Obama taking actions against Russia for "Election Hacking"

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, ThomasD said:

That's more of a political question than a legal question.  Maybe he didn't think they would find anything.  Maybe he thought the investigation could be used for political gain (like Clinton and Monica.)  Maybe he thought they would find something and didn't want to be impeached like Nixon 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

 

Your guess is as good as mine.

Riiiiiiiight

[ThomasD]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Riiiiiiiight

Again, I'm getting the impression that you really do not understand the fundamental nature of our government.

 

You do know that there is no real legal standard for impeachment?  That impeachment is purely a political question?

 

Because the Constitution provides no definition for "high crimes and misdemeanors."  It means whatever the House and Senate can agree it means.

 

Edit:  Given the pace of your reply it is clear you did not follow the link.  You really should - it is apropos to the discussion.

[ivan134]

8 minutes ago, ThomasD said:

Again, I'm getting the impression that you really do not understand the fundamental nature of our government.

 

You do know that there is no real legal standard for impeachment?  That impeachment is purely a political question?

 

Because the Constitution provides no definition for "high crimes and misdemeanors."  It means whatever the House and Senate can agree it means.

 

Edit:  Given the pace of your reply it is clear you did not follow the link.  You really should - it is apropos to the discussion.

You want me to take you seriously when you're flat out pulling shit out of your ass like this?

13 minutes ago, ThomasD said:

That's more of a political question than a legal question.  Maybe he didn't think they would find anything.  Maybe he thought the investigation could be used for political gain (like Clinton and Monica.)  Maybe he thought they would find something and didn't want to be impeached like Nixon 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

 

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

Edit:  Maybe he was more concerned about looking bad than actually being bad.

This forum is filled with clowns.

[ThomasD]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

You want me to take you seriously when you're flat out pulling shit out of your ass like this?

 

You tell me I'm wrong but offer nothing in the way of a rebuttal.

Prove yourself.

 

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, ThomasD said:

You tell me I'm wrong but offer nothing in the way of a rebuttal.

Prove yourself.

 

I was abducted by aliens last night. Prove me wrong.

[ThomasD]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

I was abducted by aliens last night. Prove me wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, ThomasD said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

What exactly would he get impeached for?

[DutchTexan]

52 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

He led the investigation directly. You do know Obama is not directly involved with everything right? I'm sure he was the one that tried to hurt Hillary by writing that letter....

You understand that Comey was appointed by Obama, right?

 

I don't understand how there is an argument that the executive branch is not under the presidents control? What do you think the president is supposed to do?

[ThomasD]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

What exactly would he get impeached for?

If you are not going to read the link that's fine.  Just admit that your accusing me of "pulling shit" out of my ass was wrong.

 

You are the one who is wrong.

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, ThomasD said:

If you are not going to read the link that's fine.  Just admit that your accusing me of "pulling shit" out of my ass was wrong.

 

You are the one who is wrong.

I don't need to read shit. If you pull garbage out of your ass, follow it through. What was he at risk of getting impeached for that he didn't stop Comey from investigating her emails?

[ThomasD]

1 minute ago, DutchTexan said:

You understand that Comey was appointed by Obama, right?

 

I don't understand how there is an argument that the executive branch is not under the presidents control? What do you think the president is supposed to do?

Your question (while certainly valid) really was not my concern. 

 

I just wished to correct the misconception that the FBI is somehow independent of the President.

[DutchTexan]

4 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

What exactly would he get impeached for?

Again, do you understand that a president can never be guilty of a crime? A president cannot be tried in court. They must be impeached first to enter a courtroom. Therefore, there is and never will be a simple 'this' = impeachment.

[Hunter259]

2 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

You understand that Comey was appointed by Obama, right?

 

I don't understand how there is an argument that the executive branch is not under the presidents control? What do you think the president is supposed to do?

I never said he isn't in control. And Comey wasn't just "Appointed" he had to be approved by both houses of congress. So he's a Republican that was approved by a very Republican congress. Also, the directors of agencies can still act independently from the President. They don't have to ask him about everything little decision. That would be horribly inefficient. 

[DutchTexan]

1 minute ago, ThomasD said:

Your question (while certainly valid) really was not my concern. 

 

I just wished to correct the misconception that the FBI is somehow independent of the President.

Must have quoted or directed the latter part of my comment incorrectly.

 

I think we are on the same team here

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

Again, do you understand that a president can never be guilty of a crime? A president cannot be tried in court. They must be impeached first to enter a courtroom. Therefore, there is and never will be a simple 'this' = impeachment.

I know it works. If he were impeached what would he show up to a courtroom for?

[ThomasD]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

I don't need to read shit. If you pull garbage out of your ass, follow it through. What was he at risk of getting impeached for that he didn't stop Comey from investigating her emails?

I never brought up the issue of Hillary or her emails.  That was the other guy who did that. 

