Conservatives in Congress moving to impeach Rod Rosenstein (article)

[GIGObuster]

@Icarus

…is there even such a thing as “obstruction of justice” anymore, or did we just all agree that that is not thing anymore?

@Bricker

It’s not a thing when applied to the House; Constitutionally speaking, no Congressman may be charged criminally for commencing an impeachment, even if his motives were to disrupt the investigation.

I can say to Icarus that this is about example #3507 that show to all voters what a good number of republicans are up to nowadays. So there is not much the courts can do, but the voters should make the rascals know what is not proper by voting those rascals out.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@GIGObuster

I can say to Icarus that this is about example #3507 that show to all voters what a good number of republicans are up to nowadays. So there is not much the courts can do, but the voters should make the rascals know what is not proper by voting those rascals out.

Lord knows we in Meadows’s home district are trying–my wife is busy registering college students, and I’m working with teachers to organize for election day.

Of course we can’t urge any direct political action here. But if you’re interested in Meadows’s November opponent, he’s Phillip Price, and while he’s a long shot, he’s not a fantasy candidate. See what you think.

[Ashtura]

Publicity stunt. Nothing to see here. Move along

[Bryan_Ekers]

They’re just doing their part to push the “witch-hunt” narrative to where 50%+1 of the American voters believe it, allowing Trump to take steps to shut things down.

There was a time when I would have thought this unlikely to succeed, but the American voters have proven disappointing in recent years.

[Sherrerd]

@Bryan_Ekers

They’re just doing their part to push the “witch-hunt” narrative to where 50%+1 of the American voters believe it, allowing Trump to take steps to shut things down.

There was a time when I would have thought this unlikely to succeed, but the American voters have proven disappointing in recent years.

Well, 50% of any population falls below the average IQ.

But, yeah. Add racism to the low IQs, and you have a real recipe for assault on democracy.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

So tonight we have reports that the efforts to impeach Rosenstein have been put on hold due to “timing”.

From a secret recording made at a recent fundraiser, Congressman Devon Nunes had this to say about impeaching Rosenstein:

The Senate would have to drop everything they’re doing … and start with impeachment on Rosenstein. And then take the risk of not getting Kavanaugh confirmed. So it’s not a matter that any of us like Rosenstein. It’s a matter of, it’s a matter of timing.

and

I’ve said publicly Rosenstein deserves to be impeached…the question is the timing of it right before the election.

Nunes can also be heard on the tape stating that if a foreign government or entity working with a foreign government gave a campaign emails stolen from their opponent and the campaign then released them, that would be criminal.

So having a meeting to obtain said stolen emails would be conspiracy to commit a crime, right Mr. Nunes? Isn’t that criminal as well?

Oops.

[Bryan_Ekers]

The Biden Rule strikes again!

[elucidator]

I kinda admire the brazen timeline: we can’t fire Rosie until we get our guy on the Supremes, then we can make our move. Admire in that queasy, half-nauseous sort of way.

[galen_ubal]

Sure; they make sure they have a reliable majority on the Supreme Court, after which they can do pretty much whatever they want. Impeach Rosenstein, fire Mueller, and end all investigations. No Court relief - including on any future gerrymandering cases.

[Derleth]

@Sherrerd

Well, 50% of any population falls below the average IQ.

Not if you take “average” the way people who use IQ mean, as the percent of people who fall within one standard deviation of 100, such that approximately 68% of people are average.

The usual assumption, backed up by studies, is that intelligence is normally distributed, so the assumption of 68% of people being average is probably valid.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Derleth

Not if you take “average” the way people who use IQ mean, as the percent of people who fall within one standard deviation of 100, such that approximately 68% of people are average.

The usual assumption, backed up by studies, is that intelligence is normally distributed, so the assumption of 68% of people being average is probably valid.

I’m not sure this approach is statistically valid. Rather, one could say that small differences in IQ are meaningless i.e. a difference of 10 points is insignificant by any practical measure. Therefore the “average” cohort consists of everyone who ranges from 95 to 105. Since the standard deviation on IQ test is typically 15 points, the “average” cohort comprises 26.11% of the population, assuming normal distribution.

This assumes there is no significant difference between someone with a 95 IQ and someone with a 105 IQ. By your calculation using a full standard deviation, you would be assuming there is no difference between an 85 IQ and a 115 IQ (they would both be considered “average”) which I find improbable.