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.

 

I think the Impeachment is an attempt to negotiate out of being investigated.

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Are you laboring under the error that someone has to commit a crime to be impeached?




posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Anyone who follows the impeachment can plainly see it is so baseless that it could never work. The alleged misconduct, if it were to be upheld, would make international diplomacy impossible.

A president would have to be able to always prove every decision he makes when speaking with a foreign leader has zero political importance for their own career.


So why would they do this?

I think it's an attempt at quid pro quo.

At some point they will offer to drop the impeachment, if Trump agrees to stop looking further into Burisma.


We don't negotiate with terrorists.
2nd line.



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?



posted on Oct, 13 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Are you laboring under the error that someone has to commit a crime to be impeached?

Well
Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and misdemeanors are crimes.
Or are they not now?

Is that the new dnc talking point?



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
"The House Judiciary Committee does not have the Power of Impeachment."

The House of Representatives does. The WHOLE House.

Until the House votes, there is no formal impeachment proceedings, and no subpoena power with regard to impeachment matters, only blathering and yammering."

The House Judiciary Committee has the power to investigate and to issue subpoenas.

Sure they do - in the exercise of their power of legislative oversight. Not in the exercise of the role of the Power to Impeach - that Power is reserved to The House of Representatives. The Judiciary Committee didn't exist when the Constitution was penned.


The impeachment vote by the house comes at the end, when the evidence is weighed by Congress.

The impeachment vote is the last step of the impeachment process.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about a vote.

The House of Representatives - the whole House - has the sole Power of Impeachment - meaning, the entire process, and in order to understand the fact that a vote is required to initiate impeachment proceedings, you need to answer a simple question:

What is the Process by which the House of Representatives makes its will known?

This makes it crystal clear that there can be no impeachment inquiry/investigation - that brings with it a much broader range/scope of subpoena power than the House has with respect to its ordinary power of legislative oversight.



posted on Oct, 15 2019 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".



posted on Oct, 16 2019 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".


Even if Trump was trying to do something else other than block the investigation, the act is still an attempt to do something that would obstruct justice, regardless of the motive.



posted on Oct, 16 2019 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".


Even if Trump was trying to do something else other than block the investigation, the act is still an attempt to do something that would obstruct justice, regardless of the motive.




Wrong plain as day. Without a crime there can be no obstruction. No charges filed, so no obstruction. Simply defending oneself and challenging the ridiculous false investigations by the total morons we have in congress doesn't amount to any kind of obstruction.

What we see happening is a variety of continuing stupidity of congress members and others who have absolutely no concept of anything except their own desires. They are like barnyard animals without anything other than emotional instincts driving their morally bankrupt behavior. And the clincher is that everything they are actually doing is everything they attempt to accuse Trump of doing.

It is all cover to hide their crimes and abuse of government.

These people are less than feral jackals drooling at the thought of a kill so they can gain more power and pretend at having legitimate influence.

What an embarrassment to the entire world.

I bet even other civilizations on other planets are embarrassed and appalled by what they see on Earth at this point.


edit on 16-10-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".


Even if Trump was trying to do something else other than block the investigation, the act is still an attempt to do something that would obstruct justice, regardless of the motive.


Thing is, I'm not really clear on what act he committed?

When he asked Comey to hurry the investigation up, that could just as easily imply he wanted more resources directed to it, and more man power. More people investigating for a faster conclusion.

He knew that every day it drug on was going to be an impediment to his presidency. An innocent man with nothing to fear would tell you to hurry up. A guilty man with a lot to hide might prefer for you to drag it out a bit (give him more time to deal with loose ends, or shred documents.)






------ Which brings us back to the main issue: the present impeachment.

Why does Shiff feel the need to release small bits of information, slowly, from a closed session?

He's dragging it out.

It's hard for anyone to seriously investigate the Burisma scandal itself while the question of whether Trump did something wrong by starting to investigate remains unresolved.

Where did America's 2 billion dollars in aid disappear to?

Are we ever going to know what's under that rock? Or are we just going to have to settle for the perpetrators agreeing not to impeach the person who tried to look under that rock?

If the American people don't settle, what happens then?



posted on Oct, 16 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".


Even if Trump was trying to do something else other than block the investigation, the act is still an attempt to do something that would obstruct justice, regardless of the motive.


