Secret CIA source claims Russia rigged 2016 election

You are correct. The Marshal of the Supreme Court is Rusty the Bailiff with some payroll duties.

And the best illustration of impeachment as a political thing, and not a legal thing, is the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

Oh, and by the way, if you needed any more proof that magnet is right and Louise Mensch is an idiot who only hooks in the most sadly gullible of followers to believe her nonsense: the folks making fun of her are actual lawyers familiar with constitutional and federal law. Just sayin’.

Did you look at the link I posted above? Emphasis mine. That’s from senate.gov

The impeachment process may be triggered by non-Members, such as when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests that the House may wish to consider impeachment of a federal judge,4 where an Independent Counsel advises the House of any substantial and credible information which he or she believes might constitute grounds for impeachment,5 by message from the President,6 by a charge from a State or territorial legislature or grand jury,7 or, finally, by petition.8

Yes, I did look at it. Those are all the things in the past that happened to provoke impeachment proceedings. Keep in mind that a lot of people have been impeached in the House, not just Presidents.

And as you may have gleaned from that same document, there is no official route from any of those events to impeachment. All it takes is for a representative to read the morning news (“Grand jury indicts federal judge!”), say to himself “Huh, I never liked that fellow!”, and then submit a motion to impeach the federal official who got his attention.

At this point, it may be helpful to review the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors to understand how arbitrary it really is.

Yes. And it doesn’t say what you desperately are wishing it said.

I’m sorry you’re buying into this. You really, really shouldn’t.

Grand juries do not consider impeachment of US Presidents. Period.

Yup, I do get that. That’s why I said before it doesn’t mean a damned thing. However, you guys called her a crackpot (which may well be true) but haven’t really provided evidence beyond ad hominem.

@triggercut I’m not buying it, just playing devil’s advocate. It’s listed in that document as a potential way for it to be initiated. You say it can’t happen.

(What you mean to say…)

Great. Go find a less annoying hobby.

Didn’t say that and don’t appreciate it. Please edit. Thanks.

This is going nowhere, though, clearly. Sorry for the annoyance.

Nah, you’ve wasted enough of our time tonight being willfully ignorant.

And here I thought lessons were learned from the election.

We are criticizing Mensch because she clearly doesn’t understand the impeachment process.

If Mensch reported that Putin officially notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment against him was begun, and furthermore that Trump would not be allowed to turn on the White House air conditioning system during this investigation, then you should rightly be skeptical. Mensch didn’t say that, but what she said was equally implausible.

Ok, I was just trying to understand the technicalities of it, I.e. Why it is implausible, but that seems to have been a mistake. Appreciate your input.

It’s implausible because the SCOTUS does not get involved in impeachment until the very end, and the president always has the power to pardon anyone.

Mensch did not mention a grand jury in the tweet we are mocking. However, you raised the possibility of a link between grand jury and impeachment, and of course it’s possible that a grand jury indictment could provoke someone in the House into proposing impeachment. Or maybe they would blow it off, since after all the GOP still controls the House and they aren’t obligated to do squat.

Either way, speculation about how the House might respond to that hypothetical scenario is not news. And if it does happen, it won’t be a secret. Do you remember the Clinton impeachment? It was long, drawn out, and every single step was highly publicized. Expect no differences here.

Not to mention ridiculous. That’s what really chafes…how the GOP (as a whole) ignores everything Trump does when they would have been screaming bloody murder if it had been a democrat blabbing Intel to Russians, etc.

The Supreme Court has literally no hand in anything to do with impeachment.

Hell, the only thing they’ve said about impeachments is that it’s something federal courts can’t even review.

Flynn may plead the 5th.

I mean… I assumed that’s all he would do.

Yep. He didn’t get a deal for immunity, after all.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn will invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination as he notifies a Senate panel that he won’t hand over documents in the probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election

Is this actually legal?

I mean, the 5th amendment says you do not need to incriminate yourself… but in terms of subpoenaed documents, don’t you HAVE to provide them? I mean, at that point you aren’t incriminating yourself, you’re merely allowing the justice system to acquire evidence… certainly if you destroyed it, you’d go to jail for destroying evidence.

Is it about how it gets into their hands? Like, do the FBI agents have to raid his house and TAKE it?

In terms of the senate subpoena power, yes I think he can withhold them. The senate can hold him in contempt, but it’s not part of the “justice system”. The senate hearing isn’t formally part of a criminal investigation.