To impeach, or not to impeach: there may be an alternative

What is most bothersome is that that left are disappointed that our President didn't collude with the Russians and didn't commit a crime. Sad.

 

Sigh! We don't discuss with third parties. You want to make a point?.... you make the point... you defend it.

"...links in posts must be relevant to the discussion, and must not be intended simply to direct members to another website. Quotes, links, and images should be used to support a member's opinion, not to replace it - all posts containing them should also contain the poster's own comments as to their relevance...." (emphasis is mine)

​

 

I explained you plugged your ears that’s on you. The video of glen greenwald talking about how democrats are conflating collusion with obstruction basically seamlessly moving the goalposts is exactly what’s happening.

 

No wonder you didn't understand the forum rules. You're not even understanding that Mueller is saying exactly the opposite of what Barr says.

 

I find it amazing that right-wingers still haven't learned that Barr lied. After the real Mueller report has been out for two days now. How does Fox explain the fact that Trump was praising Mueller before the Report came out, and we only had Barr's fake "summary". And that now he's gone back to "witch hunt" and "13 Angry democrats"? How have they explained this change to you if not because the actual Report shows that Barr lied?

 

“The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.””

Exactly what is wrong here? Remember this is speaking legally

“Obstruction of Justice.
The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.2

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2019/03/07/mueller-report/assets/amp.html

Exactly what in this is wrong or incorrect keep in mind it is a summary (not everything can be included)?

Also it was 448 pages with around 12 pages redacted which is around 3% of the report.

 

It has nothing to do with the collusion part of it. It has everything to do with the 'Obstruction' part, which doesn't read as a prosecuting document(because it's not), it reads as a political hitjob(which it is.) And in that hitjob, the so-called Special Counsel revealed damning public testimony, that had nothing to do with collusion or obstruction, but rather with WH operations.

I can't believe more Americans cannot comprehend the document for what it is. Mueller's last ditch attempt to destroy our constitutional government, by goading Congress into an improper impeachment proceedings.

 

What did Barr lie about????

 

Yet the nature of those links fairly one sided and sounds far more like the Russians were trying to penetrate team trump and the results since have largely been a failure.

By the way had you read further than the first link you would have seen that it was the Russians not team trump that initiated almost all those contacts and that they were rebuffed.

 

It took me no time to research the validity of my arguments, and I suggest you do the same. It appears the only argument the alt left can come up with is a Conspiracy Theory.
Resistance requires an enormous amount of stubbornness and deflection.

 

Somehow, I thought collusion meant more than two parties interests coincided.

 

Now that is a funny post. Democrats have been talking about impeachment from the day Trump took office.

 

Oh nothing... just everything of substance!

Several of us have already given many examples. One on this thread

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-an-alternative.554516/page-3#post-1070477366

 

Almost all. Point is: Barr lied!

 

Mueller himself said there was no collusion. So, Barr didn't lie.

Would you like to try again?

 

I read the first sentence and what is perfectly clear is reading any more of your post would be a complete waste of time and resources. There were no high crimes and misdemeanors (assuming you understand that phrase, which is highly doubtful) spelled out in the Mueller report. There wasn't so much as a speeding ticket spelled out in the report. How one can look at a Cadillac and see and describe only an American Flyer kiddie wagon boggles the mind.

 

No he did not! Pay attention!

Mueller didn't even investigate collusion. Much less rendered a verdict. Barr lied to you!!!

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion.""​

 

Are we now off "obstruction" and on to "collusion" or off "collusion" and on to "obstruction"?

That leads to a somewhat connected question. If Trump suddenly deleted 30,000 e-mails, wipes his computers completely clean, and smashes all his staff's cellphones with hammers, is that in your mind "collusion" or "obstruction"?

 

So you read "Now that the Mueller report came out" and you were too afraid to read the rest?

Very good! That would be the first time I've seen you make a correct assumption. We're making progress.

I said "making progress". You're not quite there yet, of course.

Yeah. If you think a speeding ticket is impeachable, I'll give you that that one wasn't there (though now I would question your understanding of the phrase). At least not in the un-redacted parts. But "other high crimes and misdemeanors" are plentiful. Most particularly obstruction of justice. I counted at least 8 specific instances in the report of obstruction of justice. Some might not be prosecutable (I don't know), but definitely impeachable.

 

I hope you feel the same way about Hillary and those that protected her so she could even run for President. Right now that looks like it can involve a lot of people, maybe even the previous President. I find it hard to believe that the Attorney General under Obama would have told Comey not to charge Hillary without consulting Obama. Her crimes are as plain as day. Even a Liberal would be able to see them.

 

We are not off anything! Troubles for the big orange blob have multiplied after the Mueller report came out.

That would mean Trump, for the first time in his life, learned how to use an email program, a computer and a hammer.

 

Who is Hillary?

 

How about you stop tap dancing and answer the direct question,

If Trump suddenly deleted 30,000 e-mails, wipes his computers completely clean, and smashes all his staff's cellphones with hammers, is that in your mind "collusion" or "obstruction"?

 

The constitution doesn't compel impeachment it mearly enumerates that the power to do so rests with congress. It's a purely political in scope and process not governed by the "rule of law" or any judicable appeal.

Think about it.

 

The impeachment nonsense is just that. It's all about diverting attention away from the clown car full of announced democrats by drawing charts and puffery on the mainstream media. Alt leftie posters keep bloviating and expressing their ability to interpret the law. Meanwhile, judges keep getting appointed. I hear the ninth circuit, that district full of bleeding heart liberals, may just have been flipped and the angry democrats are going crazy demanding it now be expanded.
Let the oil exploration commence and the liberal tears keep flowing.