Thing is, I'm not really clear on what act he committed?

When he asked Comey to hurry the investigation up, that could just as easily imply he wanted more resources directed to it, and more man power. More people investigating for a faster conclusion.

He knew that every day it drug on was going to be an impediment to his presidency. An innocent man with nothing to fear would tell you to hurry up. A guilty man with a lot to hide might prefer for you to drag it out a bit (give him more time to deal with loose ends, or shred documents.)






------ Which brings us back to the main issue: the present impeachment.

Why does Shiff feel the need to release small bits of information, slowly, from a closed session?

He's dragging it out.

It's hard for anyone to seriously investigate the Burisma scandal itself while the question of whether Trump did something wrong by starting to investigate remains unresolved.

Where did America's 2 billion dollars in aid disappear to?

Are we ever going to know what's under that rock? Or are we just going to have to settle for the perpetrators agreeing not to impeach the person who tried to look under that rock?

If the American people don't settle, what happens then?


Perhaps he forced the resignation of Sessions for reasons that had nothing to do with the national interest?

Read Jeff Sessions' resignation letter.

... and, paragraph 2 of Trump's letter firing Comey explains Trump's motivations. Does that sound like the national interest, or was Trump's thinking more in his own interest?

Trump's letter firing FBI Director James Comey.



posted on Oct, 16 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".


Even if Trump was trying to do something else other than block the investigation, the act is still an attempt to do something that would obstruct justice, regardless of the motive.

Wrong plain as day. Without a crime there can be no obstruction.


Isn't that like saying you cannot commit a crime until you have been convicted?

Surely ALL crimes are committed before the criminal is convicted?


No charges filed, so no obstruction. Simply defending oneself and challenging the ridiculous false investigations by the total morons we have in congress doesn't amount to any kind of obstruction.

What we see happening is a variety of continuing stupidity of congress members and others who have absolutely no concept of anything except their own desires. They are like barnyard animals without anything other than emotional instincts driving their morally bankrupt behavior. And the clincher is that everything they are actually doing is everything they attempt to accuse Trump of doing.

It is all cover to hide their crimes and abuse of government.

These people are less than feral jackals drooling at the thought of a kill so they can gain more power and pretend at having legitimate influence.

What an embarrassment to the entire world.

I bet even other civilizations on other planets are embarrassed and appalled by what they see on Earth at this point.




Perhaps someone who is not open to hear out views differing from their own, is considered a bad choice for positions of governance in societies where reason, fairness and consensus prevail?

edit on 16/10/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".


Even if Trump was trying to do something else other than block the investigation, the act is still an attempt to do something that would obstruct justice, regardless of the motive.

Wrong plain as day. Without a crime there can be no obstruction.


Isn't that like saying you cannot commit a crime until you have been convicted?

Surely ALL crimes are committed before the criminal is convicted?


No charges filed, so no obstruction. Simply defending oneself and challenging the ridiculous false investigations by the total morons we have in congress doesn't amount to any kind of obstruction.

What we see happening is a variety of continuing stupidity of congress members and others who have absolutely no concept of anything except their own desires. They are like barnyard animals without anything other than emotional instincts driving their morally bankrupt behavior. And the clincher is that everything they are actually doing is everything they attempt to accuse Trump of doing.

It is all cover to hide their crimes and abuse of government.

These people are less than feral jackals drooling at the thought of a kill so they can gain more power and pretend at having legitimate influence.

What an embarrassment to the entire world.

I bet even other civilizations on other planets are embarrassed and appalled by what they see on Earth at this point.




Perhaps someone who is not open to hear out views differing from their own, is considered a bad choice for positions of governance in societies where reason, fairness and consensus prevail?


Ah so you truly have no clue how the legal system works after all.
There only needs to be CHARGES by a prosecutor filed with superior or district courts. Conviction comes later or acquittal, or case is dismissed.

But until criminal charges are filed, there can't be any "Obstruction". What charges have been filed against Trump? Oh yeah, none. Why not?? Because there is no evidence of ANY crime that a prosecutor can use to even hope for a criminal conviction of any kind.
edit on 17-10-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".


Even if Trump was trying to do something else other than block the investigation, the act is still an attempt to do something that would obstruct justice, regardless of the motive.

