Amash quits Republican Party

[roamer_1]

You don't impeach without evidence of a crime, just like you don't indict without evidence of a crime. Kind of basic civil liberties.

@jpsb
Impeachment IS indictment. The impeachment process is where evidence is presented on the floor of the House. Roughly speaking, if there is enough evidence, the house indicts, and the Senate convicts.

And no, indictment is not much for evidence... which is where the idea that 'you can indict a ham sandwich' comes from.

[jmyrlefuller]

So it woud appear.  Evidence is so quaint.

Yeah, who cares that we have him on tape admitting to sexual assault?

[roamer_1]

On the issues has him Libertarian Conservative


http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Justin_Amash.htm

With a quick review of his record I didn't see anything I didn't like.

Right. Me too.

[Sanguine]

Without evidence?

Between you, me, everyone else here, and this Amish guy, how many of us have read the Mueller report?

I have.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I have.

Interesting.  Last I heard the Dems were still whining because they hadn't been given access to the full unredacted version.

[Sanguine]

Interesting.  Last I heard the Dems were still whining because they hadn't been given access to the full unredacted version.

I understood that at least some of them had been.

[Cyber Liberty]

I understood that at least some of them had been.

They have, and all Congressmen can see a "less redacted" version but they refuse to avail themselves of it.  It would weaken their "release everything to the public" argument.  Something they know can't be done.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I understood that at least some of them had been.

And yet you have had access to a version that proves there is no evidence of impeachable offences?

[Sanguine]

And yet you have had access to a version that proves there is no evidence of impeachable offences?

If I understand your question, no, that's now how it works.  It shows that there is not enough evidence to show that any American colluded with Russians to affect the election.

[Cyber Liberty]

And yet you have had access to a version that proves there is no evidence of impeachable offences?

Are you suggesting Mueller would redact information because it would be damaging to Trump??

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Are you suggesting Mueller would redact information because it would be damaging to Trump??

No.

I'm suggesting that Amash (potentially) had access to the Mueller report that the rest of us don't, and therefore we shouldn't make statements like there was "no evidence" of impeachable offenses.  It's hard to make the claim that a document contained " no evidence" if you don't have full access to said document in the first place.

I don't know if the report contained evidence of impeachable offenses.   I don't know that it didn't.  I haven't read the darned thing, or claimed that I had.

[roamer_1]

And yet you have had access to a version that proves there is no evidence of impeachable offences?

What is an impeachable offense?

[roamer_1]

I think part of the disconnect over this issue is found in the term 'impeachable offense'.

That is purposefully a very broad and very vague term.

Grounds for impeachment can be anything... And need not even be an illegality.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think part of the disconnect over this issue is found in the term 'impeachable offense'.

That is purposefully a very broad and very vague term.

Grounds for impeachment can be anything... And need not even be an illegality.

Thanks, that is exactly correct.  There are varying definitions.

No.

I'm suggesting that Amash (potentially) had access to the Mueller report that the rest of us don't, and therefore we shouldn't make statements like there was "no evidence" of impeachable offenses.  It's hard to make the claim that a document contained " no evidence" if you don't have full access to said document in the first place.

I don't know if the report contained evidence of impeachable offenses.   I don't know that it didn't.  I haven't read the darned thing, or claimed that I had.

That kind of misses my point.  If Mueller and company had a scrap of a case that could stop Trump they would not have redacted it.  I have zero reason to believe there is anything in the redactions that would be this smoking gun being looked for, because Mueller isn't the type to protect Trump.

[roamer_1]

Thanks, that is exactly correct.  There are varying definitions.

No, there is no definition, on purpose.

That kind of misses my point.  If Mueller and company had a scrap of a case that could stop Trump they would not have redacted it.  I have zero reason to believe there is anything in the redactions that would be this smoking gun being looked for, because Mueller isn't the type to protect Trump.

Again, there doesn't have to be a smoking gun.
Loosely fit, ANYTHING that betrays the public trust is grounds for impeachment.
Certainly any felony, but it can also be something as small as comportment or behavior.

Trump has certainly committed impeachable offenses, but that really doesn't mean anything... until  someone actually calls him up on charges with enough political will to get it done.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, there is no definition, on purpose.

Again, there doesn't have to be a smoking gun.
Loosely fit, ANYTHING that betrays the public trust is grounds for impeachment.
Certainly any felony, but it can also be something as small as comportment or behavior.

Trump has certainly committed impeachable offenses, but that really doesn't mean anything... until  someone actually calls him up on charges with enough political will to get it done.

I can certainly agree the whole thing is slipshod from the start with no firm definitions. and it's by design.  But the Rats can't get away with calling jaywalking an impeachable offense because their own voters would revolt, even from them. 

As of right now, with the entire Mueller report out, there's nothing to safely pull the trigger on Impeachment.  Pelosi knows it.  Her thug Nadles is still trying to pull blood out of this turnip.  The redactions were far fewer than I had expected so I have much doubt there's anything redacted that would tip that scale.

