12
   

How much of the Mueller Report will be redacted? The official a2k forum pool!

 
 
tsarstepan
 
  4  
Reply Wed 24 Apr, 2019 07:47 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

farmerman wrote:
makfeasance, misfeasance, self-dealing,

What statute describes these crimes?

Or are these more imaginary crimes?

Quote:

mal·​fea·​sance | \ ˌmal-ˈfē-zᵊn(t)s
Definition of malfeasance

: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official
//The investigation has uncovered evidence of corporate malfeasance.

malfeasance
Emoluments Clause is a crime literally built into the US Constitution.


Self-dealing deals with fiduciary level crimes. Fiduciary crimes exist and are prosecutable (though I suspect they are rare birds in terms of being sole charges by themselves).
Quote:
Adjustment for Abuse of Position of Trust

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 provides for a two -level enhancement "if the defendant abused a position of public or private trust …," provided this abuse is not "included in the base offense level or specific offense characteristic." This is the main vehicle for varying a federal sentence because of misuse of a fiduciary relationship.


Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Apr, 2019 04:51 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

oralloy wrote:

farmerman wrote:
makfeasance, misfeasance, self-dealing,

What statute describes these crimes?

Or are these more imaginary crimes?

Quote:

mal·​fea·​sance | \ ˌmal-ˈfē-zᵊn(t)s
Definition of malfeasance

: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official
//The investigation has uncovered evidence of corporate malfeasance.

malfeasance
Emoluments Clause is a crime literally built into the US Constitution.


Self-dealing deals with fiduciary level crimes. Fiduciary crimes exist and are prosecutable (though I suspect they are rare birds in terms of being sole charges by themselves).
Quote:
Adjustment for Abuse of Position of Trust

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 provides for a two -level enhancement "if the defendant abused a position of public or private trust …," provided this abuse is not "included in the base offense level or specific offense characteristic." This is the main vehicle for varying a federal sentence because of misuse of a fiduciary relationship.




State one (and only one) specific thing the president did that is impeachable.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Thu 25 Apr, 2019 08:32 pm
@Brandon9000,
Kicking his dog is an impeachable offense if a simple majority in the house deems it as such. We would hope that the Senate would summarily dispense with such a charge, but the president would still have been impeached.

Neither of the individuals of whom you've asked this question needs to come up with a clearly criminal act that can be proven which is why Mueller's report provides all the ammo the Democrats need to impeach Trump.

Pelosi knows that in all probability she could have the president impeached. She has the necessary majority and could if she wanted, likely whip up the necessary votes to push it through.

She's not resisting the calls of the firebrands because she doesn't think she can prove an impeachable offense has been committed, she wouldn't have to. She's resisting because of the political implications of impeaching Trump.

She knows with 99.9999% certainty that the Senate would acquit him and the blowback against her and the Dems would be the same as it was against Gingrich and the GOP when they impeached Clinton.

It would be a very interesting matter if the Dems had the 2/3rds of the Senate necessary to convict the president, because there would be some political gain from removing the GOP's 2020 candidate from the race with only a few months to go before the election, but we'll never know how low the Dems are willing to go (in this case) because the votes are not there.
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2019 09:14 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Exactly right.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2019 11:30 am
Warren maintains it's prudent for the House to carry through impeachment proceedings, political ramifications aside, it's a duty.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2019 08:35 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Kicking his dog is an impeachable offense if a simple majority in the house deems it as such. We would hope that the Senate would summarily dispense with such a charge, but the president would still have been impeached.

Neither of the individuals of whom you've asked this question needs to come up with a clearly criminal act that can be proven which is why Mueller's report provides all the ammo the Democrats need to impeach Trump.

Pelosi knows that in all probability she could have the president impeached. She has the necessary majority and could if she wanted, likely whip up the necessary votes to push it through.

She's not resisting the calls of the firebrands because she doesn't think she can prove an impeachable offense has been committed, she wouldn't have to. She's resisting because of the political implications of impeaching Trump.

She knows with 99.9999% certainty that the Senate would acquit him and the blowback against her and the Dems would be the same as it was against Gingrich and the GOP when they impeached Clinton.

It would be a very interesting matter if the Dems had the 2/3rds of the Senate necessary to convict the president, because there would be some political gain from removing the GOP's 2020 candidate from the race with only a few months to go before the election, but we'll never know how low the Dems are willing to go (in this case) because the votes are not there.

My point is that anyone can accuse anyone of anything, but showing that it's true is something else.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2019 08:51 pm
@Brand X,
Warren is desperate to catch fire
Brand X
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 28 Apr, 2019 10:13 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
It is definitely a method to getting attention.

She knows it won't happen, even Schiff was on Bill Maher's show waffling all over the stage.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 29 Apr, 2019 10:34 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
She knows with 99.9999% certainty that the Senate would acquit him and the blowback against her and the Dems would be the same as it was against Gingrich and the GOP when they impeached Clinton.

I was paying pretty close attention at the time, and I never noticed any blowback.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 29 Apr, 2019 10:35 pm
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:
Warren maintains it's prudent for the House to carry through impeachment proceedings, political ramifications aside, it's a duty.

Outlawing the Democratic Party in America will put an end to these witch hunts.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 10:20:53