Lindsey Graham:Non-compliance w/House is impeachable

[_MeDotOrg]

Lindsey Graham stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and said in no uncertain terms that a President's refusal to comply with Congressional oversight was an impeachable offense.

Of course it was 1998, and he was talking about the Richard Nixon impeachment hearings.

I'm curious to see how Lindsey's thinking has 'evolved' over the years, but so far there is no comment from the Senator's office.

[_aussieguy55]

Can congress arrest someone for not appearing. How does that work?

[_subgenius]

Can congress arrest someone for not appearing. How does that work?

It doesn't work. Congress is not a law enforcement body. There have been moments in history (see teapot dome) but you would be hard pressed to see anything like that happen. Congress would need DoJ to enforce a legally passed citation (eg contempt order), but that seems unlikely given which branch the DoJ falls under.
Typical course is a civil case whereas the court can the order compliance, etc. (if Congress wins case).

the Supreme Court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,"

[_Bach]

So WTF?!!!!!

Why are all the liberals complaining like they have a hernia and no brain!????(. Probably because it’s true!

Tell your reps to impeach Trump! Just do it or shut the F__k up. God damn liberal indecision!!! No wonder progressives can never LEAD!! Just do it!

Jeeeeze, you’ld think every liberal in congress spent all day posting here! So embarrassing!

[_ajax18]

Can congress arrest someone for not appearing. How does that work?

No, the person must first fall on the ice, hit her head, and complain of double vision to be excused for not appearing before congress. What difference does it make now anyway?


How is it that destroying 55,000 emails and a private server that could have been used as evidence of putting classified US government information at risk to hackers not obstruction of justice? Or Bill Clinton meeting Obama's Attorney General Loretta Lynch to "talk about their grandchildren," (a.k.a. ask her to go easy on Hillary for doing this)? Where were the obstruction of justice charges then? The separate tiered justice system in this country based on which political party and ideology you endorse is disgusting.

[_canpakes]

How is it that destroying 55,000 emails ...

Oh, this number seems to be increasing now, for what reason? : )

[_MeDotOrg]

I wasn't sure how Lindsey Graham talking about impeachment in 1998 was connected to Loretta Lynch meeting Bill Clinton on the runway. Thanks for pointing out the connection.

[_EAllusion]

Ajax18 -

The emails erased by Clinton were allowed to be erased under the law. Clinton was given discretion to determine which ones were personal in nature by law. This law seems silly to me as well, but it is unambiguously the law. The server was wiped after it was done because that is standard practice everywhere and is also lawful.

Bill Clinton's tarmac meeting with Lynch didn't result in an obstruction charge because there is simply no way you can prove anything untoward occurred there. It's also highly unlikely anything untoward did because there are several implausible dots that have to be connected from there, starting with the absence of evidence that Lynch leaned on Comey that we should have had by now given what happened to Comey. The odd thing about this conspiracy theory I've never got is that if Clinton wanted to do this, he could've just made a private phone call instead of having a publicly observable meeting. It makes no sense.

But, for what it is worth, the right-wing media freak-out about it is why Comey, according to him, decided to violate DoJ policy and hold a press conference scolding Clinton while declining to charge her. That event almost certainly cost Clinton the election, so Bill Clinton's meeting ultimately caused Hillary to lose.

What's fascinating to me is these relative non-issues are causing you to go "what about this awful thing!?" while Donald Trump has been caught red-handed over and over and over doing much worse. If you cared about government corruption, if you really cared, shouldn't also you be outraged by Trump's behavior?

What Lindsey Graham is talking about there is how systematic refusal to cooperate with legitimate house oversight is grounds for impeachment. It was one of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Nixon that would've resulted in his conviction. This is what the Trump admin is systemically doing. Donald Trump has even explicitly said this is what his admin is systematically doing.

[_subgenius]

... That event almost certainly cost Clinton the election...

nope. The facts support that her poorly designed and poorly executed campaign lost her the election.

[_EAllusion]

... That event almost certainly cost Clinton the election...

nope. The facts support that her poorly designed and poorly executed campaign lost her the election.

Oh, I'm sure non-stop emails coverage that portrayed Clinton as if she were mired in the middle of Watergate triggered by that Comey scolding had nothing to do with the less than a % people she needed to win in a couple of states.

"Facts."