Law Defining "high crimes and misdemeanors"

[Jack V Savage]

Hillary (and her team) was cleared based on a criteria that isnt used for common people who violate security protocols. That's just a fact; and stating it doesn't mean that I think she should be locked up.

No one has been criminally charged for what Clinton did in 100 years. What Republicans wanted to do was arrest a presidential candidate who was ahead in the polls on bullshit charges that no one else would face right before the election.

Did I say Trump didn't in this thread? I said that I expect the Senate to acquit and probably vote to censure him.

I think we agree that Republican senators will likely violate their oaths of office.

 

[zebby23]

At that time the Democrats controlled both House + Senate.

true. Doesn’t really alter my post or anything though. Dems needed Republican votes to remove

 

[Overtures]

This GOP Senator thinks the crux of the impeachment issue is whether or not what Trump did constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors:

How are they defined?

There are many cases for removal, high crimes and misdemeanors, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. Historically, High Crimes and Misdemeanors have not been defined from legal terms but are instead defined from what is and is not appropriate.

 

[Overtures]

S

 

[PainIsLIfe]

No one has been criminally charged for what Clinton did in 100 years. What Republicans wanted to do was arrest a presidential candidate who was ahead in the polls on bullshit charges that no one else would face right before the election.



I think we agree that Republican senators will likely violate their oaths of office.

Oh, so the 60 Minutes episode that said they found 105 people in jail for perjury was all bs? Maybe it really is all fake news LOL

Yes; yet oddly enough you'll never admit that Democrats did the same with Clinton in the 90s. Thats the biggest reason why you get called a hack by conservatives.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh, so the 60 Minutes episode that said they found 105 people in jail for perjury was all bs? Maybe it really is all fake news LOL

???

Yes; yet oddly enough you'll never admit that Democrats did the same with Clinton in the 90s. Thats the biggest reason why you get called a hack by conservatives.

I think that any decent, honest person will be called a hack by right-wing trolls in the WR.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

???



I think that any decent, honest person will be called a hack by right-wing trolls in the WR.

60 minutes aired an episode just after Clintons Senate acquittal that said that they had found 105 people currently in prison for perjury- you know the thing Clinton committed.

Hmmm? I've never called Pan, Johny Ringo, Rup, or Quipling hacks. Funny how that works.

 

[Jack V Savage]

60 minutes aired an episode just after Clintons Senate acquittal that said that they had found 105 people currently in prison for perjury- you know the thing Clinton committed.

Read the thread again.

Hmmm? I've never called Pan, Johny Ringo, Rup, or Quipling hacks. Funny how that works.

Pan is a former Republican elected official. He's identified on the left because he's smart and honest. Don't know JR. And, yeah, OK, two left-leaning posters I've heard of, one of whom is not American, don't get called "hacks" by you, though I'm sure they've been called hacks by others. Point remains that if one is simply committed to following truth where it leads, one will get on the bad side of the lesser posters (right-leaning and left-leaning).

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Read the thread again.



Pan is a former Republican elected official. He's identified on the left because he's smart and honest. Don't know JR. And, yeah, OK, two left-leaning posters I've heard of, one of whom is not American, don't get called "hacks" by you, though I'm sure they've been called hacks by others. Point remains that if one is simply committed to following truth where it leads, one will get on the bad side of the lesser posters (right-leaning and left-leaning).

You said no one had been criminally charged in 100 years for what Clinton did. You obviously are ignoring the perjury and pretending he was impeached for a blow job.

Hmm? I made no mention of political views - you referenced that any honest and decent poster would be called a hack. Those are all posters that I find to be decent and honest even when we dont agree.

I only mention Pan because we had a disagreement recently about rule of law, not because I consider him left - although IMO he's leaning a little more left recently that the centrist I used to perceive him to be.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You said no one had been criminally charged in 100 years for what Clinton did. You obviously are ignoring the perjury and pretending he was impeached for a blow job.

Facepalm. You didn't re-read.

Hmm? I made no mention of political views - you referenced that any honest and decent poster would be called a hack. Those are all posters that I find to be decent and honest even when we dont agree.

None of this is responsive to my point. Any decent, honest, reasonable person will piss off the lesser posters here.

