Maybe but he could certainly present his evidence of a crime. He couldn't do that. He simply dumped his evidence, all inconclusive, on congress. Mueller specifically stated he found no evidence of a clear crime on anything in regards to Trump. If you read through his evidence in the report there is nothing conclusive in there at all which is why he couldn't present a direct violation of the law. He has no recordings of Trump, he has no video evidence, he has no witness testimony that Trump did anything wrong. He says Trump may have wanted to have him fired but doesn't have any evidence to back that up. How does he know that, who did he talk to in order to come to that conclusion, what did he hear? He doesn't tell us. Nothing that would ever stand up in a court of law.
What's really sad is that Pelosi has emerged as one of the sanest (D)'s in the country. A mock impeachment would be disasterous and Pelosi knows it. She also knows that Horowitz and Barr are poised to prove beyond a doubt that Jim Comey's "Higher Loyalty" was to Jim Comey's FBI salary. Pelosi has to placate the rubes somehow, and there is a chance, however slim, that some financial issue could come back to haunt Trump after he's left office. