Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: The new Director of National Intelligence

  1. #31
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    There's a memo from the 90s in which Clinton's AG at the time wrote that the president couldn't be charged by the DoJ with a crime. This was during the Lewinsky scandal.

    Charges are brought by US Attorneys for federal crimes. They're appointed by the President, as is the Attorney General.

    The memo isn't law, it's a legal opinion. But I suppose as long as AGs continue to stick to that opinion, their subordinates in the executive branch are duty-bound to obey it. After all, the AG is their boss and can quash charges and end investigations for any reason.

    State and district attorneys are free to file charges though. As happened with Spiro Agnew, Nixon's VP, who was charged by the State of Maryland on corruption charges.
    Yeah but Clinton was half impeached though. Can't charge him then there are other ways to boot the president out.

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,454
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Thank you, that's exactly the kind of incisive assessment I was hoping for.

    Another question, if you don't mind: Regarding Trump's ongoing willingness to whore himself out as a willing useful idiot, and considering the very good possibility that he will indeed get reelected....Do you see U.S. allies less willing to engage with the US when there is a likelihood of Trump either knowingly or unknowingly spewing secrets out to the world?
    We, allies, don't really have a choice. None of us, even combined, have the CPU power, the databases, and the co-ordination of the US and if we want to reach outside of our national borders to effect our intel, the US has to piggyback us if only in a supporting role. Note any major terrorist attacks, we readily accept FBI help.

    That means our intel must feed into American intel in order to maximize their effects. Trump or no Trump, that is not about to change.

  3. #33
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Yeah but Clinton was half impeached though. Can't charge him then there are other ways to boot the president out.
    He was fully impeached by the House. He wasn't convicted by the Senate in the trial. There's no such thing as a half-impeachment. If the House of Representatives votes by simply majority to impeach an executive branch elected official or presidential appointee, they have been impeached.

    Impeachment in the US is simply the equivalent of charges being filed. The penalty if convicted is removal from office.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 02 Aug 19, at 00:38.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  4. #34
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Yeah but Clinton was half impeached though. Can't charge him then there are other ways to boot the president out.
    If an Attorney General were to allow a President to be charged, that President can be charged if there's a US Attorney willing to bring charges. Considering the President is the boss of both the Attorney General and the US Attorneys, as they are his hand-selected appointees, there would be a Constitutional crisis if this were to occur. A President is free to keep firing Attorney Generals and US Attorneys until the charges were to be withdrawn by a more pliable appointee. The whole mess would get tied up in Supreme Court hearings as well.

    Nixon initially went this route and kept firing appointees who turned against him, until his last ounce of his political capital was spent. Then he voluntarily resigned. He could have found a way to stay in office, potentially all the way until 1977, but besieged on all sides with zero political capital.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 02 Aug 19, at 00:55.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  5. #35
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    He was fully impeached by the House. He wasn't convicted by the Senate in the trial. There's no such thing as a half-impeachment.
    Couldn't think of a better way to describe what you said. Anyway, that was a partisan shit show and at least the upper house kept its wits.

    If the House of Representatives votes by simply majority to impeach an executive branch elected official or presidential appointee, they have been impeached.

    Impeachment in the US is simply the equivalent of charges being filed. The penalty if convicted is removal from office.
    Well, way i understand impeach is he's gone. Clinton completed his term.

  6. #36
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    If an Attorney General were to allow a President to be charged, that President can be charged if there's a US Attorney willing to bring charges. Considering the President is the boss of both the Attorney General and the US Attorneys, as they are his hand-selected appointees, there would be a Constitutional crisis if this were to occur. A President is free to keep firing Attorney Generals and US Attorneys until the charges were to be withdrawn by a more pliable appointee. The whole mess would get tied up in Supreme Court hearings as well.
    I suppose this is to protect from any entities going against the will of the electorate. Its a defense mechanism against becoming a dictatorship

    Nixon initially went this route and kept firing appointees who turned against him, until his last ounce of his political capital was spent. Then he voluntarily resigned. He could have found a way to stay in office, potentially all the way until 1977, but besieged on all sides with zero political capital.
    System won. I bet it still can again if needed.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Aug 19, at 01:37.

  7. #37
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Well, way i understand impeach is he's gone. Clinton completed his term.
    That's not what it is. I don't think impeachment means removal from office in any jurisdiction. It's just the beginning step. Nothing more.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  8. #38
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,747
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    heh, where is it wrong ? nah, you just disagree

    Went on what you said. If that is wrong then what you said is wrong.

    No, I don't intend to read the report. What for.

    There is no basis to charge him and that is all that counts.
    I will not waste my time discussing the report with someone who can't be bothered to read it. Pointless.

  9. #39
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    That's not what it is. I don't think impeachment means removal from office in any jurisdiction. It's just the beginning step. Nothing more.
    Wiki agrees

    Such a loud noise is made about that word i thought it meant more. Trump should be impeached etc, this refrain has been constant.

    But yes, impeach and then removal if upper house is so moved.

    What threw me is this topic came up before and astralis said not by the upper house. True.

    So what good is it then. He completes his term, he has this impeachment process on his record.

    Clinton was not hindered in any way from performing his duties otherwise was he. What's disturbing is since Clinton every President has had some attempt to impeach them right up and including Trump.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac..._Park_Geun-hye

    In S.Korea an impeachment implies removal from office.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 02 Aug 19, at 14:57.

  10. #40
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Wiki agrees

    Such a loud noise is made about that word i thought it meant more. Trump should be impeached etc, this refrain has been constant.

    But yes, impeach and then removal if upper house is so moved.

    What threw me is this topic came up before and astralis said not by the upper house. True.

    So what good is it then. He completes his term, he has this impeachment process on his record.

    Clinton was not hindered in any way from performing his duties otherwise was he. What's disturbing is since Clinton every President has had some attempt to impeach them right up and including Trump.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac..._Park_Geun-hye

    In S.Korea an impeachment implies removal from office.
    It looks as if in South Korea the National Assembly has the constitutional power to impeach and temporarily suspend the South Korean president's powers. The US House can't suspend the president's powers.

    Nonetheless, the high court had a vote on Park's impeachment, only after which was Park removed from office. If the vote had gone the other way, Park would have remained as president. So even in South Korea, impeachment isn't removal from office. Park had to be convicted by the judges of the Constitutional Court of Korea for the removal to take place. Which would generally be the equivalent of a conviction of a US President by our Senate.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Director Comey fired
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 454
    Last Post: 02 Sep 19,, 08:49
  2. Canadian Intelligence Director Repeats Claims of Foreign Influence
    By xinhui in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07 Jul 10,, 15:22
  3. A Chat With ISAF's Director Of Intelligence
    By S2 in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Nov 09,, 16:57

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •