Random Politics & Religion #38: The 38th One

We know everything he posts is always wrong, but I do wonder where he got that idea from.

Read your constitution.

Court ruled Clinton could not because gore had already throw his hat into the ring.

Trump on the other hand does not have that problem.

Ah, he just made it up. I thought he read it on twitter again.

There's Trump now...literally stewing in his own juices !

So much impotent rage, its amazing.

Impeach him, he will run and win his third term

Lol, lying.

Since Vic loves polls so much, here's the latest! Monmouth has Trump up two points from their last poll, which was taken about a month ago. CNBC, an infrequent pollster that usually has low numbers for Trump, is the first pollster with anything below 40 since the "scandal". They've come out with a clear outlier of 37% approval. Like any good NBC affiliate, they're doing their best to overcompensate.

He won’t get impeached lol.
Enjoy the next 4 years of Trump, his successor will be even worse.

Libs lose again.

Hahahahahah

lol, still lying

It's not first hand knowledge, it's direct knowledge. I just explained the difference between the two.

This gets REALLY important when someone's put under oath to testify because unless the person directly witnessed the conversation, they can't testify truthfully about that conversation. This isn't the Socialist Republic of Canada where the Government can just have stuff entered into evidence because it sounds good. This witness (because that is what they are) can not testify on the contents of the alleged (the legal term) conversation between President Trump and his foreign counterparts. The most this witness can testify to is that they read a transcript, or heard someone else talk about this conversation. The transcripts themselves would need to be presented as evidence, in which case you don't need the witness as you have the transcripts.

Which makes President Trump releasing them a golden move as the witness became entirely irrelevant. The US authority on Federal Crime has already cleared the conversation as not violating any US law, so zero impact on that front. At the end of the day all the Dems have is that it makes the President look bad, which isn't much as they've been screaming that since before he was elected.

But hey keep living in that Reality Distortion Field.

Almost guaranteed he'll be "impeached", that only requires a slight majority of the House which the Democrats already have. It's the Senate that decides on removal or not, and that's a much higher bar.

Your confusing "impeached" with "removed from office", very very different things. Bill Clinton was impeached, he wasn't' removed from office and the Republicans had a far stronger case involving perjury then the Democrats do now.

The best way to think of it is that "impeached" is like a grand jury incitement, very low bar.

The IGIC press release:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

TLDR:

1, The whistleblower used a hard copy of the old form, complete with the language about firsthand knowledge, not the new form which was posted online six weeks later. So STFU about the ICIG changing the language for this particular whistleblower.

2, The whistleblower did indeed have firsthand knowledge of some aspects of the complaint, so he checked both the firsthand knowledge box and the secondhand knowledge one.

3, The ICIG personally investigated the secondhand allegations and turned up other substantiating evidence, in accordance with the statute.

4, Changing the form cannot change the law, you mendacious, jelly-brained, partisan hacks!*

*paraphrase

The form:

From the witness themselves.


I've already explained the why's and how's, not that any of the leftists actually bothered reading. The witness specifically said, while under oath, that the information reported was from second hand accounts told from several work colleagues.

But hey Reality Distortion Field means the leftists don't need to actually pay attention to reality, they can just make it up as they go along.

They had firsthand knowledge that a phone call took place, because they saw it on a schedule or via transcripts. They had first hand knowledge of several individuals who were present during the call, because they spoke with them and were informed as much. They do not have first hand knowledge of the contents of the phone call.

For the third party observers wondering why the splitting of hairs, it's because the Dem's will now attempt to saw the witness's second hand testimony is most valid then the transcripts or first hand testimony from people present on the call. The IG and FBI have already looked at the material and concluded nothing illegal happened. The whole thing is DOA so they gotta lend some sort of legitimacy just like they did the whole Russian Collusion narrative.

We’ve seen the transcript.

The whistleblower means *** all because we've seen the actual transcript.

This is all to distract from Biden’s crimes.

Its been fun to watch nausi flip flop on his spin. First he tried attacking the whistleblower, his attacks were shrugged off because we have the damning transcript. Now that the IG has debunked all the attacks on the whistleblower, he is trying to say the whistleblower doesn't matter, because we have the..wait for it..damning transcript. Great times.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I always wondered how Clinton (in my memory) stayed in office, yet I find out years later he was impeached. So, in any case, what exactly does impeached but not removed from office even mean? What are the repercussions?

Trump gets to stay in office as if nothing happened. No, it doesn't "nullify" his first term and he wouldn't be eligible to run for office in 2024, nausi was just making that up.

What does it do ? Mostly distract Americans from how terrible the Democrat candidates are.

The Democrats don't think they can beat trump...so if they remove him from office. They would be running against Mike Pence.

Who they think they could beat.

Shiva.

It is not even clearly defined what a "high crime or misdemeanor" is you could impeach a President for almost anything.


Impeachable offenses: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"
See also: High crimes and misdemeanors
The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[2] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[3] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[3] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, "finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct."[4][1]

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][5] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[6][1] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"—conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[6][4][1]

In drawing up articles of impeachment, the House has placed little emphasis on criminal conduct.[1] Less than one-third of the articles that the House have adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a criminal statute or used the word "criminal" or "crime" to describe the conduct alleged.[1] Officials have been impeached and removed for drunkenness, biased decision-making, or inducing parties to enter financial transactions, none of which is specifically criminal.[1] Two of the articles against Andrew Johnson were based on rude speech that reflected badly on the office: President Johnson had made "harangues" criticizing the Congress and questioning its legislative authority, refusing to follow laws, and diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act, each of which brought the presidency "into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace".[7] A number of individuals have been impeached for behavior incompatible with the nature of the office they hold.[1] Some impeachments have addressed, at least in part, conduct before the individuals assumed their positions: for example, Article IV against Judge Porteous related to false statements to the FBI and Senate in connection with his nomination and confirmation to the court.[1]

On the other hand, the Constitutional Convention rejected language that would have permitted impeachment for "maladministration," with Madison arguing that "[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate." [8]

Congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment "do not all fit neatly and logically into categories" because the remedy of impeachment is intended to "reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office".[6][1] Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:

(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.[6][1]
Conversely, not all criminal conduct is impeachable: in 1974, the Judiciary Committee rejected an article of impeachment against President Nixon alleging that he committed tax fraud, primarily because that "related to the President's private conduct, not to an abuse of his authority as President."[1]

Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high Crime or Misdemeanor", especially since the Supreme Court decided in Nixon v. United States that it did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[9] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[10]

Of the 17 impeachments voted by the House:

No official has been charged with treason. (In 1797, Senator Blount was impeached for assisting Britain in capturing Spanish territory. In 1862, Judge Humphries was impeached and convicted for siding with the Confederacy and taking a position as a Confederate judge during the Civil War.)
Three officials have been charged with bribery, and all three removed (Secretary Belknap, Judge Archibald, and Judge Hastings).
The remaining charges against all the other officials fall under the category of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".
The standard of proof required for impeachment and conviction is also left to the discretion of individual Representatives and Senators, respectively. Defendants have argued that impeachment trials are in the nature of criminal proceedings, with convictions carrying grave consequences for the accused, and that therefore proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be the applicable standard. House Managers have argued that a lower standard would be appropriate to better serve the purpose of defending the community against abuse of power, since the defendant does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property, for which the reasonable doubt standard was set.[11]

Your copy and paste skills rival the laziest of the lazy fone. Shiva.

They can and will make up whatever “crime” they have to to INPEACH.

There will be a massive backlash if they do it. His supporters have all the guns, and right now they’re sitting at 8-9/10.

lol the gun references are always fun.