I have to disagree. The power of the House to impeach and the power of the Senate to convict are not unlimited. The Constitution is quite clear. Article II, Section 4 reads "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
They cannot remove a President for any old thing... they have a great deal of leeway but at the end of the day there are only three reasons: 1)Treason 2)Bribery and 3)high Crimes and Misdemeanors. So there MUST be a crime. With Clinton the argument was that the bar was even higher... but that is subjective. They are in control of what they consider a "high crime" but they can't remove the POTUS with out SOME crime.
We seem to agree on some things. Even if practically there's nothing to stop them, there are guidelines provided by the constitution that must be followed for the government to remain legitimate. Now as far as crimes go; does something which is obviously a gross abuse of power count as high crime and misdemeanor even if no law explicitly declares it to be? I'm not a lawyer but I think there are crimes acknowledged as such from common law even if no bill was passed and ratified. But whatever it is, it should be on par with treason or bribery.
Let's not forget comey shitted the case
I don't remember who/what decided to follow comey's recommendations, but the law is clear, you don't need intent in the case of clinton, and comey made it about intent, he fucked the case on purpose, it's illegal what happened
Look, the hypocrisy
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-clinton-grassley/index.html
>Instead, Comey ended up criticizing Clinton's conduct as "extremely careless," but said no reasonable prosecutor would pursue charges based on the evidence. "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said in July.
AND HERE IS THE CATCH
INTENT ISN'T REQUIRED FOR SANCTIONS TO FALL
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
>(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
It's clear, intent isn't required, "gross negligence" alone is enough
And how did comey qualify clinton's action? As "extremely careless"
"gross negligence" == "extremely careless" OF COURSE
I mean fuck, it's a joke, it's not the exact same words but it's the same result/meaning, she should have been charged, it's the law
Intent ins't even required
(post is archived)