LogFAQs > #923693312

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Should Trump be impeached?
xp1337 06/22/19 3:21:25 PM #33:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... It makes zero logical sense for Presidents to be immune to obstruction when President Clinton was literally impeached for perjury and obstruction. Nobody take this Red Sox bait Impeachment is not a legal process, but a political one. (And while Nixon resigned before he was formally impeached, obstruction was also in the articles drafted for his impeachment) red sox is sticking to a strictly legal analysis... albeit conflating it with the political one whereupon it all falls apart. The House can impeach for whatever it likes ("high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a literal statement in a "there must exist a statutory felony and/or misdemeanor crime" sense), provided it can achieve a majority of congresspeople to vote in favor of it. The trial in the Senate, despite being overseen by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, is still a political process and not a legal one -- that is to say, being acquitted in the Senate would not then provide you double jeopardy protection if the judicial system then charged you with the same charges. Consequently, impeachment proceedings and the results thereof have no precedence in the legal sense which is the real bait in what red sox has been saying. The legal question of whether or not a President can't be held to obstruct a federal investigation is, I suspect, a bit murkier on Constitutional grounds because the Constitution didn't exactly plan for... a lot of things. However, this question would only really be relevant if the Department of Justice actually tried to charge a President with obstruction which is not a scenario on anyone's board and never has been. FWIW, in his confirmation hearing, even Barr said a president could commit obstruction. IDK what SCOTUS (particularly this SCOTUS) would say on the matter and I'm not a lawyer but I think they could find that a president can obstruct justice if corrupt intent or something similar could be found (i.e. "firing Comey" or even "firing Mueller" would be insufficient on its own because Constitutionally the President has that authority, you would need to demonstrate the intent behind the firings as having corrupt purpose) --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:923693312] in Should Tru... [t:77808159]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote>It makes zero logical sense for Presidents to be immune to obstruction when President Clinton was literally impeached for perjury and obstruction. Nobody take this Red Sox bait</quote> Impeachment is not a legal process, but a political one. (And while Nixon resigned before he was formally impeached, obstruction was also in the articles drafted for his impeachment) red sox is sticking to a strictly legal analysis... albeit conflating it with the political one whereupon it all falls apart. The House can impeach for whatever it likes ("high crimes and misdemeanors" is not a literal statement in a "there must exist a statutory felony and/or misdemeanor crime" sense), provided it can achieve a majority of congresspeople to vote in favor of it. The trial in the Senate, despite being overseen by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS, is still a political process and not a legal one -- that is to say, being acquitted in the Senate would not then provide you double jeopardy protection if the judicial system then charged you with the same charges. Consequently, impeachment proceedings and the results thereof have no precedence in the legal sense which is the real bait in what red sox has been saying. The legal question of whether or not a President can't be held to obstruct a federal investigation is, I suspect, a bit murkier on Constitutional grounds because the Constitution didn't exactly plan for... a lot of things. However, this question would only really be relevant if the Department of Justice actually tried to charge a President with obstruction which is not a scenario on anyone's board and never has been. FWIW, in his confirmation hearing, even Barr said a president could commit obstruction. IDK what SCOTUS (particularly this SCOTUS) would say on the matter and I'm not a lawyer but I think they could find that a president can obstruct justice if corrupt intent or something similar could be found (i.e. "firing Comey" or even "firing Mueller" would be insufficient on its own because Constitutionally the President has that authority, you would need to demonstrate the intent behind the firings as having corrupt purpose) --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1