The stable genius, Triggered

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Referrals have to be specific and in writing.

The Bueller Report is only a Report.

🙃

Mueller Report Appendix D pages D-3 to D-6. Mostly redacted but clearly 14 specific referrals in writing, under the heading of "Referrals", just so you know.

Very Funny.

None of those are referring to a Trump Impeachment and those are already in progress 😁

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Referrals have to be specific and in writing.

The Bueller Report is only a Report.

🙃

Mueller Report Appendix D pages D-3 to D-6. Mostly redacted but clearly 14 specific referrals in writing, under the heading of "Referrals", just so you know.

Very Funny.

None of those are referring to a Trump Impeachment and those are already in progress 😁

Of the 14 referrals, only 2 are not fully redacted but they are marked ""Harm to Ongoing Matter"

How could you even know? Even Congress doesn't know.

That is why Congress are holding Barr in contempt (that and the outright misrepresentation of the truth that Barr engaged in before the Congressional Select Committee), because Congress can't do its job without those referrals and Barr has not released the unredacted copy.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes "Ongoing Matters" are already in progress and have nothing to do with an Impeachment referral 😆

And Barr is not held in Contempt 😆

Plus, Barr has given 8 Congress Members access to an unredacted (minus grand jury stuff which wouldn't be anything about Impeachment) report which, if any referrals for Impeachment were in there, we would already know wouldn't we 😆

Fail 😆

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: LDragonFire

How exactly did Russia interfere?

If US elections are so easily swayed by a few online posts, then that's a problem with the electorate, not the elected. I personally think it had essentially nothing to do with Trump getting elected.

Otherwise, if the Russians have some secret key to getting Americans to do what they want, I'd like to have them try getting Americans to stop throwing cigarette butts everywhere.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes "Ongoing Matters" are already in progress and have nothing to do with an Impeachment referral

I believe that there is a certain "Individual One", in a certain ongoing case, whose outcome might involve the "I" word.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes "Ongoing Matters" are already in progress and have nothing to do with an Impeachment referral

I believe that there is a certain "Individual One", in a certain ongoing case, whose outcome might involve the "I" word.

But Bueller himself said they can't "Indict" a sitting President.

So how there be an ongoing criminal case 😆

And if "Individual One" is implicated, why did Bueller not mention it in the "Report" 😆

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes "Ongoing Matters" are already in progress and have nothing to do with an Impeachment referral

I believe that there is a certain "Individual One", in a certain ongoing case, whose outcome might involve the "I" word.

Page Number ?

😆

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes "Ongoing Matters" are already in progress and have nothing to do with an Impeachment referral 😆

And Barr is not held in Contempt 😆

Plus, Barr has given 8 Congress Members access to an unredacted (minus grand jury stuff which wouldn't be anything about Impeachment) report which, if any referrals for Impeachment were in there, we would already know wouldn't we 😆

Fail 😆

An ongoing matter does not mean that it would be irrelevant in an impeachment. You are drawing conclusions that are not valid.

For instance (and hypothetically) someone could be under trial for doing some action at the behest of the President. Once the guilt is established in the case of the doer of the crime, the proposer or director of that established crime is then clearly criminally implicated.

Until the crime before the court is resolved, you cannot charge an accomplice for conspiracy/complicity in it.

a reply to: xuenchen

HERE

The president of the United States was labeled "Individual 1" in yesterday's court filing by Mueller.

Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony case.

a reply to: chr0naut

The ongoing trials have not indicated anything about any Trump implication that would lead to Impeachment 😆

Unless you can find something 😆 without making it up 😆

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

HERE

The president of the United States was labeled "Individual 1" in yesterday's court filing by Mueller.

Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony case.

Where's the reference to your "unindicted co-conspirator" ? 😆

Page Number ? in the case ? in the Bueller Report ?

And where's Jerry ? 😀

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes "Ongoing Matters" are already in progress and have nothing to do with an Impeachment referral

I believe that there is a certain "Individual One", in a certain ongoing case, whose outcome might involve the "I" word.

Page Number ?

😆

Individual 1, mentioned in Cohen's sentencing memo by Mueller, has been identified as being Donald Trump. Therefore, the Mueller report no longer reports him under his pseudonym, but calls him by name.

a reply to: chr0naut

Where's the "unindicted" part ? 😆

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The ongoing trials have not indicated anything about any Trump implication that would lead to Impeachment 😆

Unless you can find something 😆 without making it up 😆

Any one of those 10 instances of alleged obstruction could be grounds for impeachment.

Also, the Mueller investigation wasn't the be-all and end-all investigation into Trump. He's (allegedly) been a naughty boy.

House investigations of Trump and his administration: The full list - NBC News

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Where's the "unindicted" part ? 😆

There are goldfish with longer memories... LOL.



The DOJ is legally barred from indicting a sitting President. That is what Trump is right now, a sitting President. So, he hasn't been indicted because he can't be indicted (by the DOJ). That is the "unindicted" part.

Next I imagine you will be asking me to define the word 'define' in your ever dwindling attempt to avoid the bleedin' obvious.

a reply to: chr0naut

All shot in the ass now 😆

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

All shot in the ass now 😆

Ask yourself, why would Pelosi be deferring impeachment?

There are already a few Republicans who have jumped on board and I think most of the Dems would support it.

But she's holding off. Hmm...

Perhaps she's playing the 'game' and has enough to wreck the Trump 2020 campaign but doesn't want to jump the gun and give Trump any chance to fight back? And with the conclusion of each of the investigations, the case against Trump will grow stronger and stronger. Not to mention that a couple of years in, Trump's fiscal, tax and trade policies will all be starting to hit. All she has to do is wait.

Impeachment isn't worth the effort if Trump doesn't get reelected.

Or not.

Who knows in "American" politics, right?

a reply to: LDragonFire

First off demotards got caught committing mischeif when podestias emails were released to the world.
Which described them of doing fraud and other crimes. So then they had CNN cry we the public can not view this files because it is illegal for us too.
When that did not work they made up the narrative that Russians did it.
Fbi asked to examine servers the dnc refused but stated that they had them examined by a 3rd party who stated that it was definitely the Russians.
The fbi said ok if you sure then it was Russians who did the deed then. Wait what how in the 7 hells is the fbi going to declare a foreign power hacked the dnc servers with out actually examining them? If jo blow was thought to have kiddie pork on his servers you Damn well better beleive they would have got a warrant and seized said servers before doing anything else.
So how can anyone say with a straight face Russia did it. Their was absolutely no physical evidence of this . Likely hacking of dnc servers was done in house by a Seth rich who was then likely murdered by someone to keep him from testifying on what he found in those servers.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Clinton derangement syndrome . Have you ever researched the clintons . I have they have had ties to dixie mafia for decades.
Numerous mysterious deaths are attached to them. Drug running and money laundering , human trafficking ..but Trump bad man with orange hair because he said one time he would like to get some of an actress from a NBC soap that had a nice butt?
I am not saying Trump is not a horn dog he is . His wife knew that when she married him. But the clintons have been running a criminal enterprise for at least 4 decades they just better about keeping their dirt out of press thru intimidation or buying off the press.

still no actions......

lol
now the "referals" sent off to other venues are attempted to be twisted into damning trump?

lol
nice try
wont fly here

individual one may as well be adam west as we have as much evidence that it is him as we do as it is xue cro or silly

go get your shineboxes