Mueller To Make Statement Today

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Let it go to Congress and let Congress do their job!

Yes, pretty please, with sugar on top!

This would only make the coming republican landslide coming in 2020 even bigger.

I'm thinking it might even be possible to end up with a super majority in both houses...

a reply to: RadioRobert

Mueller is scared to testify before the Republicans because they will ask about stuff from his past FBI days too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa

Not according Mueller. Are you claiming that Mueller is lying about the DOJ policy?

That a rhetorical question? Mueller is doing his masters bidding. Its a unwritten policy,and as such has no teeth.

a reply to: yuppa

Mueller is doing his masters bidding.

LOL
Who's his master?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ol Clinton and the dnc,but you know that.

a reply to: yuppa

Nope, that's news to me. Isn't Mueller a Republican?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why would they vote, when no coherent summary of their case has been put forward?

It's been three years and you still don't have a coherent case? That's accidental honesty for you... That's the perfect time to impeach according to you and some here...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: face23785
Democrats already set the precedent that obstruction isn't grounds for removing a President from office. Clinton was black and white guilty of obstructing justice but they voted no to remove him on those grounds.

Oops.

Oops is right. That report did actually outline the criminal acts Clinton had committed.

There is/was nothing preventing Mueller from doing the same thing.

The unwritten DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president is advisory only, and there is certainly no Constitutional provision preventing it.

And the statute for the Special Counsel allows him to go against policy in "extraordinary" circumstances. Barr would have to report to Congress if he wished to stop him.

A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

If Barr agrees, Trump is indicted.
If Barr disagrees with Mueller's decision, the onus is on Barr to report Mueller's decision and findings along with why the DOJ/AG disagreed and stopped him in a report to Congress. That's how it gets to Congress for impeachment or oversight.

The "well, we couldn't indict anyway, so we decided not to decide"-narrative does not pass the sniff test.

a reply to: RadioRobert

If Barr agrees, Trump is indicted. If Barr disagrees with Mueller's decision, the onus is on Barr to report Mueller's decision and findings along with why the DOJ/AG disagreed and stopped him in a report to Congress. That's how it gets to Congress for impeachment or oversight.

come on man
these people dont read the rules
rules are for suckers

a reply to: RadioRobert

Articles of Impeachment need to be written. There's the information in the Mueller report and then there's the investigations and cases that were spawned from the Mueller investigation. For instance, President Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a NYSD election finance case, and there's the allegations that Trump falsified tax and banking records from Michael Cohen, that still need to be investigated. But, financial document subpoenas are being blocked. There's also open cases involving his charities, his inauguration funds and "Emolument Clause" violation allegation that are in the courts.

Plus, Trump keeps committing impeachable acts almost daily.

Al Green and Brad Sherman have put forth a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017.
They are the only dems to put their money where their mouth is.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: face23785
Democrats already set the precedent that obstruction isn't grounds for removing a President from office. Clinton was black and white guilty of obstructing justice but they voted no to remove him on those grounds.

Oops.

Oops is right. That report did actually outline the criminal acts Clinton had committed.

There is/was nothing preventing Mueller from doing the same thing.

The unwritten DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president is advisory only, and there is certainly no Constitutional provision preventing it.

And the statute for the Special Counsel allows him to go against policy in "extraordinary" circumstances. Barr would have to report to Congress if he wished to stop him.

A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

If Barr agrees, Trump is indicted.
If Barr disagrees with Mueller's decision, the onus is on Barr to report Mueller's decision and findings along with why the DOJ/AG disagreed and stopped him in a report to Congress. That's how it gets to Congress for impeachment or oversight.

The "well, we couldn't indict anyway, so we decided not to decide"-narrative does not pass the sniff test.

Correct. That excuse was concocted so this whole thing could be drug out to impact the 2020 election. Ironic.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert

Articles of Impeachment need to be written. There's the information in the Mueller report and then there's the investigations and cases that were spawned from the Mueller investigation. For instance, President Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a NYSD election finance case, and there's the allegations that Trump falsified tax and banking records from Michael Cohen, that still need to be investigated. But, financial document subpoenas are being blocked. There's also open cases involving his charities, his inauguration funds and "Emolument Clause" violation allegation that are in the courts.

Plus, Trump keeps committing impeachable acts almost daily.

If he's such a danger, they wouldn't be kicking their heels up gathering more and more evidence of the "daily" impeachable offenses. They'd use what he's already done to get him out as soon as possible. Or is he not really a threat? You can't have it both ways. The fact that they're dragging their heels should tell you it's all a charade. But who am I kidding? This isn't about protecting the country to you guys, it's about a temper tantrum over an election.

a reply to: face23785

Don't forget it helped turn the midterms.
Bet those who voted to impeach trump are thrilled with the dems NOT doing what they were elected to.

YOU HAD ONE JOB MAN!!!


lol

originally posted by: shooterbrody

Al Green and Brad Sherman have put forth a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017.
They are the only dems to put their money where their mouth is.

07/12/2017 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
07/12/2017 Introduced in House

H.Res.438 - Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Looks to me like the House Judiciary Committee has been sitting on it for close to two years now. With the Mueller report finalized and published, why have they not taken further action on the resolution?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

With the Mueller report finalized and published, why have they not taken further action on the resolution?

Because, Nancy Pelosi.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Looks to me like the House Judiciary Committee has been sitting on it for close to two years now. With the Mueller report finalized and published, why have they not taken further action on the resolution?

At least it has exposed the dems with the guts to follow through with what they promise.
Seems there are only 2.
What a pos party.
Even with the rinos the gop had more than 2.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

With the Mueller report finalized and published, why have they not taken further action on the resolution?

Because, Nancy Pelosi.

lol
now its pelosi?
thought it was cause it wasnt "written"?
lol
that is some silly story you are writing

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because, Nancy Pelosi.

What does Nancy Pelosi have to do with the Judciary committee?

Chair
Jerrold Nadler
Jerrold Nadler
New York

Vice Chair
Mary Scanlon
Mary Gay Scanlon
Pennsylvania

Members|Committee on the Judiciary

I don't see Pelosi as even being a member of that committee. If she is stonewalling on important business (lol) then someone should get her bum in gear and let the house take care of what needs to be done.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Damn those pesky rules.....shakes fist.....

lol
you would think they would at least read to find out what is required....