The authoritative when-to on impeachment

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#1 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:13 pm

In 1974, House Judiciary Committee members worked jointly to produce this report on when impeachment is appropriate. It was used in 1974 when the House considered Nixon's impeachment, and again in 1998, when the House did impeach Bill Clinton, so it appears still to have bipartisan imprimatur.

Crucially, the report quite clearly concludes that impeachment historically has not been, and should not be, limited to criminal acts. See the discussion on page 12 of the historical meaning of "high misdemeanors." --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5162
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#2 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:51 pm

Bob78164 wrote:In 1974, House Judiciary Committee members worked jointly to produce this report on when impeachment is appropriate. It was used in 1974 when the House considered Nixon's impeachment, and again in 1998, when the House did impeach Bill Clinton, so it appears still to have bipartisan imprimatur.

Crucially, the report quite clearly concludes that impeachment historically has not been, and should not be, limited to criminal acts. See the discussion on page 12 of the historical meaning of "high misdemeanors." --Bob
Did this just come through the batphone or did you just want to share this with us as a random thought in your head?
So, what does the spokesperson for the very vocal insane minority specifically want to impeach the president for?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#3 Post by BackInTex » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:02 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Did this just come through the batphone or did you just want to share this with us as a random thought in your head?
So, what does the spokesperson for the very vocal insane minority specifically want to impeach the president for?
Nothing Bob posts is random. He saw this somewhere and brought it forward. However, after reading page 12 on his recommendation, I do believe our previous president could have been impeached for several things, especially for allowing Fast & Furious. He should have at least been threatened with impeachment to pressure him to hold Holder accountable.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 22666
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#4 Post by Bob Juch » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:40 pm

BackInTex wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Did this just come through the batphone or did you just want to share this with us as a random thought in your head?
So, what does the spokesperson for the very vocal insane minority specifically want to impeach the president for?
Nothing Bob posts is random. He saw this somewhere and brought it forward. However, after reading page 12 on his recommendation, I do believe our previous president could have been impeached for several things, especially for allowing Fast & Furious. He should have at least been threatened with impeachment to pressure him to hold Holder accountable.
And the King of Whataboutistan speaks again. :roll:
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#5 Post by BackInTex » Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:56 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Did this just come through the batphone or did you just want to share this with us as a random thought in your head?
So, what does the spokesperson for the very vocal insane minority specifically want to impeach the president for?
Nothing Bob posts is random. He saw this somewhere and brought it forward. However, after reading page 12 on his recommendation, I do believe our previous president could have been impeached for several things, especially for allowing Fast & Furious. He should have at least been threatened with impeachment to pressure him to hold Holder accountable.
And the King of Whataboutistan speaks again. :roll:
I don't mind being called that because 'what about' is a good tool to show the hypocrisy of others. Those that cry "whataboutism" are typically hypocrites who can't support a position on the merits because they've already excused whatever those merits were previously. However, the above comment is not a whatbout.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#6 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:24 pm

BackInTex wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Did this just come through the batphone or did you just want to share this with us as a random thought in your head?
So, what does the spokesperson for the very vocal insane minority specifically want to impeach the president for?
Nothing Bob posts is random. He saw this somewhere and brought it forward. However, after reading page 12 on his recommendation, I do believe our previous president could have been impeached for several things, especially for allowing Fast & Furious. He should have at least been threatened with impeachment to pressure him to hold Holder accountable.
In this case it's an important part of the materials the House Judiciary Committee is relying on right now, so yes, I think it's relevant to present-day discussions.

And the memo recognizes an important distinction between just doing a bad job (meaning a job Congress disagrees with) and using the power of the office corruptly. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#7 Post by BackInTex » Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:18 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: Did this just come through the batphone or did you just want to share this with us as a random thought in your head?
So, what does the spokesperson for the very vocal insane minority specifically want to impeach the president for?
Nothing Bob posts is random. He saw this somewhere and brought it forward. However, after reading page 12 on his recommendation, I do believe our previous president could have been impeached for several things, especially for allowing Fast & Furious. He should have at least been threatened with impeachment to pressure him to hold Holder accountable.
In this case it's an important part of the materials the House Judiciary Committee is relying on right now, so yes, I think it's relevant to present-day discussions.

