Pelosi: Trump isn’t worth impeachment

[fskimospy]

Sounds like a bunch of hearsay by a known liar, Cohen.

The definition of hearsay is someone speaking to facts they were not present for. For example if I said "slowspyder told me X happened" X having happened would be hearsay. Cohen is testifying to events he personally witnessed and participated in. It is not hearsay. Furthermore, if SDNY did not have additional corroborating evidence they couldn't have charged Cohen to begin with and they most certainly wouldn't accuse the president of committing a crime without corroboration.

So again, nonpartisan, career federal prosecutors are willing to state in official filings to a federal court that Trump committed a felony. Does that merit impeachment in your mind? If not, why?

 

[fskimospy]

Cohen is a known liar, I wouldn't make any conclusion off of what he's said.

lol, says the Trump supporter.

Certainly we can all agree that if there is strong enough evidence against Trump, we'll see charges brought, right? So far we're years into an investigation and there is no evidence of collusion and no charges.

It is the current opinion of the DOJ that charges cannot be brought against the president. Even though I think this is wrong, this is almost certainly why Trump was not indicted as well, considering SDNY came straight out and said Trump committed at least one felony.

As for 'no evidence of collusion' we literally have the president's son in black and white colluding with the Russian government on behalf of the campaign. I am baffled as to why you continue to lie about there being no evidence of collusion. Why the lies?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Cohen is a known liar, I wouldn't make any conclusion off of what he's said.

We can actually make some conclusions about what he said. He said two basically contradictory things, Trump is not guilty of certain crimes, and Trump is guilty of certain crimes. We can determine right away that one of those two statements are true and the other false. So now we need to give the statements a weighted odds of being true. By themselves and with no context we have no real way to decide, but lucky for us there is a huge amount of context we can draw on to make this decision. For example Cohen himself has been found guilty of participating in some of these crimes, so we know at least that the crimes were committed. Then we know that Trump has a whole lot of people around him that are being convicted of similar crimes. Then we have a whole slew of other, often circumstantial, evidence of crimes around the President, which by themselves would not make a very convincing argument but when added together, and to the statements Cohen made and the other crimes we are seeing other people in Trumps circle being convicted of do add up to some convincing evidence. Sure, no one thing is a smoking gun, but this is not a Perry Mason show. Real life rarely has that one damning piece of evidence. In real life cases are made up of lots of little pieces, and Trump is awash in a sea of it.

Certainly we can all agree that if there is strong enough evidence against Trump, we'll see charges brought, right? So far we're years into an investigation and there is no evidence of collusion and no charges.

We don't know if there is any evidence or not, because the investigation is still ongoing so the evidence, if there is any, has not been released yet. Charges come after the investigation.

 

[fskimospy]

The reason why we know it is overwhelmingly likely to be true are pretty simple.

1) of SDNY couldn’t prove the underlying charge it’s unlikely Cohen would have pleaded guilty to it.

2) Trump is on tape discussing the payment with Cohen and made numerous secret payments to Cohen.

3) Trump has lied repeatedly about this issue already.

4) there is no fucking way federal prosecutors officially implicate the president in a crime unless they have the goods.

This is simply slow’s emotional reasoning at work again. If it’s good for Trump it’s true. If it’s bad for him it’s a lie.

 

[Zorba]

Yeah unless the subject of investigations is a Democrat. There is no limit to how many times you can investigate a filthy Democrat and even after all the investigations turn up nothing they should still be locked up for being a filthy Democrat.

There are multiple investigations of Trump on going too. But Hillary was never tried and I don't know of any further investigations into Bill after impeachment. So your statement isn't really applicable.

I want Trump gone, but I think pushing a failed impeachment will only embolden him and hurt the continuation of investigations.

 

[dank69]

There are multiple investigations of Trump on going too. But Hillary was never tried and I don't know of any further investigations into Bill after impeachment. So your statement isn't really applicable.

I want Trump gone, but I think pushing a failed impeachment will only embolden him and hurt the continuation of investigations.

I agree, but Nancy should have said that instead of giving Americans a talking point they can add to their huge pile of reasons to hate Democrats.

 

[HomerJS]

I agree. AOC'S base hasn't realized she's a con. But she is

Because she's lied about.....???

