Why We're Moving Forward With Impeachment

[Hayabusa Rider]

Whenever the next Democrat POTUS is elected, I'll bet the Repubs are gonna harass the shit out of him or her.

Yeah they'll do stupid stuff like say he's a secret Muslim born in Kenya... wait..

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I hope so.

If he or she is a Trump they should.

 

[fskimospy]

Start 6 congressional investigations like they did with Trump. I mean, why not?

The Republicans did way more than that with Obama and he was squeaky clean. In contrast I’m personally surprised at how FEW investigations of Trump are ongoing. This is by far the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States.

I mean the corruption is so off the charts that it’s no longer considered a big deal that the president runs a hotel down the street from the White House where foreign companies can directly bribe him and that’s only a modest scandal. His own personal lawyer and the Southern District of New York implicated Trump in a felony and that’s nowhere close to the most scandalous thing. Trump ran a scam university he had to pay $20 million to settle fraud claims against, etc. etc.

How has the Republican Party becomes so totally corrupt and ethically bankrupt that they think investigating these things is not only not important but is some sort of harassment? We are talking about bribes and felonies! Wtf??

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How has the Republican Party becomes so totally corrupt and ethically bankrupt that they think investigating these things is not only not important but is some sort of harassment? We are talking about bribes and felonies! Wtf??

Because the people calling this harassment never actually care/cared about any wrongdoing by any members, they just care about their team, and the enemy team. They're children on the island in Lord of the Flies, and they cry their eyes out when adults appear.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the people calling this harassment never actually care/cared about any wrongdoing by any members, they just care about their team, and the enemy team. They're children on the island in Lord of the Flies, and they cry their eyes out when adults appear.

That much is true. If you kept all the facts exactly the same and replaced Donald Trump with Hillary Clinton they would be screaming for investigation and impeachment.

The difference is that Democrats wouldn’t stand for it either. Just look at Al Franken. He acted inappropriately and was forced to resign. Then look at Trump. Dozens of accusations and he admitted to sexually assaulting women on tape. Republicans don’t care.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That much is true. If you kept all the facts exactly the same and replaced Donald Trump with Hillary Clinton they would be screaming for investigation and impeachment.

The difference is that Democrats wouldn’t stand for it either. Just look at Al Franken. He acted inappropriately and was forced to resign. Then look at Trump. Dozens of accusations and he admitted to sexually assaulting women on tape. Republicans don’t care.

While I don't doubt there's one or two Democrat's that'd act as despicable as, well, basically all Republicans at this point, they should be chased out with flaming pitchforks just the same.

But yes, you are correct, on the whole there's a much higher standard adhered to by Democrats, regardless of what our native children would state.

 

[fskimospy]

While I don't doubt there's one or two Democrat's that'd act as despicable as, well, basically all Republicans at this point, they should be chased out with flaming pitchforks just the same.

But yes, you are correct, on the whole there's a much higher standard adhered to by Democrats, regardless of what our native children would state.

I’m sure that more than one or two would act that way but the important thing is that the party as a whole wouldn’t.

I think it is because republicans don’t care if the government works to begin with so the most important policy they can pursue is keeping Democrats from making it work instead.

 

[HomerJS]

Bob was asked if his investigation was hindered in any way, he said "no". That's the end of that story. The investigation was unhindered and couldn't find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. That narrative is now finished. The DNC now appears to be hanging their collective hats on the fact that Trump wasn't exonerated of the crime. The issue with that is that no one in the united states has been exonerated of that particular crime. No one. The reason for that is that prosecutors don't exonerate anyone, they find evidence of the crime or they don't. Bob didn't. Even a not guilty finding after a trial isn't exoneration, it's being found not guilty.

Obstruction does not have to be successful to still be OOJ.

 

[Greenman]

Obstruction does not have to be successful to still be OOJ.

Different matter entirely, and it's going to be a hard sell to the public. Impeaching the president for obstruction of justice in the investigation of a crime that there is no evidence of having occurred is going to be a tough sell to anyone that doesn't hate Trump. My hunch is that this is reason number two of why Nancy won't proceed with impeachment.

 

[hal2kilo]

Different matter entirely, and it's going to be a hard sell to the public. Impeaching the president for obstruction of justice in the investigation of a crime that there is no evidence of having occurred is going to be a tough sell to anyone that doesn't hate Trump. My hunch is that this is reason number two of why Nancy won't proceed with impeachment.

You need to read the F'ing report. Stop with your lame Fox facts.

 

[fskimospy]

Different matter entirely, and it's going to be a hard sell to the public. Impeaching the president for obstruction of justice in the investigation of a crime that there is no evidence of having occurred is going to be a tough sell to anyone that doesn't hate Trump. My hunch is that this is reason number two of why Nancy won't proceed with impeachment.

It should be a very easy sell for anyone who finds value in the rule of law. By your logic we shouldn't indict/impeach a president for obstruction of justice if he's successful at obstructing justice. I mean imagine how ridiculous and easy a sell that is for any prosecution: if the CEO of a company is caught on email saying 'destroy all the evidence of that crime we committed' and then when the agents burst into the room he's standing on top of a pile of shredded documents by your logic since we can't prove any underlying crime there's no reason to prosecute.

