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.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Once again this is not kiwi or kangaroo law.
Mueller could have recommended charges,
he did not.
Barr recommended no charges.
As there are no crimes charged, what pray tell will congress impeach upon?
Our laws require crimes, you lot may be different.
You lumping barr and mueller together highlights your foreign ignorance of our laws.
Just because no one has done it does not mean it could not be done.
You are again simply incorrect.
Typical here.
originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.
originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
Riddle me this (rhetorical);
If the Mueller Report, 400+ pages, all of the leaked info from FBI, multiple congressional investigations, AND a public presser by Mueller CONFIRMS so much bad acts by POTUS, why hasn’t the Dem controlled House (235 Dems + at least 1 flipper) simply impeached POTUS with 218 votes?
Even if Mueller jumped up in the hearing, screamed “You cant handle the truth! You’re GD right I would have ordered Trump arrested!” It’s not going to end with Trump not the President or not on the 2020 ticket.
It’s over. Trump won.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan
Even if the dems in the house attempt to impeach the effort will not pass the senate.
The dems just look like sore losers at this point.
Nobody likes the red ass man.
Get some salve dems and walk it off.
That or get slaughtered in 2020.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
Unless you believe they somehow fabricated evidence and information that is in the report.
originally posted by: chr0naut
If the impeachable offenses are proven to have actually happened, the Senate has no option but to convict. It is about legal process, not about party preference. They would be breaking the law if the offenses were unarguable and they did not convict.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: Sillyolme
Unless you believe they somehow fabricated evidence and information that is in the report.
You mean like claiming Joseph Mifsud is a Russian spy, when he knows (or should have known) Mifsud was a US Intelligence Asset?
Or trying and convicting Papadopolous and Flynn, knowing they were both innocent/framed?
Silly, I hope you have some friends who will be able to get you some help when your last hope of hopes is dashed to smithereens, and Trump just keeps on winning, like the energizer bunny.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
If the impeachable offenses are proven to have actually happened, the Senate has no option but to convict. It is about legal process, not about party preference. They would be breaking the law if the offenses were unarguable and they did not convict.
The Senate trial isn't a computer program. Of course they have the option to refuse to convict even if the offenses happened.
Ever heard of the concept of jury nullification? It is real, and still in full force and effect in this country, in spite of the efforts to squash it out of existence by the State.
Nobody cares about liars or the vain and vindictive
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.
There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.
You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?
Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.
There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.
You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?
Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.
There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.
Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.
(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)
originally posted by: Jonjonj
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.
There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.
You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?
Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.
There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.
Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.
(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)
Please state these ten instances and give precedence please.
As there are no crimes charged, what pray tell will congress impeach upon? Our laws require crimes, you lot may be different.