Wrong plain as day. Without a crime there can be no obstruction.


Isn't that like saying you cannot commit a crime until you have been convicted?

Surely ALL crimes are committed before the criminal is convicted?


No charges filed, so no obstruction. Simply defending oneself and challenging the ridiculous false investigations by the total morons we have in congress doesn't amount to any kind of obstruction.

What we see happening is a variety of continuing stupidity of congress members and others who have absolutely no concept of anything except their own desires. They are like barnyard animals without anything other than emotional instincts driving their morally bankrupt behavior. And the clincher is that everything they are actually doing is everything they attempt to accuse Trump of doing.

It is all cover to hide their crimes and abuse of government.

These people are less than feral jackals drooling at the thought of a kill so they can gain more power and pretend at having legitimate influence.

What an embarrassment to the entire world.

I bet even other civilizations on other planets are embarrassed and appalled by what they see on Earth at this point.




Perhaps someone who is not open to hear out views differing from their own, is considered a bad choice for positions of governance in societies where reason, fairness and consensus prevail?


Ah so you truly have no clue how the legal system works after all.
There only needs to be CHARGES by a prosecutor filed with superior or district courts. Conviction comes later or acquittal, or case is dismissed.

But until criminal charges are filed, there can't be any "Obstruction". What charges have been filed against Trump? Oh yeah, none. Why not?? Because there is no evidence of ANY crime that a prosecutor can use to even hope for a criminal conviction of any kind.


If someone shoots someone else dead, do you think we need a court decision to determine that there was a killing?

The court determines if the commission of the killing was lawful or not. It doesn't make the act happen by court decision.

If a criminal does something wrong and gets away with it, they still did something wrong.

There are many circumstances where a crime may go unpunished but that doesn't make the commission of the crime, legal. A crime has still occurred, just not prosecuted.

edit on 17/10/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2019 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".


Even if Trump was trying to do something else other than block the investigation, the act is still an attempt to do something that would obstruct justice, regardless of the motive.

Wrong plain as day. Without a crime there can be no obstruction.


Isn't that like saying you cannot commit a crime until you have been convicted?

Surely ALL crimes are committed before the criminal is convicted?


No charges filed, so no obstruction. Simply defending oneself and challenging the ridiculous false investigations by the total morons we have in congress doesn't amount to any kind of obstruction.

What we see happening is a variety of continuing stupidity of congress members and others who have absolutely no concept of anything except their own desires. They are like barnyard animals without anything other than emotional instincts driving their morally bankrupt behavior. And the clincher is that everything they are actually doing is everything they attempt to accuse Trump of doing.

It is all cover to hide their crimes and abuse of government.

These people are less than feral jackals drooling at the thought of a kill so they can gain more power and pretend at having legitimate influence.

What an embarrassment to the entire world.

I bet even other civilizations on other planets are embarrassed and appalled by what they see on Earth at this point.




Perhaps someone who is not open to hear out views differing from their own, is considered a bad choice for positions of governance in societies where reason, fairness and consensus prevail?


Ah so you truly have no clue how the legal system works after all.
There only needs to be CHARGES by a prosecutor filed with superior or district courts. Conviction comes later or acquittal, or case is dismissed.

But until criminal charges are filed, there can't be any "Obstruction". What charges have been filed against Trump? Oh yeah, none. Why not?? Because there is no evidence of ANY crime that a prosecutor can use to even hope for a criminal conviction of any kind.


If someone shoots someone else dead, do you think we need a court decision to determine that there was a killing?

The court determines if the commission of the killing was lawful or not. It doesn't make the act happen by court decision.

If a criminal does something wrong and gets away with it, they still did something wrong.

There are many circumstances where a crime may go unpunished but that doesn't make the commission of the crime, legal. A crime has still occurred, just not prosecuted.


You're operating off of the assumption that a crime occurred.

That's quite an assumption. Do you have evidence not available to the public, or are you simply clairvoyant?

Would you care to share your lottery pick for Wednesday with me? Tell me what horse will win the next horse race?

Pretty please?



originally posted by: chr0naut

Perhaps he forced the resignation of Sessions for reasons that had nothing to do with the national interest?

Read Jeff Sessions' resignation letter.



