's a legislative act. But they ought not. And, the Senate shouldn't convict if the articles are not one of the established triggers.

More importantly, the country should be spared the painful process of impeachment for what amounts to an amateur improv - no one is quite sure how it will end.

And yes, POTUS pardoning someone for federal crimes to try to avoid conviction is an executive action for which impeachment should not be available.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Whistleblower is a CIA officer who was detailed to the White House

Whelp.

Another few months of deep state garbage

 

[nonobaddog]

Thanks obummer.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A political process with a defined set of triggers.

Congress can't vote on a bill that hasn't been introduced. There's a process.

POTUS can't sign a bill into law until it has been approved by both houses. There's a process.

Now, CAN the House pass articles of impeachment for non-crimes? Sure, that's a legislative act. But they ought not. And, the Senate shouldn't convict if the articles are not one of the established triggers.

More importantly, the country should be spared the painful process of impeachment for what amounts to an amateur improv - no one is quite sure how it will end.

And yes, POTUS pardoning someone for federal crimes to try to avoid conviction is an executive action for which impeachment should not be available.

Madison and Mason discussed this very issue in 1788.
Mason arguing that "He may frequently pardon crimes, which were advised by himself. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry or prevent detection?"
Madison responding "If the president be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him."

I know you know this, but for everyone else, James Madison is called "The Father of the Constitution." Madison's insights via the Federalist Papers were meant to promote the ratification of the Constitution (1789). The phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors" was already the accepted language for the document.

Now, at least to me, it appears that the Founding Father's agreed with the sentiment, that even though the president has the "legal" right to pardon, he may still be impeached for the action if it's related to wrongdoing (i.e. corrupt intent). I

Intent and extreme deviation from norms, I believe are fair game to consider impeachment.

 

[T.Lex]

Madison and Mason discussed this very issue in 1788.
Mason arguing that "He may frequently pardon crimes, which were advised by himself. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry or prevent detection?"
Madison responding "If the president be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him."

I know you know this, but for everyone else, James Madison is called "The Father of the Constitution." Madison's insights via the Federalist Papers were meant to promote the ratification of the Constitution (1789). The phrase "High crimes and misdemeanors" was already the accepted language for the document.

Now, at least to me, it appears that the Founding Father's agreed with the sentiment, that even though the president has the "legal" right to pardon, he may still be impeached for the action if it's related to wrongdoing (i.e. corrupt intent). I

Intent and extreme deviation from norms, I believe are fair game to consider impeachment.

I don't think that passage says what you think it says.

The impeachment would not be a result of the pardon. The impeachment would be for haboring a fugitive, or some version of what we would today call accomplice liability.

It would not be a policy action that would trigger the impeachment, but something criminal.

(Notice, it would still leave it to the Senate to convict.)

The point is that there would still need to be a suspicion of a crime for impeachment. Not a "we don't like what you did."

Look at it this way, if the bar for impeachment is really that low, then elections will always be subject to a veto by both houses of Congress. That can't be right.

 

[Alpo]

Evidence of a crime....conspiring with Giuliani to pressure a foreign government to investigate a political rival. That seems sufficient grounds for a congressional inquiry.

Is it unlawful? On the surface, it would seem to be. If the president had acted in the interests of the United States, I think he would be within the law and within the scope of his executive authority. Using Giuliani rather than normal channels raises the stinkiness of the president's actions and motives.

An inquiry is appropriate. Whether that results in a formal impeachment remains to be seen.

 

[White Squirrel]

Evidence of a crime....conspiring with Giuliani to pressure a foreign government to investigate a political rival. That seems sufficient grounds for a congressional inquiry.

Is it unlawful? On the surface, it would seem to be. If the president had acted in the interests of the United States, I think he would be within the law and within the scope of his executive authority. Using Giuliani rather than normal channels raises the stinkiness of the president's actions and motives.

An inquiry is appropriate. Whether that results in a formal impeachment remains to be seen.

I am not a lawyer and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but investigating whether a former US vice-president pressured a foreign government in order to protect his son's investment would seem to be in the interest of the United States. JMO