 

[Zorba]

I agree, but Nancy should have said that instead of giving Americans a talking point they can add to their huge pile of reasons to hate Democrats.

I agree. I like Nancy, but she has given republicans some good BS talking points over the years.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It is inexcusable for Pelosi not to pursue inpeachment, motivated by political opportunism, if there is compelling evidence to do so.

 

[Jhhnn]

Cohen is a known liar, I wouldn't make any conclusion off of what he's said.

Certainly we can all agree that if there is strong enough evidence against Trump, we'll see charges brought, right? So far we're years into an investigation and there is no evidence of collusion and no charges.

If Trump weren't Prez he'd be under indictment as we type.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is inexcusable for Pelosi not to pursue inpeachment, motivated by political opportunism, if there is compelling evidence to do so.

There's no point if the evidence isn't sufficiently compelling for the Senate to remove Trump from office. Which is what Pelosi said in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

There's no point if the evidence isn't sufficiently compelling for the Senate to remove Trump from office. Which is what Pelosi said in the first place.

That's not what she said.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sounds like a bunch of hearsay by a known liar, Cohen.

If it were hearsay it would be legally inadmissible in any court. So up front "sounds like" is factually wrong and you don't get to define reality. You have had this explained to you and charges are brought in such cases with sufficient evidence outside of Cohen. That's another unfortunate reality.

In short your premise is the opposite of factual and at the end of it all it was found that Trump participated in a felony. If the evidence was sufficient to condemn Cohen it was for Trump as well. Unfortunately policy, not evidence, law or regulation shields Trump from prosecution, for now, but that may change.

 

[blackangst1]

Because she's lied about.....???

I never said she lied. Her con is the new green deal. People actually think accomplishing all those things in 10 years is a great thing. Of course most of her ideas aren't new, and have value, but as she's laid it out it's a joke.

 

[blackangst1]

That's not what she said.

She did.

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” she added.

 

[HomerJS]

I never said she lied. Her con is the new green deal. People actually think accomplishing all those things in 10 years is a great thing. Of course most of her ideas aren't new, and have value, but as she's laid it out it's a joke.

It's a goal not a bill. People probably said the same thing when JFK made a goal of landing on the moon and returning to earth in a decade.

I'm not on board with all of it but there are parts worthy of pursuing.

 

[HomerJS]

She did.

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” she added.

She also learned from Clinton. Back then Gingrich impeached Clinton because he could not because he was opposed to Clinton lying under oath about a blowjob. That was a quote

 

[fskimospy]

She did.

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” she added.

Hmm yes, you're right. I misread Jhnnn's post, my mistake! Regardless, my point was that she definitely left the door open for impeachment, just that she wanted it on serious charges. I mean we already have at least a handful of felonies with more likely to come so that part we'll have.

I think we can all agree that's a good thing because, serious question, if Trump isn't worthy of impeachment are we simply acknowledging that the power for all intents and purposes will never be used?

 

[blackangst1]

It's a goal not a bill. People probably said the same thing when JFK made a goal of landing on the moon and returning to earth in a decade.

I'm not on board with all of it but there are parts worthy of pursuing.

That's what I said lol

 

[blackangst1]

She also learned from Clinton. Back then Gingrich impeached Clinton because he could not because he was opposed to Clinton lying under oath about a blowjob. That was a quote

What other things are ok to lie about under oath?

 

[soundforbjt]

What other things are ok to lie about under oath?

In the Trump administration, apparently nothing's off limits.

 

[Starbuck1975]

There's no point if the evidence isn't sufficiently compelling for the Senate to remove Trump from office. Which is what Pelosi said in the first place.

The point is for her to perform her Constitutional duty independent of political implications.

 

[Starbuck1975]

She also learned from Clinton. Back then Gingrich impeached Clinton because he could not because he was opposed to Clinton lying under oath about a blowjob. That was a quote

Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.

 

[soundforbjt]

The point is for her to perform her Constitutional duty independent of political implications.

She's still got plenty of time to do it. Is there a time limit I'm not aware of?

 

[Indus]

The point is for her to perform her Constitutional duty independent of political implications.

I was having this discussion with my wife and she was like.. they won't impeach till after Trump loses re-election and then they'll do it really fast because Trump will refuse to leave the White House in the name of keeping the country unified.