than you Billy

?

Bill Clinton's impeachment case

Welcome, <@!248602935330603008>.

they ruled that perjury isn't enough of an offense to be impeachmment over

found it, the Samuel Chase impeachment trial

I was referring to Judges being removed/impeached for abiding to political influence

They are not suppose to be political in any way.

That's why they have the terms they have.

basically Samuel Chase was tried for ruling with political bais

Ohhh

I see now

He was the CJ for the Clinton trial

?

I honestly don't know who the CJ was at that time.

CJ?

Chief Justice.

no gods no, Samuel Chase was a Jefferson era judge

https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached

yeah that guy

I spent ages combing through old records reading up on that case

William Rehnquist...He was CJ

yeah

During the Clinton Impeachment trial

sorry if I got confusing trying to info dump before work

overall the chase impeachment trials kinda make it hard to remove judges for political bias

Seems to me that in the Chase case, political bias wouldn't count under "high crimes and misdemeanors" and wasn't an "indictable offense".

Ideally, though, judges should be impartial...

Though I'm definitely not a lawyer just like legal smackdowns

Flynn did a doozy a few days ago

I honestly didn't keep up with it. What was the doozy?

The response just hammered the Amicus

Just read through the Case impeachment trial... yeah that doesn't just suck, it's actually scary.

And then cited the same judge that wrote it as to why everything should be dropped

I'll give this a read...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-and-justice-department-respond-court-appointed-amicus

Still though, a Judge cannot use a prosecutor to give an anecdotal backlash and most certainly cannot ACT as a prosecutor. These 2 things are now textbook illegal and go into indictment territory. This Judge Sullivan is playing with fire.

The former of what I mentioned was ruled into law by the Surpreme Court about a month ago.

it's in the conclusion

I would love to see the DoJ actually go after Judge Sullivan with indictments 🤣

They have sufficient public record to do it.

A federal judge once wrote:
[A] prosecutor can do justice by the simple act of going back
into court and agreeing that justice should be done. * * *
It is easy to be a tough prosecutor. Prosecutors are almost
never criticized for being aggressive, or for fighting hard to
obtain the maximum sentence, or for saying "there's
nothing we can do" about an excessive sentence after all
avenues of judicial relief have been exhausted. Doing
justice can be much harder. It takes time and involves
work, including careful consideration of the circumstances
of particular crimes, defendants, and victims—and often
the relevant events occurred in the distant past. It requires
a willingness to make hard decisions, including some that
will be criticized.
This case is a perfect example. * * *
By contrast, the decision []he has made required
considerable work. Assistant United States Attorney . . .
had to retrieve and examine a[n] . . . old case file. . . . He
requested and obtained an adjournment so his office could
have the time necessary to make an extremely important
decision. United States Attorneys' offices work with limited
resources. The effort that went into deciding whether to
agree to vacate [two counts against defendant] could have
been devoted to other cases. * * *
This is a significant case, and not just for [the defendant].
It demonstrates the difference between a Department of
Prosecutions and a Department of Justice. It shows how
the Department of Justice, as the government's
representative in every federal criminal case, has the
power to walk into courtrooms and ask judges to remedy
injustices.