(10-08-2019, 02:36 PM)ferocious Wrote:

(10-08-2019, 11:55 AM)jj82284 Wrote: In 98 the independent prosecutor came back and made affirmative declarations that clinton was guilty on multiple FELONIES inclyding perjury, suborning perjury paid a settlement on sexual assault, was disbarred etc.  He should have been removed.

In this case there is no such declaration.  You have an anonymous complaint that doesn't meet the rules of evidence for a criminal proceeding and doesn't point to any criminal or illicit activity. Even still in 1998 the Republican majority in the house still allowed a floor vote to officially authorized the impeachment proceeding and gave the minority certain representation rights is for is issuing subpoenas interviewing Witnesses Etc. In this particular case the Democratic majority has not called for a floor vote to officially authorized and impeachment inquiry. Have also block the president's attorneys and certain members of the minority from participating in witness interviews. There is no comparison between the two processes.

Facts Check

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury before a grand jury and for obstruction of justice. There was no felony committed. The federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes. There is actually a civil and criminal context to impeachment of which you point out quietly. Therefore, stating impeachment is only political in nature is disingenious. High crimes and misdemeanors right? Which is why the Judiciary Committee and a Chief Justice conduct impeachment "by law" according to the Constitution. Your felony portion is correct.

Now, as to the second paragraph of your post.

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote." What does Presidential Impeachment precedents show? What do the House Rules state? Was the House Judiciary Committee invloved? Why would the Pelosi refuse to hold a simple House vote? Affraid of another lopside failure? If you are honest with yourself, you know why no formal vote has taken place.

As far as being present for witness interviews, whistleblowers have protections afforded to them under the law. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Investigation was completed and determined no National Security issues and no Campaign Funding issues. One could argue the WPA does not hamper the ability to interview or question as a legally defined witness. There is also no identity protection beyond the determination of outcome and reporting to Congress, President, etc. One could also agrue this individual or individuals does not meet Whistleblower Status from the beginning, let alone now. In any case, The WPAs function is reprisal protection.

The White House is trying to obfuscate the facts, and it isn't working well. (Well, it's working with some of us). And in fact the irony is that in addition to his (alleged) high crimes and misdemeanors with respect to Ukraine, he is also, by all appearances, guilty of the same obstruction of justice that Clinton was impeached for. In fact, it is far worse because it involves national security. Also, the President may be guilty of violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act by threatening to take retaliatory action. The WH has been transparent with media inserting information beyond what is FACT. The obfuscating and word games strictly belong to the House and that weirdo Schiff. What are those high crimes and misdemeanors? Did Judiciary Committee vote on those? Where is that obstruction of justice? Was there some kind of fantom subponea ignored? National Security (FYI, not. Stop parotting. DOJ cleared that myth)? What retaliatory action and to whom? 

This is a fluid situation. Do not obfuscate. There is enough of that already. And yet here you are guilty of it.

Respectfully,