Pelosi says Democrats "not on a path to impeachment" despite Trump's "stunt"

25th Amendment? LMFAO!

You can't just invoke the 25th Amendment because you don't like the guy.

 

It's 18,000 years to Nov. 2020 and anything can happen.

It's all subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Everything is uncertain. No matter how it polls.

 

Wow.

What does it say about a party when Nancy Pelosi is the voice of reason?

 

Moreover, the Democrats cannot invoke the 25th Amendment at ALL.

 

And he continued the turn today..... Twitter is such a lousy medium for what he has to say, but it's what he's using..

25 tweets today @ 12:30....

Everybody should read them, because nothing he says is wrong... Barr mislead America and Congress, the investigation was justified on the Trump Tower meeting alone, and Barr lied about Trump being interviewed by Mueller

https://twitter.com/justinamash?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Highlights

SNIP
Barr testified before a House committee and was misleading about his knowledge of Mueller’s concerns:

Barr absurdly replied: “No, I don’t…I suspect that they probably wanted more put out.” Yet Mueller had directly raised those concerns to Barr, and Barr says he “suspect” they “probably” wanted more materials put out, as if Mueller hadn’t directly told him that.

It’s wrong to suggest that the fact that Mueller did not choose to indict anyone for this means there wasn’t a basis to investigate whether it amounted to a crime or “collusion,” or whether it was in fact part of Russia’s efforts to help Trump’s candidacy.
ENDSNIP

This guy may be a Republican, but he can read and understand factual statements.... Good for him...

 

your opinion is all this is, congrats.

 

No, that's Amash's opinion, which I happen to fully agree with, but thanks for not paying any attention to the post...

 

Seems the Democrats are trying to throw it in reverse and get themselves out of the mess they've got themselves in and Trump is making them look the fools. The middle/moderates have had enough of this petty nonsense and the political games. People are seeing Trump ACTUALLY wants to get things done and Democrats are playing games with these vital issues we face. They just can't get over the fact they lost.

 

The question was about the prosecutors who worked for Mueller. Barr had not spoken to them directly. Do you know what hearsay is, prosecutors do. He could not testify to what those prosecutors thought. But he then gave his opinion based on what Mueller's position and simply said that, that "this is what I imagine they may be thinking but I never spoke to them".

 

Its a clown show.

 

No, it wasnt.. go read the transcript, my friend... that may have been how Barr interpreted it, but then he'd be wrong as well..

 

Funny that Pelosi's new story is she won't impeach because that is what Trump wants. Whatever.

 

Not funny.... It actually sounds logical...... Trump's strategy of "fight all the subpoenas" would seem to indicate he does want the impeachment battle for political reasons, which I don't understand myself.

I personally don't see how opening impeachment hearings would play to Trump, but I'll support Nancy as long as they continue to dominate court proceedings.

I also believe they need to start going full bore contempt votes, for Barr, McGahn, and Mnuchin. They seem to think there are penalties worth applying for contempt, and all 3 are clearly guilty of that.

 

I think its about about, "If your side has nothing to run on besides impeaching me because you don't like me...whatcha got?" You can't impeach someone for being mean, or saying words you don't like or because you lost. You need some kind of substantial legal/security/safety reason and there is NOTHING. By highlighting that its all about your opinion, it makes them look not only stupid, but petty and not even grasping the law.

 

Meh, they can hold anyone in contempt but that did nothing to stop the Obama admin from stonewalling Congress when Holder was held in contempt.

 

But you can bring an article of impeachment for OOJ.... it's been done before, and quite successfully...

 

Four investigations, the FBI, the Senate, the House, then Mueller who was supposed to be investigating Russian interference turns to OOJ after finding nothing on conspiracy? What criminal intent would there be to obstruct an investigation predicated on a hoax dossier that even Steele cannot verify.

 

That would be part of the purpose of the hearings, when you would hear from witnesses who can speak more to intent... McGahn, Lewandowski, Hicks, etc...

But the intent is the standard intent... hiding my activities and those of my associates from being discovered by an investigation.... nothing earth shattering there...

 

That is what the Mueller report was for. Nothing is going to satisfy the TDS sufferers in Congress that have been calling for impeachment since the first day because Trump won the election.

 

Yeah, but those early impeachment votes in the house were just to state the general disapproval with Trump (none of which has changed). They were never going to go anywhere, but now Congress has a "road map" (and I hate that expression) to impeachment articles.... The Mueller report is an excellent source for impeachment hearings, should they choose to go that direction, and are able to force witnesses to appear.

 

Investigate the results of the investigations that were based on lies and opinions and never should have been investigated in the first place? So Trump was obstructing justice, when there was nothing to actually obstruct, because Democrats literally invented a reason to begin all these investigations in the first place. Its getting a bit silly at this point. You have to remember, this entire ordeal was based on a total SHAM!!! There was zero actual evidence at all Trump was working with the Russians, which makes every subsequent investigation even more of a sham.

I'm sure if Republicans pushed hard enough and investigated over and over and over again, they could easily manufacture a crime the Clintons committed, if they dug deep enough. But they let it go, like adults. Democrats are acting like petulant sore loser children. Beat Trump the easy way!!! Just run a decent candidate against him. Someone NOT crazy perhaps!!!! Isn't there anyone NOT crazy that can run=)

 

Still based on feelings and not on facts.

 

The investigation(s) opened because Trump HIRED people with shady Russian backgrounds (Flynn, Manafort, Page, and Papa), not necessarily because of his own shady Russian background, although that certainly would have been justified as well.. Trump's access to Russia money was not a huge secret, ya know...

 

Exactly. Not a huge secret, which the IRS has been following for decades. Guys pushing around as much money and property/corporations as Trump, don't fly under the radar, hehe. If his dealings were fishy enough to raise treasonous alarm bells, we would already know about it or it would have come out as soon as he got the nomination or before hand. Working for Russia and being president of the US would be quite treasonous. Yet, nothin=)

The Clintons were being paid through their foundation by plenty of shady characters with major interests around the globe and again...nothin Except when people connected to them start getting murdered or dying in accidents or medical complications. If you want to talk about SHADY....thats shady. Its OT, but also relevant, since it shows a history of connections, using your power, while being paid, ect...all things Trump is being accused of. Except, Trump's power before becoming president when all that **** was going down, was infinitesimal compared to the Clintons.

 

Although I can't say for certain that this was their plan, I would say that Trump's 'not knowing' is the most successful strategy. He's off balance. And while I would say that is not good for the country, I don't think it matters a whole lot at this point. I haven't seen him as 'good for the country' since his declaration of running. I know many will disagree and quote all his 'successes', but I guess I look for a whole lot more in a president. We can - in advance - agree to disagree.