According to the Washington Examiner, based upon the findings of the Mueller report, some Democrats such as Elijah Cummings, House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairperson, are certain that President Trump will be impeached. Yes, Democrats are pressuring Nancy Pelosi to impeach Trump based upon the findings of the Mueller report. Your thoughts?
Hello, gm, that's for the Americans. Nevertheless, I will follow-up with the discussion and contribute. Thanks and enjoy the week.
Did we doubt they wouldn't let go, even after being handed nothing of value to use in order to turn a congressional and media lynch mob into a reasoned and rational group?
The democrats have no unity, no agenda,save one, other than smearing Trump. They know their only other agenda, of creating dissent and discord, has backfired miserably. They know if they don't convince the American people they haven't wasted time and money for these last few years (while simultaneously trying to tear at the fabric of our society) it will be an impossible uphill climb to retake the white house.
Hi, live to learn, you mean the Democrats? Let's see the reality of these in the next few months, right? I am not at the moment for any political party in the United States. I am a Nigerian resident in Nigeria. I have many problems with 97 political parties here! As the discussion unfolds more, I will make my real contribution to the argument. Thank you.
As someone wisely said, if Fox News didn't exist, Trump would have been impeached by now.
Pelosi doesn't want Trump impeached because of what he is doing to the Republican party. They are the ones who have to kick him out.
That said, Trump will get impeached if the economy tanks and his approval rating goes down with it. Otherwise, I think he will survive until he leaves office. Then he'll get indicted.
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."- Gerald Ford
In my own opinion, I don't think President Trump will be impeached. It is only the song that the Democrats have left.
Trump will not be impeached, and so what if he is. Clinton was impeached too and it didn’t hurt him.
Impeachment in the House is only the first step. Trial in the Senate is the second step.
The Senate voted against trial for Clinton because they thought having sex with an intern didn't justify throwing a President out of office.
If the House impeaches Trump, he will get kicked out of office -- and then indicted -- if the Senate finds him guilty in a trial.
If the Senate refuses a trial, Trump can breathe easy.
You are correct, in this matter that so many people here do not seem to grasp. An impeachment by the Democratic controlled house does NOT remove Trump from office or assign any legal wrongdoing. It is a door for the Senate to proceed through and, even more, a political statement.
Only when the Senate has voted, with a 2/3rds majority, to convict can Trump be removed, and when was the last time that body voted for anything with that kind of majority?
Incorrect. Orrin Hatch was the deciding vote and he let Clinton off. Don’t smear the whole senate. It came down to Hatch, a rino who eulogized Ted Kennedy.
Well, maybe the Dems should consider one pretty glaring fact. The Senate will never impeach Trump. I guess they hope this gesture will please some of their base. In my opinion it just stans to make them look silly.
If the House votes to impeach, the case is referred to the Senate to proceed with a trial. The trial runs much like a criminal case, and witnesses can be called on either side. A supermajority, or two-thirds, of the Senate, then has to vote to convict and remove the president from office.
I'd personally like those who vote against impeachment on the record if witnesses are called that display the obstruction of justice Trump committed, according to the Mueller report. Washington needs some accountability, whether that be Hillary using a private server or Trump defending Russia because he believes he needed, or will need their help for re-election.
I think I've asked this at least a half dozen times and haven't seen an answer yet?
What information did Trump successfully conceal from the investigation (and what of his actions produced that result), obstructing it in it's search for dirt...OR...what did he do to delay the investigation past what it would have taken without his "obstruction"?
Those two things seem to me to be the only method of "obstructing justice", but I haven't seen either one done.
And I answered you clearly that the obstruction of justice statutes list over twenty different examples of conduct that falls under the charge. But obviously, you believe only two things constitute obstruction of justice, which is ridiculously incorrect if you have any clue to the actual law.
And the last time you asked, I clearly stated that the firing of Jim Comey because he was investigating Russia, which is what Trump clearly stated as the reason multiple times (on tv to Lester Holt, in the Oval Office to the Russian Ambassador, and in multiple correspondence that is included in the Mueller report) was one clear example. Asking Don McGhan to fire Mueller is a second clear example. Instead of breaking the law, McGhan resigned.
I would like to wait for results of a full investigation as to whether the FBI, the Obama administration and the Hillary campaign worked together to begin an investigation with knowingly bogus information, in the intent of illegally torpedoing the Trump campaign.
Why? Did you not read the Mueller Report where it is clearly stated that the counterintelligence investigation began when George Papadopolous bragged to an American ally that he had been approached by Russians with the hacked e-mails?
And even if you believe the dossier factors in, the FISA warrant was granted on Carter Page just three weeks prior to the election. Carter Page wasn't even working with the campaign at that point. So a FISA warrant was granted on a previous member of the campaign. Hardly spying if you understand the actual facts and not how the events are being manipulated to paint an incorrect picture.
If the "full investigation" returned the verdict you want, (or expect), would that, for you, nullify the facts in the Mueller Report?
Would that be similar to tossing out the kilo of coke because the search was invalid? That may be the proper function of our system, (and I support tossing out the coke on an invalid search determination), but it doesn't change the facts.
If you listed examples, I apologize even though examples of misconduct does not indicate what you think Trump did and what the result was. I have been in and out and fear I missed more than one post.
What was the result, from the investigation's viewpoint, of the firing of Comey? Did the investigation stop, or even slow? What information was it unable to gather because of that firing? And, of course, what was the reason for the firing - Trump did not fire him "because he was investigating Russia".
Trump stated, on national television, he fired Comey with the Russia thing in mind. If you were to do the research, you would see that Trump, on at least three occasions, admitted firing Comey because he was investigating election interference by Russia. He backpedaled and made up other excuses, but in the Mueller report, it is made clear Trump fired him because of the investigation, and Mueller lists this as one of the ten instances Congress should use to hold Trump accountable to the law.
Not quite Valeant. McGhan was prepared to resign, (packed up and letter in hand), and I am unsure if he actually told Pres. Trump that in their last Oval Office meeting, but, he did not resign. He also did not do what the president asked of him.
Regarding your "Comey firing" point. I am not on-board with that one as obstruction. I don't think his firing impeded the investigation or would have impeded the investigation. The Report had a quote from Steve Bannon, (or maybe it was Christie): "You can fire Comey but you can't fire the FBI."
That obstruction point may be debatable; was Trump's intention to impede, or just to get rid of Comey because he wouldn't be a "yes" man, or that he was pissed at Comey for his failure to go after Hillary, but I would come down on the "not" side. I think I recall that the Report said something similar.
Comey certainly left a few avenues to consider for his firing, I grant that.
But in looking at the statute and combining them with Trump clearly stating that he considered the Russia investigation when firing Comey, and I will respectfully disagree with your assessment based on the fact that he tried to influence the investigation by cutting the head off the snake. And who would get to appoint the next person to direct the investigation, let us not forget, Trump would. That's the case for trying to influence:
Definition. 18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines "obstruction of justice" as an act that "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.
As I said Valeant, it is a debatable point. I understand your perspective, and I gave such an impression some thought as I read the Report. But the bottom line for me was that I think Pres. Trump fired Comey because he was pissed at him for not being a "yes" man.
It is true that he specifically pointed to the Russia investigation, but I think that is more because he didn't think it was a valid investigation than it was that he wanted to impede the investigation.
I think it was more of a vengeful firing than an obstructive firing. However, I won't try to convince you if you don't try to convince me. I am as comfortable with my interpretation as I imagine you are with yours. We just disagree. Once more, proof of the Baskin-Robbins model.
They will be on the record? So will those that vote to impeach. Mueller did his job, he did it right. He did not make any indictment recommendation in his report. He left that to the DOJ which is customary. The AG has not indited anyone due to the report. Mueller and Barr in the next few weeks will appear before Congress to be questioned I would assume on their decision making in regard to the investigation. Perhaps we shoud wait to hear from both verbally?
No, just no. DOJ policy prohibits indicting a sitting president. Mueller stated this in the report. What he said in the report is that here are the 12 instances of obstruction of justice that Congress, not the DOJ, can use should they choose to impeach. What Barr did was mischaracterize what Mueller wrote, and badly. Something he will need to answer for when he is called back to Congress.
"What he said in the report is that here are the 12 instances of obstruction of justice that Congress, not the DOJ, can use should they choose to impeach."
Is that really what he said (there are 12 instances of obstruction), or did he say that using rather novel legal theories a judge might be convinced that it could be construed that way?
Those are two very different things.
Not that I think you'll take the time to read this, but:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction … t-heat-map
Explain, please, how an order (to McGahn) to deny attempts to fire Mueller "obstructed justice" re: the investigation. Did it cause Mueller any trouble? Did it slow the investigation into collusion? What was the result of that order that obstructed the investigation?
And when you've done that, show that a desire to fire Mueller was because it would obstruct justice. Not your opinion, but the reason he wanted to do it, from the horse's mouth.
The order to McGahn was to fire Mueller. He gave McGahn an order that McGahn recognized as a clear case of obstruction of justice, a crime. So he refused that order.
While you see nothing wrong with the President giving orders to those in the administration to break the law, I think the rest of us see that as impeachable.
Wilderness, I was unsure of the parameters of obstruction so I asked Google. Every source Google showed me confirmed that the obstruction effort did not need to succeed. Even attempting to obstruct is enough, if it was done with corrupt intent.
Just thought I would offer that. The rest is for you to decide based on your own interpretation of the Report's evidence.
"He did not make any indictment recommendation in his report. ". I am very aware that current law would prevent the president from being indited. I simply meant Mueller had no other recommendations for indigents of any of the hundreds of witnesses they interviewed. I was unclear.
In regards to obstruction. Mueller clearly stated no Americans participate d to work with the Russians to obstruct justice. This statement should not be ignored... I will save all judgment on impeachment until I hear Mueller answer questions before Congress. I think those holding out for Mueller to incriminate Trump for any crimes will be sadly disappointed. The media is once again reporting much of what is in the actual report out of conjecture, and twisting words to suit theiir bias.
Never? Under any circumstances? That's a pretty risky assumption to make.
IslandBite's article link should raise even more alarm bells for Trump. It's one of the most damning articles I have seen yet.
For God's sake, it's from a Republican, a lawyer and one of Trump's own transition people.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … nt/587785/
"Never? Under any circumstances? That's a pretty risky assumption to make." I will stand by the statement. It's common sense. Just as I predicted the outcome of the Mueller report. There was no there, there that would lead to an indictment of the President. It well appears the Dems will push for impeachment. It will go nowhere. It will turn off many citizens, and yes be good feed for their base, and cost taxpayers more money. It will also feed Trump's base to consider the stalemate the Dems create and get thm out to vote.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the link I provided.
Otherwise, there is not "no there, there":
Interference: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government."
Obstruction: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Mueller has outplayed everyone. Despite damaging evidence, he won't indict Trump because Trump's attorney general won't go along with it. Instead, he gives Congress ammunition to impeach Trump or wait until he is out of office and then indict him. Trump is toast either way.
But Pelosi isn't playing the impeachment game. Just look at her own public statements. She loves the current situation.
An out-of-control Trump works in favor of the Democrats as long as he stays in office.
The link you provide was one man's opinion, which he is entitled too.
It's hard to decipher NP feelings on the subject of impeachment. I would not read into her thoughts as of yet. In my opinion, if the Dems go down the impeachment path it will do them in. I also think when Barr and Mueller sit before Congress we will perhaps learn more about the report from the man that conducted the report. I hope Mueller will go the distance and give his true opinions on the investigation and explain in detail the statements he made in his report to Barr.
"An out-of-control Trump works in favor of the Democrats as long as he stays in office."
Not sure what you refer to in that statement? He fights back and has from day one.
An Impeachment attempt could be possible, but, it would be based on slim pickings. And probably wouldn't fair well for anyone seeking re-election regardless of the party.
It will never happen. President Trump is the best president ever!
If you have read the Mueller report, and you believe that presidents should follow and uphold the laws of our nation, then you wouldn't want Trump anywhere near the White House.
If Congress were properly performing their duty to hold the president accountable for his actions, they would begin impeachment proceedings. As a practical matter, though, since Republicans are choosing party over country and will never support impeachment, the Democrats should not proceed with impeachment, but should instead focus on winning the upcoming election.
What, in your opinion, should they use as grounds for impeachment? There is no treason (look up the legal definition), there is no bribery. That leaves "other high crimes and misdemeanors", which is so vague that it is left up to the House to pick something. What would you suggest they make up as a "high crime" in order to impeach? Wearing a wig?
"What, in your opinion, should they use as grounds for impeachment?"
If only we had a template . . .
"In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/p … t=on#full3
Don, in a feeble attempt at sarcasm I can only say that your attempt to portray a comparison of 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander' as a rational explanation for the rabid Leftist's attacks on our president is less than convincing.
Clinton got a blowjob out of it, what did Pres Trump get?
Surely you aren't equating an ego stroke with a physical stroke.
"Surely you aren't equating an ego stroke with a physical stroke."
Now if only there were another template to use:
"In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice . . .".
I warned you Don. it was a feeble attempt. And as such, it failed as predicted.
Gus, to your response to Don-you are correct. It is analogous to entering into a fighting match w/a cobra. The cobra will win...……..ALWAYS. The cobra has THE ARSENAL to win. Yeah I know, I am now reading a book on snakes- the elapid family. They are quite fascinating creatures.
Just to clarify, am I being called a Cobra? It's not clear to me.
If so, that's probably the most exciting thing I've ever been called!
Not sure how I shall live up to it.
Was making an analogy; however, I am very sorry that I have offended both you & Gus. I meant cobra in a positive sense. Cobras are smart creatures- quite fascinating but deadly. Yes, I do have a DARK side. Continue the discussion. If I as a New Yorker can survive Giuliani, I sure as ### can survive Trump. I can take care of myself...…….I am not a whiner. If I want something, I know how to strive for it.
P.S. Both you & Gus have a fierce intelligence which I admire immensely. You both make convincing, mature arguments.
I wasn't offended. More bemused because I didn't understand the analogy. I assumed it was negative, but my response was meant as a tongue in cheek shoulder shrug. No more than that.
I was looking forward to cultivating my new found reputation as a snake though, and I think I still can. So this is my new plan for getting everyone to agree with me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCX5JJw … e&t=85
I have high hopes for it.
Here here! Starting with your "As a practical matter, though..." thought. I agree
But, let me ask you a different question: From your perspective; and putting aside the strongly Democrat and strongly Republican segments, (we both know their answers), do you think Independents and party moderates, (yes, they exist, I have inside information that they hold a non-partisan shadow Davos-type meeting twice yearly in a secret mountain retreat), do you think a majority of those Americas would support an impeachment effort, or be turned off by the appearance, (and reality), of a never-ending political fight?
