The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

constitution says you remove a president by impeachment

blame republicans 90% approval of the bastard

Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Congress cannot arrest the president or anyone else. The police can arrest the president and anyone else. A president does not need to be impeached in order to be arrested.

[Anteater]

Clinton wasn't impeached nor arrested for lying under oath to Congress. Nixon wasn't arrested for actually firing his Special Counsel. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder were arrested for refusing subpoenas from Congress and "obstructing justice" during the Fast & Furious fiasco. So what makes anyone with a functioning brain think that bar is going to be lowered for Trump?

Congress needs to get off their ass and do something concrete...otherwise shut up and shift focus to real issues. Lord knows there are plenty of those.

[OccultHawk]

God the world would be a better place if Nixon had been executed.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Show me where the constitution says the president can’t be arrested for breaking the law. A crime is a crime is a crime.

^ Probably not in the constitution, but there is a decision by the Office of Legal Council, whoever they may be, that says that a sitting President cannot be indicted.( I think the fear being, What would America do if the President were arrested the day that a nuclear war starts?) That legal decision is considered v difficult to overturn by Dems and Reps alike, and Special Counsellor Mueller took the position that if the Dept of Justice can't indict a sitting President, the same Dept can't accuse him either. Without trial, the Pres can't defend himself from the accusation, so it's legally unfair to accuse him in the first place. ( A legal nicety for Trump that Barr has done his best to avoid mentioning.)

Originally Posted by Anteater

Clinton wasn't impeached nor arrested for lying under oath to Congress. Nixon wasn't arrested for actually firing his Special Counsel. Neither Obama nor Eric Holder were arrested for refusing subpoenas from Congress and "obstructing justice" during the Fast & Furious fiasco. So what makes anyone with a functioning brain think that bar is going to be lowered for Trump?

^ The way I see it, there are different scales of lying. "I like your new haircut" can be a lie, and so can "I shot that man in self defense," but there's a big difference in the gravity of what you're lying about.

My understanding is that Clinton lied a couple of times about having extramarital oral sex. Trump and associates have lied repeatedly about consorting with a hostile foreign power to influence election results. Barr has lied about clear evidence of up to ten occasions of obstruction of justice. I don't see it as a lowering of the bar to hold Trump, the AG and others responsible for undermining the democratic process, the power of Congress and the neutrality of the Dept of Justice. The only thing poor old Clinton undermined was his marriage, and that's why he wasn't impeached, imo.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by elphenor

>Clinton wasn't impeached

uh yes he was

^ Well, I had to check wikipedia, and it seems like he wasn't Elph: he stayed in office.
It prob felt like impeachment because the long-drawn-out Starr investigation was continuously leaking titillating details to the press. Starr leaked over the press even more than Clinton leaked over Monica's dress, knowodahmsayin?

EDIT: OOPS! Just re-read the wiki article, and yes, you're right elph, he was impeached. My bad, but even badder on Anteater.

Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868. (Clinton was the third sitting president against whom the House of Representatives initiated impeachment proceedings since 1789.)

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

^ Well, I had to check wikipedia, and it seems like he wasn't Elph: he stayed in office.
It prob felt like impeachment because the long-drawn-out Starr investigation was continuously leaking titillating details to the press. Starr leaked over the press even more than Clinton leaked over Monica's dress, knowodahmsayin?

Being impeached doesn't mean being removed from office. The impeachment is the "trial".

[Lisnaholic]

^ Thanks for clarifications

[OccultHawk]

I think they just make it up as they go...

Wiki on Clinton’s impeachment trial in the senate

A resolution on rules and procedure for the trial was adopted unanimously on the following day; however, senators tabled the question of whether to call witnesses in the trial.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by elphenor

it's important to consider when talking about "lowering the bar" for impeachment that it's entirely a political process and no bar exists

^ Well, that's something to take up with Anteater, who led me right off the fact map into that favourite GOP terrain: the land of lies. As a Russian political saying apparently has it, "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth," which is what Trump, Barr and co seem to be banking on.

[The Batlord]

I wonder if the congressmen with legal backgrounds are sitting back secretly hating their colleagues for being law retards during any kind of congressional investigation?