 

That you consider a formal report from the US Judiciary Committee "garbage" out of my ass says more about you than I need to know to end this discussion.

[DutchTexan]

Just now, ivan134 said:

I know it works. If he were impeached what would he show up to a courtroom for?

Personally, I think there are many reasons, but I think I am following the conversation incorrectly.

[2FA]

16 minutes ago, ThomasD said:

Again, I'm getting the impression that you really do not understand the fundamental nature of our government.

 

You do know that there is no real legal standard for impeachment?  That impeachment is purely a political question?

 

Because the Constitution provides no definition for "high crimes and misdemeanors."  It means whatever the House and Senate can agree it means.

 

Edit:  Given the pace of your reply it is clear you did not follow the link.  You really should - it is apropos to the discussion.

People in positions where they can be impeached cannot be directly arrested, that is to say accused of a crime by an officer due to criminal immunity in the case of the president. To impeach is to accuse the person of a crime such as Bill Clinton who was impeached for lying under oath. Once the person has been impeached, then further action can decided upon whether it simply be removed from office or prosecuted.

 

Essentially it is just an indictment but it is carried out by the legislature against a civil officer.

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, ThomasD said:

I never brought up the issue of Hillary or her emails.  That was the other guy who did that. 

 

That you consider a formal report from the US Judiciary Committee "garbage" out of my ass says more about you than I need to know to end this discussion.

Stop beating around the bush. You're claiming that he can tell the FBI director whether to pursue a case or not, but he didn't because he could be impeached. Are you even reading the shit you're typing?

[ThomasD]

2 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

People in positions where they can be impeached cannot be directly arrested,

 

Sort of.  If Joe Biden stabbed an innocent person to death in broad daylight he most certainly would be arrested and tried for murder in the jurisdiction of the crime.

 

But, until he was successfully impeached (which would be a separate matter) he would remain VP.

 

Not that it would ever happen that way, just that impeachment does extend to offenses that are not actual defined crimes.  IOW  the Constitution's prohibition on ex-post facto laws does not prevent impeachment for anything you may have done or failed to do.

[DutchTexan]

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Stop beating around the bush. You're claiming that he can tell the FBI director whether to pursue a case or not, but he didn't because he could be impeached. Are you even reading the shit you're typing?

I think you are confusing the fact that the FBI investigates shit and that the FBI can actually do something after they have investigated. That's where the whole 'independence' argument should go. Comey could have sad x, y and z should be prosecuted for x, y, and z. The problem is it would legally only be his personal opinion, as I understand it constitutionally.

[ThomasD]

6 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

Stop beating around the bush. You're claiming that he can tell the FBI director whether to pursue a case or not, but he didn't because he could be impeached. Are you even reading the shit you're typing?

I offered that as one possible alternative.  Off the top of my head.

 

You asked me to speculate, I did, and now you wish to pick and choose exactly which guess I need to substantiate?

 

Get over yourself.

[ThomasD]

1 minute ago, DutchTexan said:

I think you are confusing the fact that the FBI investigates shit and that the FBI can actually do something after they have investigated. That's where the whole 'independence' argument should go. Comey could have sad x, y and z should be prosecuted for x, y, and z. The problem is it would legally only be his personal opinion, as I understand it constitutionally.

Pretty much.  The FBI does not prosecute.  They make referrals to the DOJ and the DOJ decides whether or not to prosecute.

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

I think you are confusing the fact that the FBI investigates shit and that the FBI can actually do something after they have investigated. That's where the whole 'independence' argument should go. Comey could have sad x, y and z should be prosecuted for x, y, and z. The problem is it would legally only be his personal opinion, as I understand it constitutionally.

That's not what the issue is. @Hunter259 called out someone on his BS about how going after Russia is just liberals being bitter about losing by telling him that the reports of the hacking (again, I'm not saying the reports are correct or not because they haven't really shown us evidence) were done by the FBI and CIA which are both headed by Republicans right now. @ThomasD starts talking about how that doesn't matter since they both answer to Obama. When he was called out about why Obama didn't stop the investigations to Hillary's emails, he says it's because he doesn't want to be impeached. How does someone get impeached for exercising a power vested to him?

[DutchTexan]

12 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

I never said he isn't in control. And Comey wasn't just "Appointed" he had to be approved by both houses of congress. So he's a Republican that was approved by a very Republican congress. Also, the directors of agencies can still act independently from the President. They don't have to ask him about everything little decision. That would be horribly inefficient. 

That is correct, but had Obama not appointed him, then step 2 doesn't really matter, does it?

 

The directors of agencies can act independent from the president, in theory. In reality, the work they do must report or be acted upon by individuals who Obama very much does have control over. Technically, or constitutionally, the president may or may not have control over them, depending on the situation. However, politically these mentioned 'supervisors' of the work done directors of agencies can very easily be controlled by the individual who is president, politically.

 

At the end of the day, the president has a lot more power over the executive branch than people are letting on here. After all, the president heads it...