Much of the frustration we see from Merneith (and Czarcasm and others) is they don’t want to hear “your legal case doesn’t have a leg to stand on no matter what The Atlantic says, and the GOP controls Congress”. They want to be told that they’re right.
It’s comforting to have everyone inside your bubble agree with you. It is very discomforting to have someone come and pop the bubble and disagree. Especially when you can’t come up with a refutation of the disagreement.
Merneith is dealing with it by simply issuing insults, in hopes he can either drive Bricker away, or reduce him to insulting back so Merneith can change the topic to trading insults. Bricker won’t do that - he has class.
Snark, insults in response, mockery, and mean-spirited condescension are for those of lesser moral character. Like me.
But my question to you is still unanswered. You’re clearly just saying, “Bricker’s an asshole.” I’m asking if part of your mind lets itself wonder why that’s all the rebuttal you have, why you’re not marshalling fact-based responses instead of just insults.
I mean, the thought has to occur, because you can read my words asking it. What happens after that, in your mind? Do you examine it, wonder if it’s true? DO you just sort of shut it aside and not let yourself think about it? What happens?
You’re being an asshole. If you can’t stand the idea of someone explaining a legal concept to people who are trying to understand it, then just butt the fuck out.
If Comey believed he was hearing a corrupt motive, then he was required to report it. 18 U.S. Code § 4: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
So far as I am aware, he made no such report. So his notes will (I assume) bear out that he did not believe he was hearing obstruction of justice, or they will show he did but for some reason did not report it.
I wish I had always been so deserving of this accolade.
But my question is a genuine one: what happens in someone’s thoughts? Is there a genuine flicker of fear that they’re exposed? Or do they just push it down and not let themselves think about it?
There are plenty of people on this board I wouldn’t ask, because frankly I would doubt they had the introspective interest in exploring that.
But I’ve read from Merneith in the past words that make me think there’s an interest in introspection there. So I’m taking a shot.
Bricker, Assuming that there has been no crime committed, where’s the line that Trump would have to cross in his (legal) behavior, to consider impeachment? Is there a line, or is it really a case of where he *has *to commit an actual criminal offense before impeachment can be considered?
For an extreme example, I think it would be legal for Trump to order a first nuclear strike against North Korea, either to protect the US from a hypothetical future attack, or even if Kim Jong insulted his hair. Should Trump be impeached for this? Only if he gave the 2nd reason? Or not at all?
Is it possible to impeach if he does not break the law? If so, where is the line?
At the risk of speaking for Bricker (though he has solicited assistant Brickers in past threads), I don’t think Bricker denies that a president can (theoretically) be impeached for anything, even wearing an unflattering tie, just that the PRECEDENT has been to name a formal breach of legal code as part of articles of impeachment.
But he did send the memos to his colleagues in the FBI and justice department. He’s at the top of the FBI, so there is no one there for him to report to, and if he is reporting on corruption of the administration, he cannot report there either. My understanding is that these memos went to other directors of the FBI and other peers in the justice dept. Would that not be enough to be considered a report?
It’s hard socially to be wrong, as there are quite a number of people who like to rub your (royal you [and you you]) nose in it anytime it happens, but I love to be wrong, because it means I learned something new.
As Lawrence Krauss says (paraphrase), “The best thing for a physicist is to be either wrong or confused, and I must say that I am fortunate that I am usually both.”
Fair enough. I’ll ask you then… does this precedent mean that the president MUST have committed a formal breach of legal code before impeachment proceedings can begin? If the answer is “no, it’s just a precedent, not a command”, then again… where is the line for impeachment due to legal behaviour? If (legal) obstruction of an investigation into the president’s own dealings with a foreign power does not cut it… What will?
Let’s be clear here: better lawyers than Bricker say that Trumps’ actions are impeachable. (That’s not an insult to Bricker, it’s just a statement of fact). For example, Professor Tribe, a Harvard professor of constitutional law (3 things which Bricker is not), says “But in Nixon’s case, the list of actions that together were deemed to constitute impeachable obstruction reads like a forecast of what Trump would do decades later — making misleading statements to, or withholding material evidence from, federal investigators or other federal employees; trying to interfere with FBI or congressional investigations; trying to break through the FBI’s shield surrounding ongoing criminal investigations; dangling carrots in front of people who might otherwise pose trouble for one’s hold on power.”
Bricker is saying there’s no political will to impeach a President who hasn’t committed a crime. But that’s not a legal claim, that’s an opinion masked as a legal claim. You know how Bricker deliberately misinterprets statements of opinion as statements of law, and argues against them on that basis? Well, he’s doing precisely the same thing, from the opposite side, right now…
Obviously, the political will to go forward without cover of a specific legal breach. “High crimes and misdemeanors” are not officially defined, but I imagine that a president could challenge the legality of an impeachment if there’s no defined crime on the books, and if that goes to the Supreme Court and they lose, they’ll look like chumps, and be stuck with a president now antagonistic toward them. Watch the vetoes fly!
Honestly, I’m surprised the congressional Republicans seem so reluctant to go forward with such a thing (i.e., an investigation the could lead to impeachment in the general sense, not reluctance to do it without a broken law they can cite). Sure, in the short term, it will look like a Democratic victory they can crow about, but in the long term, Pence is a much more reliable and effective ally for their agenda, and they’ll be able to sell that to their voter bases. Heck, a willingness to ally with Democrats to dump a president of their own party could play well to centrists, if they’re careful about just how much of a right-wing agenda they and President Pence pass.
Come on man! You actually think that Bricker is making a legal argument about what is required for impeachment and not simply his opinion on what he feels will cause the House to impeach the President? Can you not read or what?
I actually like to learn new information by reading this board. And seeing people asking the same fucking question over and over again is really annoying :mad:
It’s sarcasm combined with an allusion. Sarcasm is a literary device in which something has a contrary connotation from the literal reading of the text. An allusion is a literary device which connects two otherwise-unrelated concepts.
Perhaps if you had studied harder in college you would recall such things. You’re kind of slow for a lawyer. Have you considered going into politics?
We can’t know for sure, but I’d be floored if the SCOTUS would take up a challenge to an impeachment. The constitution is clear that it’s a matter for the Congress and Congress alone.