And the memo recognizes an important distinction between just doing a bad job (meaning a job Congress disagrees with) and using the power of the office corruptly. --Bob
.... like instructing or allowing the IRS to target political opponents and the DOJ to spy on political opponents based on known false premises. Got it.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18809
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#8 Post by Bob78164 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:48 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Nothing Bob posts is random. He saw this somewhere and brought it forward. However, after reading page 12 on his recommendation, I do believe our previous president could have been impeached for several things, especially for allowing Fast & Furious. He should have at least been threatened with impeachment to pressure him to hold Holder accountable.
In this case it's an important part of the materials the House Judiciary Committee is relying on right now, so yes, I think it's relevant to present-day discussions.

And the memo recognizes an important distinction between just doing a bad job (meaning a job Congress disagrees with) and using the power of the office corruptly. --Bob
.... like instructing or allowing the IRS to target political opponents and the DOJ to spy on political opponents based on known false premises. Got it.
President Obama did neither. Nothing false about the premises of the investigation of Donny's campaign. Mueller's report proved that. And it was the federal judiciary that approved the FISA warrants.

On the other hand, Donny fired the guy who was investigating him, because he was investigating him. That's a textbook case of obstruction of justice, and it's certainly a corrupt use of the power of the office.

To the extent the IRS targeted conservative organizations, President Obama neither instructed nor allowed that to happen. As opposed to Donny's DoJ opening an antitrust investigation into automakers for agreeing with the State of California to increase their gas mileage. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#9 Post by BackInTex » Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:In this case it's an important part of the materials the House Judiciary Committee is relying on right now, so yes, I think it's relevant to present-day discussions.

And the memo recognizes an important distinction between just doing a bad job (meaning a job Congress disagrees with) and using the power of the office corruptly. --Bob
.... like instructing or allowing the IRS to target political opponents and the DOJ to spy on political opponents based on known false premises. Got it.
President Obama did neither. Nothing false about the premises of the investigation of Donny's campaign. Mueller's report proved that. And it was the federal judiciary that approved the FISA warrants.

On the other hand, Donny fired the guy who was investigating him, because he was investigating him. That's a textbook case of obstruction of justice, and it's certainly a corrupt use of the power of the office.

To the extent the IRS targeted conservative organizations, President Obama neither instructed nor allowed that to happen. As opposed to Donny's DoJ opening an antitrust investigation into automakers for agreeing with the State of California to increase their gas mileage. --Bob
That would be hilariously funny except for the fact you do get to vote and there are probably a some people that think you know what you're talking about and that you actually believe it.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5162
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The authoritative when-to on impeachment

#10 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:43 pm

President Obama did neither.

You don't know that. There's no way you could know that. Finally being genuinely investigated. And, hopefully not by a gaggle of democrat lawyers. And hopefully not polluted by DC politics. But it probably it will be.Certainly, there are questions that people who don't have closed minds want answers to. You know, the deplorables and trump fan boys.

Nothing false about the premises of the investigation of Donny's campaign. Mueller's report proved that. And it was the federal judiciary that approved the FISA warrants.
What exactly did Mueller prove? PROVE BWBJ, It's a word, it means something. Mueller did not prove anything. He did not have the authority to prove anything. What the fuck kind of lawyer are you? (I know the answer, it was just a rhetorical question). Let's wait until the report on the fisa warrants comes out before you define what the facts are...
On the other hand, Donny fired the guy who was investigating him, because he was investigating him.

Really? When was that PROVEN? As far as I know there were dozens of reasons Comey should have been canned months before he was. Ask any of the democrat leaders who were calling for it. But we've gone over that before. You just, like always, believe your opinion is fact.
That's a textbook case of obstruction of justice, and it's certainly a corrupt use of the power of the office.
Really. BWBJ? Did he do even 1 thing to stop the Mueller investigation? Name one. When was it stopped? I missed that one.

When I think of corrupt use of his power of office, I think of Jerry Nadler. Did you ever hear of his conversations overheard on a train? Probably not.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/11/07/in ... r-perjury/
He, like you, vowed to unseat the president even before he took office. But there are no corrupt democrats, are there, BWBJ?

To the extent the IRS targeted conservative organizations, President Obama neither instructed nor allowed that to happen.

How the hell do you know? As for allowing it to happen, he certainly did. Anyone face any consequences for it? Not that I know of.
As opposed to Donny's DoJ opening an antitrust investigation into automakers for agreeing with the State of California to increase their gas mileage
. I don't know anything about this. I'm sure it was a batphone thing. Not very sexy. Musta been a slow day.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything

Post Reply