 

[Last Samurai]

true. Doesn’t really alter my post or anything though. Dems needed Republican votes to remove

It was still possible in those days because some politicians had a conscience

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Facepalm. You didn't re-read.



None of this is responsive to my point. Any decent, honest, reasonable person will piss off the lesser posters here.

If you have something to say then say it. Why would I re-read the entire thread when I've reiterated your relevant post.

And yet I listed 4 decent, honest, reasonable posters that have never pissed me off, even when we've disagreed on topics. Btw - I actually think the lesser posters attack peoples personal character and family, so....

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you have something to say then say it. Why would I re-read the entire thread when I've reiterated your relevant post.

Because you didn't.

And yet I listed 4 decent, honest, reasonable posters that have never pissed me off, even when we've disagreed on topics. Btw - I actually think the lesser posters attack peoples personal character and family, so....

Your character is low, though. "It's OK if I do something bad because I think someone else did something bad," is something you're supposed to learn is wrong when you're still a small child, and something you're supposed to teach your own children is wrong.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Because you didn't.



Your character is low, though. "It's OK if I do something bad because I think someone else did something bad," is something you're supposed to learn is wrong when you're still a small child, and something you're supposed to teach your own children is wrong.

Unless you think Clinton was impeached for some reason that he wasn't, then yes I did. What a hack.


You can't help yourself can you? Ok, you can have the last word - I won't respond - and everyone has your own post that proves my point. Honest and decent in deed.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jack V Savage]

Unless you think Clinton was impeached for some reason that he wasn't, then yes I did. What a hack.

Sigh. Why is it so hard for you to just re-read the exchange and admit that you messed up?

Here:

Hillary (and her team) was cleared based on a criteria that isnt used for common people who violate security protocols. That's just a fact; and stating it doesn't mean that I think she should be locked up.

No one has been criminally charged for what Clinton did in 100 years. What Republicans wanted to do was arrest a presidential candidate who was ahead in the polls on bullshit charges that no one else would face right before the election.

You can't help yourself can you? Ok, you can have the last word - I won't respond - and everyone has your own post that proves my point. Honest and decent in deed.

Yeah, so indecent of me to think that basic morality should be taught.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Sigh. Why is it so hard for you to just re-read the exchange and admit that you messed up?

Here:







Yeah, so indecent of me to think that basic morality should be taught.

My bad - I thought you were talking about Bill. Totally my fault.

100 year?:

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your...s-charges-for-submarine-photos-on-cell-phone/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kristian-saucier/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Saucier

 

[Jack V Savage]

My bad - I thought you were talking about Bill. Totally my fault.

Thanks for acknowledging, but I kept telling you to go back and read it. Hopefully that influences things going forward.

100 year?:

Yes, 100 years. Other people have been charged for different things. Every day, in fact, people are charged for different crimes.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Yes, 100 years. Other people have been charged for different things. Every day, in fact, people are charged for different crimes.

He was was charged with unlawful retention of classified documents and obstruction for destroying his phone. Sounds a lot like what Hillary did.

Further John Deutch had already agreed to a plea deal for mishandling classified information and was going to lose his security clearance until Bill Clinton pardoned him.

Lesser people are charged and actually go to prison for the same thing that Hillary did as well.

 

[Jack V Savage]

He was was charged with unlawful retention of classified documents and obstruction for destroying his phone. Sounds a lot like what Hillary did.

The knock on Clinton was that her private account was easier to hack than the SD account they wanted her to use. There was no wrongdoing connected to retaining documents that shouldn't have been retained or obstructing justice.

Lesser people are charged and actually go to prison for the same thing that Hillary did as well.

No they aren't. No one has been charged with just not being careful enough with documents for over a hundred years. The laws are designed to punish espionage, not to jail diplomats for being insufficiently tech-savvy.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

The knock on Clinton was that her private account was easier to hack than the SD account they wanted her to use. There was no wrongdoing connected to retaining documents that shouldn't have been retained or obstructing justice.



No they aren't. No one has been charged with just not being careful enough with documents for over a hundred years. The laws are designed to punish espionage, not to jail diplomats for being insufficiently tech-savvy.

I just posted 2 examples of people who mishandled classified documents without malicious intent and were charged.

The issue wasnt about her not being careful; she signed a NDA and it was read to her. She (and staff) knew it was illegal to copy info off the classified server. Nefarious intent or not.