It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The democrats should file for impeachment

page: 4
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.


Bill Barr said you haven't a clue. He might be right.


I doubt that Bill Barr has heard of me and knows even less about what I do or say.

He's also in contempt of Congress, so, there's that.




posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The saddest part is they have worked endlessly on trump.

Not what's good for the American citizen

They are putting the safety and well being of the country by being too focused on trump.

I really don't know how the American people put up with it.

They are being paid as elected officials to perform duties, not work to on invetigate the president.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump knew what he was doing when he placed Manifort in 💥The💥Sun💥Burn💥


Well, he was warned that Mannafort had some dubious connections and had published some decidedly un-American things.


And that only matters to Democrats when its politically expedient. I'd believe they actually cared about anything to do with Russia if they had gone after Van Jones and Jay Carney for it, seeing as they are both communists (or soviets if you prefer).

Shoot, I guess Obama and Hillary's "Reset" means..What, now, exactly?



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   
.
edit on 31-5-2019 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.


Bill Barr said you haven't a clue. He might be right.


I doubt that Bill Barr has heard of me and knows even less about what I do or say.

He's also in contempt of Congress, so, there's that.


Contempt. For refusing to break the law.

I think he'll be just fine.

After all, Holder was held in contempt as well.


(post by mtnshredder removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 31 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.
No charges were laid out, because there were none. If there were, they surely would have been in the report. A sitting President can't be charged, but that in no way means the specific charges cannot be laid out in a report. The fact they aren't there is telling.


There are 15 separate instances of potential obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, 10 of which relate directly to the actions of the President.

The whole of volume 2 of the Mueller report deals specifically just with Trump's attempts to obstruct the course of justice.

They are there, in droves.


Mueller did not do what Starr did. Starr used the word "guilty" 11 times to describe Clinton. Mueller did not. Because he could not, because he would have been lying. Trump is innocent unless proven guilty, and Mueller could not prove guilt.


Here is the Starr report. It is searchable. The only instance of the word "guilty" is a quotation from Monica Lewinski.


Let that sink in for a minute. Take a DEEP breath. Feel that? That's reality, and it's OK.

The Dems know they have no impeachable offense based off the Mueller report.

They don't have the votes for impeachment, and they know that too.

It will die in the Senate, if by off chance they got the votes in the House, and they know this as well.

They have backed themselves into a corner, and yes, they have already won Trump a 2020 victory.

He's innocent. Period.


He's definitely guilty of paying hookers and porn stars for their silence.

He assembled around him, as his 'inner circle' a number of criminals.

He denied strenuously stuff we all knew was happening.

He withheld financial details when he had no legitimate business reason to do so.

His advocacy against the Ukrainian government was not in line with US government or party foreign policy but was closer aligned with that of Russia.





Oh, and look at Trump's disgusting sycophancy to the Saudis over their murder of Kashoggi. Obviously, money means more to Trump than human life and moral issues.

Legal affairs of Donald Trump From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedi

He is not innocent, on so many levels and on so many issues.

edit on 31/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump knew what he was doing when he placed Manifort in 💥The💥Sun💥Burn💥


Well, he was warned that Mannafort had some dubious connections and had published some decidedly un-American things.

And that only matters to Democrats when its politically expedient. I'd believe they actually cared about anything to do with Russia if they had gone after Van Jones and Jay Carney for it, seeing as they are both communists (or soviets if you prefer).

Shoot, I guess Obama and Hillary's "Reset" means..What, now, exactly?


It wasn't the Democrats who warned Trump about Mannafort, it was the FBI and the Republican Party executive, including McCain.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Lol. The title got me to sit down ready to retort until I read it and saw that we were in 100% agreement on this one. Bring it Dems. You got nothing. Never did and never will. In fact The Democrats are the ones that are about to be lit up. Mark my words. Good post. S&F.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   
As a foreigner who doens't fully understand the American political system it would seem that the Democrats really don't have a choice but to attempt to impeach. Hear me out.