I think he force the resignation of Sessions because Sessions took his request for expediency and (without cause) assumed it was a request to not investigate. Rather than what it so obviously was: a request to hurry the investigation up so it could be over sooner.

Spinning things like that would probably motivate me to fire someone too. I would think they were dishonest in general, which is a bad trait in a FBI chief.





... and, paragraph 2 of Trump's letter firing Comey explains Trump's motivations. Does that sound like the national interest, or was Trump's thinking more in his own interest?

Trump's letter firing FBI Director James Comey.



I read it as sarcasm.



posted on Oct, 20 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.


Thank you.

I have listened to a few of these videos and Mueller summarized his responses, at the end of his statement as "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime", which is precisely the wording used in the report.

What he said there, and what was said in the report, is different from saying that we believed no crime was committed and is also different from saying that there was no evidence.

Perhaps the videos I watched had the section you referred to edited out but I will continue to review the (many) videos?


The problem is that it is all philosophy.

It's hard to even say for sure that the things being accused are criminal acts, let alone determine whether the alleged "criminal act" actually happened.

It's getting to the point where the only real law is " make it so Congress likes you."

If they don't like you, then they'll indict you for wearing a loud tie to a press conference. "Conduct unbecoming the office".


Even if Trump was trying to do something else other than block the investigation, the act is still an attempt to do something that would obstruct justice, regardless of the motive.

Wrong plain as day. Without a crime there can be no obstruction.


Isn't that like saying you cannot commit a crime until you have been convicted?

Surely ALL crimes are committed before the criminal is convicted?


No charges filed, so no obstruction. Simply defending oneself and challenging the ridiculous false investigations by the total morons we have in congress doesn't amount to any kind of obstruction.

What we see happening is a variety of continuing stupidity of congress members and others who have absolutely no concept of anything except their own desires. They are like barnyard animals without anything other than emotional instincts driving their morally bankrupt behavior. And the clincher is that everything they are actually doing is everything they attempt to accuse Trump of doing.

It is all cover to hide their crimes and abuse of government.

These people are less than feral jackals drooling at the thought of a kill so they can gain more power and pretend at having legitimate influence.

What an embarrassment to the entire world.

I bet even other civilizations on other planets are embarrassed and appalled by what they see on Earth at this point.




Perhaps someone who is not open to hear out views differing from their own, is considered a bad choice for positions of governance in societies where reason, fairness and consensus prevail?


Ah so you truly have no clue how the legal system works after all.
There only needs to be CHARGES by a prosecutor filed with superior or district courts. Conviction comes later or acquittal, or case is dismissed.

But until criminal charges are filed, there can't be any "Obstruction". What charges have been filed against Trump? Oh yeah, none. Why not?? Because there is no evidence of ANY crime that a prosecutor can use to even hope for a criminal conviction of any kind.


If someone shoots someone else dead, do you think we need a court decision to determine that there was a killing?

The court determines if the commission of the killing was lawful or not. It doesn't make the act happen by court decision.

If a criminal does something wrong and gets away with it, they still did something wrong.

There are many circumstances where a crime may go unpunished but that doesn't make the commission of the crime, legal. A crime has still occurred, just not prosecuted.


You're operating off of the assumption that a crime occurred.

That's quite an assumption. Do you have evidence not available to the public, or are you simply clairvoyant?


There were 10 instances documented in the Mueller report. They empirically occurred. The only unresolved issue is as to motivation - was there intention to obstruct the course of justice?

With recent issues pointing to Trump's general motivations, I think the case against, strengthens, act by act.


Would you care to share your lottery pick for Wednesday with me? Tell me what horse will win the next horse race?

Pretty please?


Sure; 13, 23, 5, 11, 41 and 59.

That's Lotto, though, not a horse race, LOL.




originally posted by: chr0nautPerhaps he forced the resignation of Sessions for reasons that had nothing to do with the national interest?

Read Jeff Sessions' resignation letter.

I think he forced the resignation of Sessions because Sessions took his request for expediency and (without cause) assumed it was a request to not investigate. Rather than what it so obviously was: a request to hurry the investigation up so it could be over sooner.

Spinning things like that would probably motivate me to fire someone too. I would think they were dishonest in general, which is a bad trait in a FBI chief.