I think it would be a huge party mistake, even if, (I haven't read the Report's obstruction details), the details were credible. I think a very large segment of non-rabid voters will be turned off and their voting choice will be affected.
Seems like Democrats are between a rock and a hard place.
I do think moderates and independents would be turned off by purely Democratic impeachment proceedings. If it were a bipartisan effort, then I believe most moderates would side with doing the right thing, which would be holding a lawless President accountable for his actions.
If a majority of moderates and independents, those not riding a party platform, would be turned off, what makes you think that impeachment is the "right thing"?
Is it just that you don't like Trump and therefore will declare him "lawless" even though 2 years of investigation found no legal violations?
"2 years of investigation found no legal violations."
That's the truth. Trump violated no laws per the Mueller report.
Not true, but I know there is no point saying so to you.
PP: If you point to where in the Mueller report it clearly states that Trump broke the law, I won't respond to that post. Set me straight on it.
You said: "Trump violated no laws per the Mueller report."
That is the statement I was responding to. Even Barr stated the report did not exonerate him from a charge of obstructing justice. Mueller, straight shooter that he is, did not state a conclusion about obstruction, knowing that a sitting president cannot be indicted and therefore cannot defend himself of the charge in a court of law.
He left it to Congress to hold the president accountable, as is their duty.
You are correct; Mueller did not say he committed no crimes. But neither did he say he committed any crimes, which for purposes of indictment or impeachment seems far more important. After all, the investigation did not comb every moment of Trump's life for the past 5 years or so; it would thus be impossible to definitively state he committed no crimes. But if he did find a crime it would be not only easy, but required, that he report it.
I am noting. So the law in American bars American Presidents appearing in courts of law? So, Parliament can deal with him. But did Parliament really represent the interest of the peoples at heart? The case of Richard Nixon I think was handled by the courts, so he resigned before the House impeached him. Can a right knowledgable person put me straight on the right path if I err here? Many thanks.
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report read. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
That's also the truth. The Mueller report didn't say that Trump broke any laws, but it didn't prove his innocence either.
The report didn’t need to “prove his innocence.” In America we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Imagine yourself on the other end of this thing. If an investigation was unable to prove YOU committed a crime/crimes, would it be right for people to go around saying what you just said? “It didn’t prove his innocence either.” Proving innocence is difficult. Proving guilt is much easier and Mueller was unable to do it. That should count for something.
"In America we are presumed innocent until proven guilty."
Not in this case. The ends justify the means, and that includes a presumption of guilt even when it cannot be found.
Just imagine if Hillary appeared on national television and encouraged our enemy to commit espionage against the USA and steal our private property and express the explicit intent to RECEIVE said stolen property just like Bozo Trump did: Or if Chelsea Clinton met with Russian spies with explicit intent to receive negative info on Bozo Trump just like Bozo Trump Junior and Jared Kushner did in Trump Tower:
Lindsey Graham and the other Communist Russian Republicans would be pulling whats left of their hair out and everyone knows it with immediate impeachment hearings commencing:
Yes, in a court of law, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But the Mueller investigation was not a court of law. It was simply a criminal investigation.
The report made a point of saying if "President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state".
Mueller was pointing out that Trump pushed the boundaries of both ethics and the law.
Mueller tried to prove Trump's innocence and wanted the public to know that Trump was not innocent. Mueller also knew that he couldn't indict a sitting President.
"Mueller was pointing out that Trump pushed the boundaries of both ethics and the law."
You are absolutely correct: Trump pushed the boundaries of both ethics and the law. Just as every politician in the country does on a regular basis, but until that boundary is actually crossed there is no valid reason to pursue it any further.
(Of course that "valid" reason has gone out the window in favor of any reason that can be made up, hasn't it?)
I can't think of any good reason to converse with you on this subject, but I will answer your question anyway.
Bipartisan impeachment proceedings would, presumably, mean that even Republican politicians find Trump's actions to be so reprehensible as to require removal from office. If that were the case, I'm guessing moderates would be on board, too.
Of course, the current crop of Republicans in office have lowered their standards so low that I can't imagine what Trump would have to do to lose their support.
Have you read the report, or at least read about what is in it? Trump repeatedly and knowingly, over an extended period of time, directed multiple people to break the law and obstruct justice. Is that okay with you?
PrettyPanther, I am interested in reading the report. Can I have a link? Thank you much.
Here's what nobody seems to grasp. Somebody is going to have to stand up and hold the people in their own party to some kind of ethical standard.
The presidency is all about precedent. Trump's supporters can go ahead and support him, but what he's doing in office sets a terrible precedent for future presidents. Imagine Trump's Democratic counterpart for a moment. I'm not sure what that person looks like, but it's a horrible thought. Now imagine Democrats, as they have always done and as Republicans have always done with their candidates, backing that person no matter what they say or do. You should imagine it because that's exactly what will happen.
Maybe the Republican boogeyman George Soros will be our next President. There's nothing to stop him from allocating all funds to wherever he wants, lying about whatever he wants to lie about, and directing the United States in any direction he wants.
Why? Because we, the American people, continue to allow the precedent for doing so to be set.
Correct. The unethical activities of the Trump Administration are ugly. My thought is that every administration has plenty of unethical activity, this one probably more than others. The Mueller investigation shed a light on it.
It's really come down to right vs left, and the inability of Americans to elect anyone from outside of the horrific Republican/Democrat options. These are really bad options.
However, if we COULD elect someone from outside that framework, would that be alot better? I'm going to argue that it wouldn't be much better. The mindset of human beings seems to be on a downward trend.
George Soros was born in Budapest. You have to be a natural born citizen to be president of the US.
Assassination is the other reason why he might not end up in the White House.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/le … os-n997176
I find this to be a very real, very valid, concern. There are always whackos in a society as large as ours, and the tremendous vitriol being spewed by both media, and especially social media, it should not surprise anyone that attempts would be made to assassinate our President. Or, for that matter, the opposition leadership. Or even the neighbor wearing a MAGA cap - that's how bad the hatred has gone and how much it has grown.
Hi, wilderness, you're welcomed. I would like these democrats or republicans, or any independent to point out any wrong President Trump committed. It seems and it is obvious the law Trump breaks is the building of "American Berlin Wall!"
I see that Wilderness beat me to a response about your "right thing" thought, but if you could drop the "lawless" adjective I could agree with your thought that moderates would consider that a president should be held accountable for his actions.
Yes, agree. Trump staying in office works in favor of the Democrats -- as long as the Dems don't go too far left.
If the economy weakens into a recession in 2020 as some experts are predicting, a centrist Dem will have a good chance of defeating Trump.
I bet the Republican establishment is hoping that's exactly what will happen. They can get rid of a rogue President and put in one of their own.
Sad, isn't it, that it's all about politics and political power rather than the good of the nation. Keep him in office because that way when the economy drops we gain power.
Never a concern about what the nation needs, only in gaining power for political hacks in the Democratic party.
I don't think they're going to do it. And I'm not sure they should (politically speaking) if is not going to be a bipartisan effort.
But who knows, maybe he'll be right after all.
Hi, Island bite, you are welcomed. This is what I like. As no person has pointed out that President Trump breaks a law, it will be well with him. The point that his officers break the law on his behave like the obstruction of justice could still go a long way in the courts of law before the next election I think so. Many thanks.