The main problem we have is that the Republican Party has decided the rule of law is less important than having Trump as the president and they've been engaging in an active disinformation about the criminal activity detailed in the report as I mentioned in my previous post. You seem like a relatively well-informed guy but you have several things about Mueller's testimony and the report not just wrong, but precisely the opposite of what the report said.

 

[Jhhnn]

Different matter entirely, and it's going to be a hard sell to the public. Impeaching the president for obstruction of justice in the investigation of a crime that there is no evidence of having occurred is going to be a tough sell to anyone that doesn't hate Trump. My hunch is that this is reason number two of why Nancy won't proceed with impeachment.

"No evidence" is a false assertion. The evidence was insufficient to sustain charges of conspiracy, which are notoriously difficult to prove.

 

[fskimospy]

"No evidence" is a false assertion. The evidence was insufficient to sustain charges of conspiracy, which are notoriously difficult to prove.

And of course there's this passage from the Mueller report:

The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.

And this from Mueller's testimony:

“Isn’t it fair to say that the president’s written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn’t answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn’t always being truthful?” Democratic lawmaker Val Demings asked as Mueller testified before the House intelligence panel.

“Generally,” Mueller said.

To Mueller totally wasn't impeded in his investigation except for all the lies Trump and Trump's associates told him about their associations with the Russians and their attempts to cover it up.

 

[brandonbull]

How did you feel about Mueller’s testimony that Trump ordered his staff to fabricate documents in order to mislead a criminal investigation?

How do feel about the report stating there wasn't evidence to support these claims of obstruction.

 

[fskimospy]

How do feel about the report stating there wasn't evidence to support these claims of obstruction.

The report did not state that and by this point you have been made aware of this repeatedly. Why would you continue to lie about this?

So again, how did you feel about Mueller's testimony that Trump ordered his staff to fabricate documents in order to mislead a criminal investigation? You've dodged answering a very simple question over and over, first lying about it being based in news reports and now lying by claiming the report said there was insufficient evidence to sustain an obstruction charge.

Just answer the simple question.

 

[brandonbull]

You need to read the F'ing report. Stop with your lame Fox facts.

Tell me where in the report or Mueller's testimony where supported obstruction or conspiracy charges are supported or recommended. The Democrats walked Mueller through several examples of obstruction and each time he disagreed with their conclusion. Adam Schiff claimed to have tons of evidence and now wants very little to do with impeachment talks. That should tell you something, but unfortunately it won't.

 

[brandonbull]

The report did not state that and by this point you have been made aware of this repeatedly. Why would you continue to lie about this?

So again, how did you feel about Mueller's testimony that Trump ordered his staff to fabricate documents in order to mislead a criminal investigation? You've dodged answering a very simple question over and over, first lying about it being based in news reports and now lying by claiming the report said there was insufficient evidence to sustain an obstruction charge.

Just answer the simple question.

How many times do you keep asking for the same answer? Those claims are not backed by substantial evidence. News articles and hearsay don't mean much.

 

[fskimospy]

How many times do you keep asking for the same answer?

It's a simple question, why not just answer it?

Those claims are not backed by substantial evidence. News articles and hearsay don't mean much.

Why are you repeating the same lies that were already debunked? The claim that Trump asked his staff to fabricate evidence is from eyewitness testimony of the person asked to do the fabricating, Don McGahn.

 

[zinfamous]

How do feel about the report stating there wasn't evidence to support these claims of obstruction.

The report never said that, so you're responding to an observable truth with a provable lie.

Do you think this is an effective way to win friends and influence people?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How many times do you keep asking for the same answer? Those claims are not backed by substantial evidence. News articles and hearsay don't mean much.

Well you could enlighten us and show us by Mueller's own words where his citations of obstruction were based on insubstantial evidence. When you try to gainsay, just don't. Mueller explained what he thought his limitations were in making criminal charges.

I went to a live class this weekend for the purpose of auto insurance reduction. Our state allows this to that we can get a break on rates by demonstrating an understanding of the rules. In addition, if someone has points for violations they can get a reduction of those to help improve their record. One guy who is very much of your mind said he was there because he got caught speeding, 90 in a 65 zone. The judge agreed to a plea if he completed this course. So when it was mentioned in passing that he was speeding he said he didn't. Why? Because the judge would clean up part of his mess, but he was still speeding according to everyone else. No, he did not he says. How did his brain work this out? Like you, if there are no repercussions the fact that he sped was in essence erased as having been done. Well, no. He did it, there was "substantial evidence" and like you since there was no criminal penalty assigned that meant he didn't do anything wrong and so no evidence could be substantial.

Maybe you and he can meet and discuss time travel and erasing past events which have already happened.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why are you repeating the same lies that were already debunked?

Fascist propaganda 101- a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. The bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it.

 

[brandonbull]

Fascist propaganda 101- a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. The bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it.

Says the creators of the Dossier and Russia-Trump collusion?

 

[Luna1968]

Trump will not get impeached. total waste of time and tax payers money to even try.

 

[umbrella39]

Still waiting for all of our ROI on Donald Trump's golf rounds that have cost an estimated $100 million to taxpayers (in English that's one word comrade)...

 

[SMOGZINN]

Trump will not get impeached. total waste of time and tax payers money to even try.

I would hazard a guess that there is about a 90% chance that Trump will get impeached. Impeachment is the trial. Removal from office is a possible result of an impeachment. All it takes to get impeached is a majority vote by the members of the House that are present when the vote is called for. It doesn't even require a quorum.