[roamer_1]

I can certainly agree the whole thing is slipshod from the start with no firm definitions. and it's by design. But the Rats can't get away with calling jaywalking an impeachable offense because their own voters would revolt, even from them. 

As of right now, with the entire Mueller report out, there's nothing to safely pull the trigger on Impeachment.  Pelosi knows it.  Her thug Nadles is still trying to pull blood out of this turnip.  The redactions were far fewer than I had expected so I have much doubt there's anything redacted that would tip that scale.

There's the money shot.
YES he could be brought up on jaywalking... but like you say, such a charge would be so superficially political, that they would do terrible damage to themselves...

It brings the Clinton impeachment to mind. Republicans hated him so much that they went for it without a viable charge. They got him (sorta, no conviction), but they damaged the Republicans themselves far worse.

But it IS purposefully vague... Say a president got drunk off his ass and was found butt naked in the middle of the white house lawn the next morning with an equally naked senator's wife.

By today's standard, there would be no pressing crime in any of that, but as a matter of behavior and comportment... an impeachment over such an incident would be legit.

[jmyrlefuller]

What is an impeachable offense?

Treason, bribery, high crimes (felonies) or misdemeanors. Bribery alone would disqualify the majority of Washington.

[Cyber Liberty]

There's the money shot.
YES he could be brought up on jaywalking... but like you say, such a charge would be so superficially political, that they would do terrible damage to themselves...

It brings the Clinton impeachment to mind. Republicans hated him so much that they went for it without a viable charge. They got him (sorta, no conviction), but they damaged the Republicans themselves far worse.

But it IS purposefully vague... Say a president got drunk off his ass and was found butt naked in the middle of the white house lawn the next morning with an equally naked senator's wife.

By today's standard, there would be no pressing crime in any of that, but as a matter of behavior and comportment... an impeachment over such an incident would be legit.

I agree with all of that!  Thanks for dotting my "I's" and crossing my "T's." 

So,the questions remain:  Is a President impeachable for his shady character if he's not found passed out drunk on the White House lawn with a Senator's wife?  Are loosely worded 3 AM Twits the equivalent of that?  I've heard it flatly stated Donald Trump lies, is that impeachable?  He swims in a sea of liars in DeeCee, so is almost all of Congress impeachable too?

[roamer_1]

Are loosely worded 3 AM Twits the equivalent of that? 

Obviously not, or he'd be gone already. However, I would expect his comportment to surface in any impeachment that arises. That is - It is not enough on it's own, but as part of an aggregate, it would be certain to influence people.

I've heard it flatly stated Donald Trump lies, is that impeachable?  He swims in a sea of liars in DeeCee, so is almost all of Congress impeachable too?

Under oath, certainly so. In fact, I have long ago declared that if he were to be impeached, it would be lying under oath in the proceedings that actually brought him down.

He may have the right to remain silent, but he doesn't have the ability.

[Bigun]

The only president to have ever been impeached, tried, and convicted was Andrew Johnson.  Why?  Because he wanted to reconcile amiably with the South instead of rape it as the radical republicans then in control wanted. 

Nothing is impeachable unless the people with power to do it have the political will to do it. If they do, then ANYTHING is impeachable!

[roamer_1]

The only president to have ever been impeached, tried, and convicted was Andrew Johnson.  Why?  Because he wanted to reconcile amiably with the South instead of rape it as the radical republicans then in control wanted. 

Nothing is impeachable unless the people with power to do it have the political will to do it. If they do, then ANYTHING is impeachable!

That's right.
Though btw, impeachment is not only for presidents... many federal posts and employees are subject to impeachment.

[Cyber Liberty]

The only president to have ever been impeached, tried, and convicted was Andrew Johnson.  Why?  Because he wanted to reconcile amiably with the South instead of rape it as the radical republicans then in control wanted. 

Nothing is impeachable unless the people with power to do it have the political will to do it. If they do, then ANYTHING is impeachable!

Johnson was not convicted.  One vote short in the Senate, IIRC.

[Bigun]

Johnson was not convicted.  One vote short in the Senate, IIRC.

As I recall he WAS removed from office regardless.

Edit to add:  Your history is correct. I looked.  Never-the-less the radical agenda won the day.

[Cyber Liberty]

Obviously not, or he'd be gone already. However, I would expect his comportment to surface in any impeachment that arises. That is - It is not enough on it's own, but as part of an aggregate, it would be certain to influence people.

Under oath, certainly so. In fact, I have long ago declared that if he were to be impeached, it would be lying under oath in the proceedings that actually brought him down.

He may have the right to remain silent, but he doesn't have the ability.

If lying under oath was impeachable, Clinton would have been convicted.  Trump pissing people off with his tweets and other political truth-shading is not, if Perjury isn't impeachable either.