(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 (Hmmmm let's get the popcorn ready.)

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury before a grand jury and for obstruction of justice.

My post was based on the circumstances surrounding the initiation of an impeachment inquiry.  I stated, correctly, that the independent counsel report (Starr Report) illustrated more than 10 instances where it was found that there was sufficient evidence to potentially prosecute then sitting president Clinton for more than ten instances of felony Misconduct.  I never stated that all ten were adopted in the formal articles of impeachment voted out of the house.  I also pointed out the ancillary penalties incurred by the president (settlement in a civil case, being disbarred, etc.) as further evidence to support the fact that there was, in fact, THERE there in 1998.  

There was no felony committed. The federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

18 U.S. Code § 1621

Perjury is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.  


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.

The practice of not prosecuting sitting presidents in criminal courts in no way invalidates my basic characterization of illicit activity as felonious.  

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."

The courts will ultimately decide the validity of THE PRESIDENT (And His counsels) reasoning on the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry in the absence of a Floor vote.  That has ZERO BEARING on my statement that in 98 The republican majority allowed one.  

As far as being present for witness interviews, whistleblowers have protections afforded to them under the law.

I didn't say anything about the "whistleblower," I said witnesses-as it relates to the inquiry as a whole.  As we speak members of the administration are being asked to testify.  Under the circumstances the presidents attorneys and the minority should have the ability to a.) be present, b.) cross examine witnesses, c.) call witnesses of their own, d.) compel the disclosure of any and all evidence found beneficial to the president e.) present evidence, and f.) see all evidence being presented against the president.  In a democracy there's a term for that.  DUE PROCESS.  


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.

But, now that you bring it up.  This guy isn't a whistleblower.  Why you may ask?  Because under our system of government, the president is a Unitary Executive.  He is the top of all chains of command in the executive branch, including but not limited to the intelligence agency.  He is also delegated sole authority over our foreign policy.  That's why the DNI found that the complaint didn't meet the requirements of the whistleblower statute because he, nor anyone in the executive branch has jurisdiction over the presidency-and for simple reason: NO ONE HAS ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION, OR THE AUTHORITY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS!!!  As an example from this case, the Leaker alleges that the president Abused his power in asking the president of Ukraine to aid in the investigation of the Biden's.  Was he read into the Durham investigation?  The president is.  Did he have access to the Defensive investigative notes cultivated by the presidents legal team during the Mueller Defense?  The president does.  So how in the world is he going to sit in judgment to determine if there is or is not a reasonable suspicion that Joe Biden committed a crime or corrupt act (The standard to establish corrupt intent.)  The Leaker also alleges that the president COVERED UP the phone call by having it classified as special access program.  Does the leaker have access tot he classification practices of the white house since the leak of the call with the Australian ambassador?  The president does.  Does the leaker have the unilateral authority to classify or declassify ANYTHING THEY WANT?  The president does!  How are they supposed to a.) determine if that act is out of the ordinary, or b.) even understand that classifying something and preserving it isn't destruction of evidence or an obstructive act?

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.

This is a fluid situation. Do not obfuscate. There is enough of that already.

Respectfully,

OBSTRUCTION?  They released the Darn TRANSCRIPT!   My Gosh.  Is Maddows show really that good?  I mean honestly.  

you can call it whistleblower, santa clause, Marry poppins or the avon lady.  If the left tries to carry this to actual articles of impeachment and a trial in the senate and never give the president the right to face his accuser the streets will run read with rural turnout.  

#MAGA
#ALPHAMAGA
#LOLFACTCHECK
#LETMEGUESSUWORKFORPOLITICO
#GETONMYLEVEL
#DONTTRYMELIKETHAT

---