Hello, wilderness, ah ah ah! Eh eh eh!. Wearing a wing? Lol!
I think one thing those rabidly clinging to impeachment hopes don't accept is that any in-depth investigation into any moment in the presidency of any person will reveal questionable aspects that can be viewed negatively, if your bias leans in that direction.
There was no smoking gun. If you care about the near future of the democratic party...let it go.
Did you read the Mueller report? The President asked his staff to impede the investigation and to lie and to violate the law. The only reason Mueller wasn't fired (more obstruction of justice) was because the President was ignored by his own staff. If that does not constitute "obstruction of justice" in your mind, what does? Does Trump literally have to kill somebody for his supporters to be advocate from him to be charged with something?
I am willing to be that if Trump ordered Elizabeth Warren to be murdered, his supporters would look the other way. A vast majority of them would say she deserved it.
How does anyone support somebody, be it spouse or President, who lies to them constantly? I will release my taxes. I won't release my taxes. I will close the border. I won't close the border...
To your last statement - I completely agree. If the Democrats know what's good for them, they will let this all fester. They should focus on their plan for America, pitch it to the voters, and let us decide. Because if there plan is "no more Trump", that's not a plan.
In 2020, I plan to support the candidate who best upholds the ethical and moral ideals of the United States and who proposes a plan to move the country forward both economically and politically.
I certainly agree, but hold little hope that someone ethical can withstand the forces which will set out against them in their effort to attain the presidency. I think you have to be dirty to excel in the political arena we have allowed to grow in Washington.
And, with the internet obscuring truth and pushing false narratives it is even harder to find that elusive figure.
Good point; our "leadership" system has become so corrupt, and so good at hiding it, that it is likely impossible for a straight shooter to ever hold office.
Right now, I'd probably vote for Mayor Pete, just to get a decent human being in the office.
I agree with everything you said. It's interesting that Americans, so fed up with the political climate and, I'm assuming, having drawn the same conclusions you have, decided to elect a guy who best represents everything they're so mad about - a liar. They actually seem to like that he's so good at it, figuring that he'll outdo Washington. I mean, he's a sociopath he lies so much. He just doesn't care and doesn't think it matters. That said, politicians in general don't seem to really tell the truth or just obfuscate to the point where people get fed up.
The really sad thing is that politicians generally get elected by promising things, not by taking things away. It's just not a recipe for ethical success.
"Did you read the Mueller report? The President asked his staff to impede the investigation and to lie and to violate the law. The only reason Mueller wasn't fired (more obstruction of justice) was because the President was ignored by his own staff. If that does not constitute "obstruction of justice" in your mind, what does? Does Trump literally have to kill somebody for his supporters to be advocate from him to be charged with something?"
And what was the result of that order? Was the investigation impeded because of it? Was information denied the investigators? Were they slowed in their search because of Trump's order?
If I decide to ride my moped through the center of town at 100 mph and take it up to it's top speed of 20 mph trying to do so, am I guilty of speeding? Will I be charged and convicted of any crime at all?
When Trump does something illegal, or his subordinates do something illegal at his order, then he is guilty of a crime. Until then he is guilty have having a big mouth but not much else. Hard to understand, apparently, by those that wish him imprisoned and don't care why, but it is true.
Here's a definition of high crimes and misdemeanors for you: "The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion."
I don't see "issuing orders for illegal activity". Maybe that falls under "failure to supervise"?
But wherever you got that information it is useless: the House, and only the House, will determine what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, and it will be done according to what political power they can get from it, not from reality, legality or honesty.
His oath is to defend the Constitution. You don't see ordering someone to break the law a violation of his oath to defend the Constitution? Yikes.
And he clearly impeded the investigation when he fired Comey. Especially when he announced on national television that he considered the Russia thing when he did it. And the Mueller report details how many times he talked about Comey's investigation as the reason for wanting him fired.
I don't recall anything in the constitution requiring that FBI agents never be fired. Can you provide a quote?
Fact is that you and others are still grasping at straws. Still spinning what is there into something that is not. Still making assumptions that could not be show true with 2 years and massive amounts of resources and money spent.
Still playing political games instead of accepting that you lost an election.
The Mueller Report Was My Tipping Point
I was a Trump transition staffer, and I’ve seen enough. It’s time for impeachment.
"...There is a point, though, at which that expectation turns from a mix of loyalty and pragmatism into something more sinister, a blind devotion that serves to enable criminal conduct.
The Mueller report was that tipping point for me, and it should be for Republican and independent voters, and for Republicans in Congress. In the face of a Department of Justice policy that prohibited him from indicting a sitting president, Mueller drafted what any reasonable reader would see as a referral to Congress to commence impeachment hearings..."
A Trump Transition Staffer Calls for Impeachment
A friend shared this article with me this morning -
http://sdcitybeat.com/news-and-opinion/ … vIObbf8qOc
I was taken with the "Redacted" mark throughs - and thought this was very creative. After reading this - I realized that this author made some incredibly great points, however - what will be the outcome of this? Who steps into the role as our President after this impeachment?
Is this really MAKING PROGRESS?
Or - are we going to be choosing someone with even more extreme opinions and points of view than Trump?
I think the best that we can do here -
Is to get ready for the next election...
And do our darnedest to elect a much better choice - this time...
Maybe we can put it in words conservatives will believe, a Fox News analyst's take on it:
I hope Liberals come to realize you can't impeach someone because you don't like them. Most Americans, 56 percent don't want impeachment. That is one important aspect of impeachment of a president, you have to have public support for it.
https://www.newser.com/story/274423/pol … gn=rss_top
So now we're believing polls? With a sample size of 1,000, you trust the results?
As with Nixon, as witnesses are brought before Congress and publicly testify, I imagine you'll see public support for impeachment grow.
Is that what it's come to? Impeachment because the people want it - just another case of mob rule without regard to the law? Whatever is political advantageous?
Did I say that? What I've been saying is that the obstruction of justice examples listed within the Mueller report warrant it. Maybe by hearing from those like Don McGahn, who were ordered to break the law, blind sheep like yourself will finally recognize the criminal activity of your cult leader and break free to be able to think for yourself again. I doubt you're capable, but maybe with more information you can prove me wrong.
Seems odd that you are so full of yourself? Remember you aid Hillary would win. You felt Mueller would lead to jail time for Trump... What will you jump on the morning after Trump wins in 2020? No really, maybe time to give it a rest.
I aid? I guess when I can spell basic words, I have a right to be a little full of myself.
I still feel Mueller will lead to jail time for Trump. He has already been implicated in a felony conviction that he directed to aid his campaign. That's not going anywhere. But you seem to ignore that simple truth, because instead of being full of yourself, your media sources that fail to inform you of these facts are full of something else that I remember shoveling back in my farm years.
What? You had farm years? No wonder you are so familiar with BS. I bet you are familiar with chicken "S" too.
*Sorry Valeant, it's a martini night and the forums are too tame. I just had to walk through that door you opened.
Yup, I can smell BS a mile away. It's just sad that Trump supporters don't seem to know it when they encounter it and have to be spoon fed the facts, like us imploring some of them to actually read the Mueller report, as an example.
Oh, in regard to 'aid" it was a typo. Meant to spell said. The truth is your chasing you are tail. Once again let me remind you, Mueller, did not suggest any new indictments.. can't wait for the night Trump wind the 2020 election. Love t watch you chase your tail.
Simply because he can't indict a sitting President according to Trump's Attorney General, who also happens to be Mueller's boss.
It's why Mueller handed over a big pile of evidence to 14 other investigations.
Wishful thinking won't make this mess go away.
Nor will wishful thinking make a crime miraculously appear.
Good to note. I think people should be more careful at such times. Smearing a person with ill-will do not pay at the end. Either one wishes Trump well or keeps the mouth shut. What if he makes it at the end?
Former acting Attorney General:
Judge Napolitano from Faux News:
Those who teach the law:
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484731/ … al-experts
Sorry, but I'll take their expert opinion over some silly memes by Mike or your biased claim.
You can add a member of Trump's transition team to your list. He outright says it's time to impeach.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … nt/587785/
Have I said a thing about wishing that a crime appear?
I have said multiple times that the Mueller report did not prove Trump's guilt OR innocence.
At least I'm quoting the actual report and not making garbage up like other people on here.
This mess is not even close to going away. There will be indictments. Think Horowitz, and please remember I said that...
If you're thinking Horowitz will indict, then you don't believe Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Because that was the basis for the counterintelligence investigation that was started.
Members of the Trump campaign were approached by Russians, specifically Papadopolous, with the illegally obtained information they hacked from the DNC. He bragged to an American ally who brought it to the attention of the FBI. Hence the start of the counterintelligence investigation. After that began, Carter Page, formerly under FISA surveillance for having been recruited by Russians in 2013, flew to Russia and met with high ranking Russians while working for the campaign, and after Russia had hacked the DNC.
While interference in our elections by a hostile foreign power, and then having that interference denied by the person it helped (Trump), and then the investigation into that interference obstructed (by Trump) may not be a big deal to you, some of us find that conduct criminal and potentially treasonous.
Why Americans, specifically Trump and his supporters, are backing Russia over our own FBI is about as un-American as you can get. Open your eyes.
And that crap we heard today from the GOP about spying on the Trump campaign. They are clearly referring to Carter Page. The FISA warrant wasn't granted until three weeks before the election, a full month after he had left the campaign. So a surveillance warrant was granted on someone not even working for the campaign. And if protecting our elections from foreign interference is dubbed spying, those who buy that crap have already compromised the security of our nation.
OMG... You asked why I felt you are a hypocrite. Let me count the ways. You are making excuses for the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign, using a dossier that was compiled by a shifty operative that collected its entire contents from Russians. Clinton and her merry band of crooks were the only ones that clearly tried to collude with Russia.
" Why Americans, specifically Trump and his supporters, are backing Russia over our own FBI is about as un-American as you can get. Open your eyes." I certainly have never made any statement that would support this statement. Not sure why you feel Trump supporters ack Russia or have disdain for the FBI?
In my opinion, there were a handful of FBI agents as well as their leader Comey that broke many of our laws, and hopefully, be prosecuted for those crimes. I have good faith that Horowitz and AG Barr will do their jobs. I in no way feel this bunch reflects poorly on the Institution of the FBI. You seem to paint too broad a picture on any given subject, and leave out common sense. You seek to insult instead of making a valid point.
Hypocritical, how about your statement in regard to Trump "hand-picking his AG." I actually can't come across a president that did not nominate their choice of AG. It is very obvious you are very hypocritical. You seem to feel President Trump should not be afforded his choice of compiling his cabinet.
Maybe it's time to face the fact Trump won. I just wonder what you will come up within 2020 when he wins once more?
Russians hacking one of the parties for the top office in our country and then using that material to promote their preferred candidate is, in your eyes, just an excuse for opening a counterintelligence investigation and not necessary to protect our country? Thank you for making my point that people like you, and many of the Trump sheep, compromise national security.
The fact that you cannot comprehend the timelines that the FISA surveillance was only granted AFTER Carter Page left the Trump campaign undermines your entire point that there was 'spying.' When campaign aides meet with high level government aides of a hostile foreign government during the campaign, one that was already confirmed to have hacked the DNC, a campaign aide that had previously been recruited by that government, how do you not see a need to investigate?
The counterintelligence investigation had been opened for months prior to the dossier even coming to light. Why even mention it when it wasn't a factor in the FBI opening their investigation into Russian interference. Interference, by the way, that was confirmed by every intelligence service in the United States, but denied by Trump as he protected Russia.
In regards to Barr, what you likely can't come across is a president who was under investigation when he got to pick the Attorney General that would get to oversee the case he was being investigated for. The fact that you believe someone under investigation should get to pick the person who would decide if they were being charged, after that person publicly admits that he views the law in favor of the accused is comical, at best.
You're right up there with Jack and Mike in terms of Trump Denial Syndrome. You're living in the false reality he has created for you and not able to see the actual facts of his criminal acts. It's sad.
I notice as always you have not answered my question in regard to Hillary and the DNC colluding with Russians to create a dossier? Now that's collusion. Why is it acceptable to you that Hillary pays for a dossier provided by Russians? She went directly to Russian sources. Please explain your logic on why you feel this crime should go unpunished?
Oh, not sure if you are aware but Russia has been hacking and interfering in our election for years. And I think the guy in office should have done something about it... My god, can you put a logical thought together?
I can't wait for the Horowitz report. It will be fun to remind you of this very thread. Although Dems are such good losers. They just historically move on to some other "silly thing".
The rest of your comment holds no truth what so ever, and actually makes no sense. You seem to be making it up as you go. Not worth a response.
And I notice that you never address the Papadopolous episode as the start of the coutnerintelligence investigation. You always parrot back to a dossier that only pertains to gaining a FISA warrant on a campaign aide that wasn't involved in the campaign when it was issued.
I've answered the dossier a few times in these forums and I'm sorry you fail to remember that the lawyer representing the DNC and Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS, an American company. That company, a few months afterwards, subcontracted out to Christopher Steele. The Clinton campaign was unaware of Steele's involvement. But you, and other blind sheep who fail to do your own research into the topic, just spew false facts that intimate she had knowledge who Fusion GPS was using. If you want to be accurate, fault Fusion GPS for using a foreign operative (Steele) to use his contacts in Russia to discover information pertaining to then-candidate Trump.
The guy in office did something about the hacking, but, again, your media sources don't give you those facts. Like how Obama was bad on immigration even though he deported more people than any President in history, including targeting criminals to be exiled. He actually spoke directly to Putin in October and ordered him to halt the interference. When he didn't, Obama placed sanctions on Russia and expelled Russian diplomats. Want to know what happened next? Trump, through Flynn, told the Russians that those sanctions would not be enforced. So Trump, in essence, did not penalize the Russians for interfering in the election. Do a little research on actions Obama and Trump each took before making your false claims. One held Russia accountable, one protected them after they attacked our elections. And guess which one you're defending? The traitorous one.
The rest of my comment about the timelines pertaining to FISA are undeniably accurate. I'm sorry you lack the ability to comprehend how they undermine your falsehoods.
Look, you're getting your version of things from a guy who has spewed over 10,000 lies or misleading comments since being elected and the propaganda network that supports him. Our realities are going to be significantly different because I get my facts from actual documents and testimony that are released and read from multiple legal scholars that weigh in on those. I've quoted people from the left and the right to back up my arguments.
We can argue all day and it's not going to change how you feel. You see it one way and those of us on the left have seen Trump's crimes and the unsavory actions he used to get elected, the political cover-up to protect the Russians, and his lack of action to protect the upcoming campaign as he will likely need their help again.
You're off the rails... Sad but very true. You should can and save that comment you could save yourself a lot of time. As I stated none of your previous comment or this comment hold any real facts. Yes, CNN facts, but we all know their record for facts.
I see you did not address if you think that the DNC and Hillary colluded with Russia? Seems so open and shut... Info - Form Russians. Yes, seems an open and shut case. Mueller stated in his report no American colluded with the Russians. Guess he got that wring now, didn't he?
Your support for the person protecting Russia is the borderline treasonous move here.
Where have I indicated I support Russia? Like I said you are silly...
You clearly buy into the 'spying' theory. Which means you didn't see a need to investigate the contacts between Trump campaign aides and Russians, which was the basis for the counterintelligence investigation, which is what educated people call it instead of spying. That undermining of United States intelligence communities as they aim to protect our elections is support for what Russia did. Sorry you cannot grasp the reality, but that's not surprising considering who you support.
" Which means you didn't see a need to investigate the contacts between Trump campaign aides and Russians, which was the basis for the counterintelligence investigation, which is what educated people call it instead of spying."
I did not have to investigate. Mueller did that or me. LOL, I guess as I said we can wait for Horowitz to complete his investigation on the FBI, DNC, and oh Hillary. Maybe you should just start now with some new kind of crazy... Do you ever just face facts?
Blah Blah Blah... "That undermining of United States intelligence communities as they aim to protect our elections is support for what Russia did" Once again a statement that is hypocritical. Only one party worked with Russa. And that was the DNC and I might Obama and his clowns.
I am still waiting for you to answer my question in regard to the DNC and Hillary working with the Russians to create a dossier. Russian operatives fake information + payment for fake dossier = collision with a foreign government = collision. Funny how you won't give your opinion on the Russian dossier. Like I said you're a Hypocrite. Trump was cleared of collusion, now we move on to prove the DN and Hillary were the culprits. The worm has turned.
I am not willing to dance around all your fake news, over defending fake news. Would make me seem as foolish as those that post it, and have bought into it.
I think you are right Sharlee01, choosing who to believe is an important decision. Sometimes it can be a hard decision, and sometimes it isn't.
I would think that documented investigative timelines, documented court interaction dates, and documented and dated physical evidence would fall into the "sometimes it isn't" category.
GA, In no way, am I undermining our intelligent agencies. I am making an attempt to point out Valeant's representation of the facts. I also have made an attempt to point out how hypocritical his viewpoint is. I respect the findings of the Mueller report. I also have come to realize there were no new indictments. This leads me to believe there are no prosecutable crimes.
In my opinion, crimes were committed by a handful of our highest ranking intelligent officials, and I feel the Horowitz investigation will provide the facts on these crimes. I feel these crimes are well documented, and there will be indictments. Yes, there was most definitely Russian interference in our 2016 election, as there has been for many years. However, none so glaring as the Russian created dossier, and those that sought to use it to interfere in a presidential election.
I am willing to go out on this limb on this prediction... It may leave me falling to the ground, but I think my limb is strong enough to support my opinion.
As one might note, Valeant still has not responded to my question.
I am still waiting for an answer from Valeant. My question. DNC and Hillary working with the Russians to create a dossier. Russian operatives providing information + payment from DNC for dossier = collision with a foreign government = collision. Was this collision with a foreign adversary perpetrated by the DNC and Hillary Clintons campaign?
Seems to me so very easy to answer, due facts that have been verified. It also seems odd that this subject of Horowitz's investigation has not been addressed on this forum? Horowitz's report is looming near, and will most definitely cause a sandal. How big is only a guess?
It looks like I have to backtrack a little on the intent of my comment Saharlee01. I had an incorrect impression that you were arguing that the dossier was the impetus for the Russia investigation.
As I looked back on your comments for this response I discovered that you seemed to instead be arguing for consideration of the dossier as proof of HRC's, (Hillary), and the DNC's "collusion."
However, considering the thread topic and direction, that still seems like deflection and misdirection. Even if Valeant did answer your question, what bearing would that have on the points made regarding this Impeachment discussion?
GA. Please refer to my earlier comments on this thread. I was clearly on the subject. Valeant's comments in regards to my view are fabricated to suit his opinion. It well appears he feels he can insult me without provocation, and yes I have given back as well as I received.
He accused me of - Valeant's comment "And you telling me something over and over again usually needs to be corrected as I did earlier in this thread when you claimed Mueller refused to indict Trump. That wasn't even close to what Mueller said in his report. Or that hideously inaccurate claim you spewed multiple times that the dossier began the counterintelligence investigation, when it's spelled out clearly in the report that Papadopoulos was the reason."
I did not offer either of these statements in a comment. In act, I am waiting for the Horowitz report to ascertain the timeline on when the FBI started investigating the Trump campaign, and I am fully aware Mueller would not have the power to indict Trump, a sitting president. I simply claimed Mueller did not recommend any further indictments in his final report. Valeant took the liberty to misquote me.
To address your comment."I had an incorrect impression that you were arguing that the dossier was the impetus for the Russia investigation."
No, the dossier was created and used as a force to push a narrative... I explained very clearly that it is my belief that our intelligent agencies along with the DNC have committed many crimes. The dossier is only the tip of the iceberg. As am content to wait for the Horowitz report to put the puzzle together. Much more sensible to have all the facts.
My question to Valeant was does he think the Russian dossier amounted to collusion on the part of Hillary Clinton and the DNC? In my opinion, it does. I also have come to the opinion after reading most of the Mueller report that the Trump campaign did not commit collusion.
I understand your explanation Sharlee01. I have not followed the Horowitz investigation so I don't know what direction it might lean.
However, even if it does find fault with the FBI's involvement would that, for you, mitigate the obstruction issues that were found? I suppose I should pre-stage that by first asking if you think there were obstruction issues found?
My apologies for stepping between you and Valeant. Have at it. I will rejoin the spectators. ;-)
The list Mueller produced in regards to president Trump committing obstruction is very compelling, and I am sure all true. I hope Mueller will consent to give testimony to Congress. I think we should hear from him, and let him explain why he did not give his opinion on obstruction. There would be no one better to explain the whys of it all. I think he should have been questioned before AG Barr. Just makes more sense to me.
To answer your question if obstruction occurred and can be proven, which it appears at this point Mueller felt there were several incidences that point to trump committing obstruction, impeachment proceedings should be considered.
I can walk and chew gum. It is clear Trump was up to no good dirty politics, and certainly appear to have made attempts to obstruct justice. However, Obama's intelligence agencies and the DNC were up to nothing short of treason.
No apologies necessary, I appreciated a straight forward question, that I could answer with a straight forward answer.
You are so hypocritical. " blind sheep like yourself" It' almost hard not to just say I told you so, over, and over. All your recent predictions have gone up in smoke. Yet you continue to post dribble.
How am I hypocritical exactly? Please, do tell. What predictions are you referring to exactly?
And you telling me something over and over again usually needs to be corrected as I did earlier in this thread when you claimed Mueller refused to indict Trump. That wasn't even close to what Mueller said in his report. Or that hideously inaccurate claim you spewed multiple times that the dossier began the counterintelligence investigation, when it's spelled out clearly in the report that Papadopoulos was the reason.
But in news that should concern all Americans: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-budg … ebt-2019-3
When you're borrowing 200 million a month, that economy really isn't as great as you think it is.
"But in news that should concern all Americans: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-budg … ebt-2019-3
When you're borrowing 200 million a month, that economy really isn't as great as you think it is."
Yep. This idea that the new "Trump economy" is rolling along is vain, as there were NO spending cuts to go along with the tax cuts. It's the same mistake we made in the 80's, and many folks are cheering it! We're as stuck as we've been for years, though everyone's been given a dose of crack so things feel good for a while. It won't be long before the US debt crushes us,
Hi, this money thing or economics for the Americans to handle. I am a Nigerian and lives in Nigeria. What do I contribute to such a specific topic?
Spoken like a true conservative. I agree completely.
I'm baffled at the number of so-called "conservatives" who are clueless that our current economy is depending heavily on massive debt, massive deficits and artificial stimulation from massive tax cuts.
We will pay dearly for it. Just a matter of when.
I've been waiting for Pay Day for a while. It may be sooner than most of us want to believe.
Especially with a Fed that had less than $1 trillion in debt before the 2008 meltdown. It now has $4 trillion in debt and has ended the buyback program.
How can they take on trillions of more debt in the next recession to stimulate the economy like they did in the last one?
The "how" is easy promisem, ours is a fiat currency. So it is also a fiat economy. That doesn't mean the consequences won't be dire, but it does answer your "how" question.
"Mueller refused to indict Trump." Never would have said that... A president can't be indicted while in office. What I said was the Mueller report did not recommend any further indictments. Fact
Think Horowitz, he will be recommending indictments. Just my opinion.
Moeller knew he didn't have ANYTHING on Trump and his report says as much. The whole obstruction "issue" is a sham. Since Moeller knew he had/has nothing on Trump and that saying otherwise would be easily exposed, he inserted insinuations about "obstruction" so near-do-wells would have something to make them happy as they could now advance to the next Moeller sham "obstruction." There was no collusion. There was no obstruction, and similarly, your comments have no substance. You can't WANT Trump into jail. Not gonna happen.
Completely false.I wish you people would quit posting such wildly inaccurate claims that have nothing to do with what Mueller said in his report.
Interference: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government."
Obstruction: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Mueller clearly is telling the world that plenty of damning evidence prevented him from clearing Trump.
He can't indict a sitting President thanks to Trump's AG. So he is giving 14 other investigations that same damning evidence.
If President Trump does not commit any crime, what then is in the offering? Obstruction of justice is not a crime either. Why did not Mueller states in his report that it is? That could settle everything else. The issue with OOJ is that the witnesses with not clearly agreed?
There are 14 other investigations at the state and federal level, according to various officials and media sources.
Obstruction of justice is a crime. Mueller did not conclude if Trump was guilty or innocent of it.
Accusing a U.S. President of a major crime will lead to a Constitutional crisis among many other problems. In addition, Mueller's boss said Mueller cannot indict a sitting President.
So Mueller may have decided it is best to wait until Trump is out of office.
So the House will wait or rather impeach Trump when in office? How many American Presidents has been impeached so far for minor or major offenses?
If the House can't impeach Trump while in office, there is no need to trouble an old man when he get out of the Presidency. Currently, Trump is eyeing for a second time. Good luck to him.
Miebakagh57 you frequently qualify your comments with the fact that you are Nigerian, but what is more important is that you offer your opinions, regardless of whether you have 'skin in the game', (as a U.S. citizen), but just as important is that your opinions be fact-supported.
To that point; Obstruction of justice, or even attempted obstruction of justice is a crime in the U.S. So, although whether Pres. Trump is guilty of the crime at this point, is an opinion, obstruction of justice is a crime.
Hello, GA, I agreed that obstruction of justice is a crime not only in the US, but also right here in Nigeria, whether I am a Nigerian or not. You will alwys notice that when I qualified my statement that I am Nigerian, I had not a proper background of the issues at hand. I was observing and contributing as it was once ask of me. I had to tread softly on safer grounds.
There was a time when your magazines the "TIME" and "Newsweek" are popular in Nigeria. I relied on thase for current Affairs. Now, these are no longer avaible in the streets or on most reputable newsstand. Otherwise, I am at home as in America. Thanks for you understanding, and enjoy the day.
No, of course not, Mike, we're too stupid to understand what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, so we just go by who we don't like. Don't you know that's why we won't proceed with impeachment until Republicans are on board? I mean, they are experts on what is an impeachable offense. That Clinton fellow lying about a blow job, now that was so awful it could not be tolerated, much worse than any lie ever told by Trump or any action ever taken by Trump.
Yep, we'll just wait until the smart Republicans tell us when Trump has done something, anything, that warrants impeachment.
Was Clinton impeached because he lied about a blow job, or because he violated the US code, title 18 section 1001 in lying to congress? About anything, whether a blow job or something else?
What do you think? Was it because he lied or because he lied to congress, violating the law when he did so?
You think I, a stupid Democrat, can answer that question? He was impeached for lying to Congress about a blow job.
Now, we must wait to see if the smart Republicans think anything Trump has done, as laid out in the Mueller report, rises to that horrific level.
Obviously, us Democrats are too stupid to identify a single reason to impeach Trump, except that we don't like him. Readmikenow has figured us out!
Well, lying to congress is a crime, so yes, we'll have to see if Trump is convicted of a crime or just being unliked by politicians in general and Democrats in specific.
I think Clinton apology to the nation and the House saves him from being impeached. Everyone knows he lies. Does the constitution or law say he be impeached for telling a lie?
What about Richard Nixon? He actually breaks the law. Was he impeached? He chose to resign. That saves his day. I hope I am helping matters a little.
Hi,I do agree with you that impeaching a person you do not like is a wrong thing. But a president can be impeached if he goes against the law. Trump has not broken any law according to reports. Liberals and others should be careful.
Try not to watch right wing white nationalists propaganda outlets like Fox or listen to weirdo racists like Rush Limpy because saying Donald Trump hasn't broken any laws is simply INACCURATE: We have the pending "Emoluments Clause" law suits and of course the Mueller Reports and here's just one conservative republican judge who along with many other legal experts who say he has committed MAJOR Crimes Against the USA:
Watch the entire film clip, Judge Andrew Napolitano appears and says what everyone saw in broad daylight with their own eyes, Donald Obstructed Justice and now his latest crime is Obstructing Congress for which he'll be impeached then indicted:
The first crime is obstruction of justice. No proof has been submitted yet. And we here come another by a conservative judge, Obstructing Congress. where are all the proof? Are these not creating the divide? Perhaps, Trump can summersault all these? Let's hope he did!
The proof is in the Mueller Report and many blatant film clips and tweets of Donald Trump: Judge Napolitano is getting the evidence from the Mueller Report which lists several obstruction charges:
Trump is Burnt TOAST, he will be impeached and then indicted for other crimes because if he's not, a dangerous precedent will be set that OUR laws don't apply to everyone and that can't happen here in the failing USA:
Honestly I think most Americans don't care.
I also think most Americans will vote for Trump.
If you subtract CA and NY areas, Trump will be getting about 60% of the vote from all other areas of the country. Places he barely won by the skin of his teeth he will win in a landslide in 2020.
So long as the economy is chugging along, jobs are available, interest rates on loans remain low etc. etc. he is a lock to win.
All this garbage about impeachment, broken laws, taxes, means nothing to the majority of voters... the Media, and the politicians in Congress have lost all credibility, and no amount of accusations they sling now are going to impact the coming election.