Sessions recused himself because he was honest and because he saw a conflict of interest in himself being primary in the investigation. There is no way you can spin that oppositely as you just suggested.



... and, paragraph 2 of Trump's letter firing Comey explains Trump's motivations. Does that sound like the national interest, or was Trump's thinking more in his own interest?

Trump's letter firing FBI Director James Comey.

I read it as sarcasm.


... and that is appropriate for a President firing an AG?

If that were the case, then Trump doesn't seem to be taking the job seriously.

Perhaps all his rallies were just stand-up?


edit on 20/10/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Nancy Pelosi's brother (Thomas D'Alesandro III) has died.

Source: twitter.com...

As when Hillary Clinton's brother (Tony Rodham) died in June, no mention made as to the cause of death.



posted on Oct, 20 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

There were 10 instances documented in the Mueller report. They empirically occurred. The only unresolved issue is as to motivation - was there intention to obstruct the course of justice?

With recent issues pointing to Trump's general motivations, I think the case against, strengthens, act by act.



And all 10 of them are weak.

www.vox.com...





Would you care to share your lottery pick for Wednesday with me? Tell me what horse will win the next horse race?

Pretty please?


Sure; 13, 23, 5, 11, 41 and 59.

That's Lotto, though, not a horse race, LOL.



If it does turn out that you somehow knew Trump was trying to obstruct justice (rather than avoid a circus spectacle), then at least I will make some money.







originally posted by: chr0nautPerhaps he forced the resignation of Sessions for reasons that had nothing to do with the national interest?

Read Jeff Sessions' resignation letter.

I think he forced the resignation of Sessions because Sessions took his request for expediency and (without cause) assumed it was a request to not investigate. Rather than what it so obviously was: a request to hurry the investigation up so it could be over sooner.

Spinning things like that would probably motivate me to fire someone too. I would think they were dishonest in general, which is a bad trait in a FBI chief.


Sessions recused himself because he was honest and because he saw a conflict of interest in himself being primary in the investigation. There is no way you can spin that oppositely as you just suggested.


Recusing himself wouldn't be why I would fire him.

It would be spinning the request for expediency into something sinister. Directing more resources to an investigation to speed it up is hardly an "obstruction"

Evidence gets cold if it takes too long to be chased down. More hands means more terrain covered more quickly.






... and, paragraph 2 of Trump's letter firing Comey explains Trump's motivations. Does that sound like the national interest, or was Trump's thinking more in his own interest?

Trump's letter firing FBI Director James Comey.

I read it as sarcasm.


... and that is appropriate for a President firing an AG?

If that were the case, then Trump doesn't seem to be taking the job seriously.

Perhaps all his rallies were just stand-up?


Taking that dog and pony show seriously? That's a good thing?



posted on Oct, 20 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: thedigirati

More muddying the water, cute, but ...

Here's a summary of my statements: Others here have claimed that House Committees must have vote before investigating a matter (impeachment) within their Constitutional purvue. There is nothing in the Constitution, Rules of the House, or anything else that makes that requirement. If there is a documented source for that requirement, provide it.



There is precedent. Do you really actually really really truly want it differently? or just different this time? Remember there will be tables turned some day. Besides, if by your argument, any single person in the house can initiate it, then anyone in the house should be able to participate in it. Be careful what bed you make.

No sure why they bothered voting the first three times re: Trump...I guess deep down, even they know the approach is without precedent.



posted on Oct, 20 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

This is an excellent post. Most of what the left is doing is reactive and not proactive so this would be a change for them.

In the past the thought of impeachment would have scared the hell out of any politician. Problem is we do not have a politician. We have a businessman who sees a bottom line. That bottom line is the empowerment and betterment of our nation where a politician is only there for himself and those who will feed off him.

Trump did NOT need this. At all.

The problem is that they are pushing someone who has brass balls. At this point I do not think the impeachment is even about getting rid of Trump as much as a ploy to make sure as many people as possible can campaign on it so they can make money. Trump is shutting off the valve that Congress has lived for decades. DECADES!!!!



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

They already did that when they tried to smear Kavinaugh and Trump said hell nah. They said they would remove the accuser and let him have his pick if Trump would stop the Barr investigations.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join