Regardless of where you fall on the Trump/Russia collusion issue, regardless of what you understand form what has been release by the Muller report and by Muller himself, the Democrats have backed themselves into a corner. They've been saying for months that Trump colluded, that the evidence is there blah blah blah. Now that the Muller report has been released and that, a report they pushed for to be written, and depending on how you read it, your understanding of the American political system and the US Constitution, they need to put this matter to bed, letting the legal and justice system do what it is designed to do. The book of evidence has been created, let it face up against robust legal scrutiny and a binding decision be made. If the Democrats continue to say "Trump is wrong", "Trump colluded with the Russians", "Trump is an illegal president" but don't go for Impeachment they will lose what ever support they have left. It'll show that they really don't believe they have the evidence. It'll show to their staunch supporter base that they don't have the confidence in their own narrative and that they have been fishing for something, anything, to prove their claims, claims that will be forever known as unsubstantiated.

So, let the public, the legal and justice system do it thing. Put this matter to rest once and for all. Either Trump will be found gulity and Impeached, or he will be exonerated. Either way, the matter will be laid to rest and the country can move on.

But, if Trump is impreached, my money would be on watching the country descend into chaos. Trump has a god like status of a very large portion of the American public who, facts, evidence, proof, justice aside, will not cope well to their idol figure falling from grace.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.


Bill Barr said you haven't a clue. He might be right.


I doubt that Bill Barr has heard of me and knows even less about what I do or say.

He's also in contempt of Congress, so, there's that.


Contempt. For refusing to break the law.

I think he'll be just fine.

After all, Holder was held in contempt as well.


Well, Constitutional law beats common law.

So Barr better not obstruct due process as defined in the Constitution.

Barr's boss has no power to instruct him to break Constitutional law.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

That's why Trump placed him in the Sun 😆



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut





Here is the Starr report. It is searchable. The only instance of the word "guilty" is a quotation from Monica Lewinski. 


Mueller on Obstruction:


Accordingly, while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime...


Contrast that to Starr's report:


"1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

I


That's why Bill lost his license to practice law, remember? He committed real crimes.That there was plenty of evidence of...






No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report. 

Mueller's office disputes that characterization. So why do you keep saying that?



In a rare joint statement from Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr, the two said, “The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.” 

edit on 31-5-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No , the Democrats should STFU Already , Bitch been Slaqpped Down . Stay Down Bee- Otch !
edit on 31-5-2019 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The most embarrassing thing will be there aren't enough DEMOCRATIC party votes. Most are smart enough to remember this will kill Democratic majority in either house of congress for 8-10 years. Guaranteed.



posted on May, 31 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



Well, Constitutional law beats common law.

So Barr better not obstruct due process as defined in the Constitution.

Barr's boss has no power to instruct him to break Constitutional law.


Barr is in contempt of Congress because Congress asked him to break the law and declassify Grand Jury information which he refused to do. It has nothing to do with Trump.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:19 AM
link   
#fileit

#fileit

#fileit

😎



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut



Well, Constitutional law beats common law.

So Barr better not obstruct due process as defined in the Constitution.

Barr's boss has no power to instruct him to break Constitutional law.


Barr is in contempt of Congress because Congress asked him to break the law and declassify Grand Jury information which he refused to do. It has nothing to do with Trump.


During the Watergate era, as Congress sought to investigate whether to impeach the President, a federal judge found that the House of Representatives could function "simply as another grand jury," according to a case of that era. In that situation, an impeachment proceeding in Congress for President Richard Nixon allowed the House to get access to grand jury materials.

Also, under the national security/foreign intelligence exception to grand jury secrecy, the attorney general can provide grand jury information to the chairs of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees without asking for court permission.

Yeah, it is a bind, but Congress clearly can have precedence over Grand Jury. Which was my previous point.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

"The President is not innocent! He lies constantly!"

CNN screams that multiple times, every day and every night.

The more CNN/MSNBC scream, the higher President Trump's positive poll numbers climb.

Normal Americans sense that the illogical screaming is borne of fear... Fear of being "outed" as colluding with Democrats and DOJ officials to Help Hillary/Hurt Trump. It took awhile, but regular people are now learning of these crimes.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

After paying attention to MSNBC much of the day, I really don't feel confident that Democrats will adhere to their "upstanding morals" and start impeachment proceedings.

Too many influential Democrats on the network, and guests, saying that impeachment is exactly what Donald Trump wants and hopes Democrats will try.




top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join