"All this garbage about impeachment, broken laws, taxes, means nothing to the majority of voters... the Media, and the politicians in Congress have lost all credibility".
This sums it up nicely Ken. Unless Trump DID indeed shoot someone, impeachment efforts aren't going to have enough public support. I'm not suggesting that possible obstruction isn't worth looking into, only that many Americans aren't concerned about it because 1) If Trump did obstruct, his efforts were futile 2) It's the economy.
Otherwise, it's the economy, and the economy.
Yes, it's the economy. But beyond that, people don't seem to care (unless it's in the opposite party) - when politicians are convicted and jailed for fraud, stealing from the government, and then come out and are re-elected it says something.
Exactly... and its why it ultimately failed, and continues to fail, there aren't enough dumbed down (radical extremists excepted) Americans for it to work.
I disagreed. The author of the article only speaks badly about Trump. Let's hear the positive side likewise.
Let them go ahead. Hope they success or not. President Trump is waiting for them. One of our friends is asking whether he should be impeached over wearing a "wing" Lol!
By the way, impeachment is an impossibility.
SO GET OVER IT!
It takes a majority vote in the House to impeach a president. Democrats have a majority. They could impeach by a simple vote.
Conviction on the other hand requires a two-thirds majority, which is extremely unlikely to be achieved (Republicans in the Senate seem to have abdicated all responsibility to the country and the Constitution). So, like Bill Clinton, Trump would most likely be impeached but remain in office.
If the current administration continues deliberately obstructing and impeding Congressional investigations into the president's conduct in office (which is Congress's Constitutional duty) then impeachment will become much more likely, as that constitutes contempt of Congress, which was also the third impeachment article for Nixon.
Hi, Dom W, more of all these, please. But Richard Nixson was not impeached. On that treat, he resigned.
I wasn't clear. Though Nixon resigned before Congress could impeach him, the articles of impeachment (the things Congress were going to impeach him for before he resigned) are still a matter of public record.
The point I was making is that there is a precedent for impeaching a president on the grounds of obstruction, contempt of Congress etc.
Its not an impossibility, they can make the effort.
A resolution for impeachment must pass the House by a simple majority. And there you go... Impeachment. The Democrats can do this if they want.
Two presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. They both finished their terms.
What does it mean?
It means the Democrats who control the House charge the President. And the Senate tries the 'case'.
The Senate which is controlled by Republicans and overseen in its duties by the Vice President.
It would be a political whirlwind... the Democrats choose not to do this not because they don't think they can make the case, not because they like Trump, not because they care about the balance of power within our system.
The Democrats choose not to Impeach because they think it is likely to backfire on them politically... and all the majority of them care about are themselves and their power. Anything that threatens that, even if it were the noblest of things to do, they will not do.
The obstruction of justice issues shold be thrown into the dust bin.
Its all the Democrats have... so they won't let it rest.
This is about POLITICS not about truth, or what is right, or what is best for the country... its about power and control.
The Democrats can't attack him on the economy, they can't attack him on unemployment, they can't attack him on taxes... so they make stuff up, and hope it sticks.
The problem the Democrats have is they have nothing to sell that the majority of Americans believe in... Open Borders, Globalism, Socialism... exactly what is it that they can present to Americans that will win them the Presidency?
They need to trash Trump, and hope enough Americans are clueless enough not to realize they are living in the best economy this nation has seen in decades. One that was in steady decline for decades until Trump.
As Obama himself said "those jobs are gone and they are never coming back" only they are coming back, and wages are going up.
Did you consider the possibility that "the Democrats" are also asking these questions because the ordinary people they represent want and expect them to?
And did you consider the possibility that the apparent blanket refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas essentially prevents Congress from representing all the people in the country who do want those answers?
And did you consider the fact that this strikes at the heart of the country's democratic processes, because a wholesale blocking action by the Executive across such a wide scope, curtails the House's ability to represent its constituents and is therefore inimical to the principles enshrined in the Constitution?
If you didn't consider any of those things, perhaps you might.
Miebakagh57, please excuse my arrogance of presuming I know what you are intending to say. My intentions are good - to help you better understand English writing and thought.
When you say "Noted, please" I am presuming you are intending to convey the thought; "I understand what you are saying, thanks for your input."
An American would say just that; "I understand what you are saying, thanks for your input."
Or, "Thanks for your thoughts."
Of course, if that is not your intended meaning than I am an ass for presuming I knew what you meant. Still, "Noted please" doesn't convey an American English expressed thought. "Noted" expresses one thought and "please" expresses a request. They don't go together as stated.
Hi, Gus, I mean "thanks for your thoughts" as in the later expression. I am at home with the standard British English. That is the background of my English language.
Nigeria is a former British colony. The English language used in communication is the British standard. This is also the Official communication tool in all schools and colleges up to the university level.
Spare me a thought and a moment here. Gus, are you noticing that I am saying schools, colleges, and university? Colleges are secondary grammar schools here in Nigeria. Whereas, in America, they are universities. Pupils are in primary schools. Students are in colleges. Undergraduates are in universities.
Now let’s come to punctuating a sentence which I had learned online recently the America way. “The lists of fruits containing 90% water includes lemons, cucumbers, watermelon, cantaloupe, and grapefruit.” In British English, there is no comma after grapefruit. Whereas in America standard there is. Here is another. “Strawberries, peach, zucchini, fresh tomatoes, and celery; cabbage, cauliflower, coconut meat with water and sugar cane juice.” Note well the colon ( after celery. America says no to it. And that it should be a period (comma) British English. The last sentence is also in the British standard. America will not accept that.
“Gus, will you get me the Mueller Report file, please?” Here please is not only a request, but being courteous if you are my junior in the civil service, and has a bent of unwillingness to carry out a favor. It all depends on the degree, situation, and tone.
I am always careful of any difference between the two. You are right on the difference between "noted" and "please" conveying two meanings.
When Nigeria copy American democracy, hotels become motels. English is ever evolving. Don’t you think so? Thank you. Or do I say: thank you, please. Enjoy the day, Gus.
by JAKE Earthshine 9 days ago
SHOCKING: ******* Now the number of potentially indictable charges against Donald Trump seems to have exploded from one or more related to Michael Cohen in the SD of NY, to what looks like MULTIPLE Charges of Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power and other pertinent and or related issues: And...
by JOC 2 days ago
Can you imagine how things might look if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, and, two years later ?• Five of her campaign advisers had been convicted of crimes — one of them implicating her — and a sixth indicted.• A prosecutor documented numerous instances in which Clinton had...
by IslandBites 12 days ago
Special counsel Robert Mueller has finished his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.Mueller’s confidential report has been delivered to Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department announced Friday.Barr must now decide whether to release the report or parts of it...
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things.1) Trump or his campaign did not legally conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election2) Trump is NOT exonerated from the charge of Obstruction of Justice.IF Barr properly reported Mueller's...
by Ralph Schwartz 12 hours ago
Congressional Democrats spent more than $35 million on the Mueller report. It took 675 days, included nearly 3,000 subpoenas, and required 500 witness accounts. Despite being conducted by a far-from-unbiased legal team—one that has collectively donated at least 20 times more to Democrat as...
by Scott Belford 19 months ago
President Trump can't fire Mueller directly. Instead he needs to get the person, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him (or his replacement) to fire him. If he refuses, Trump can fire him and keep appointing people until he finds one who will. (Nixon did this)While hiring and firing by...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|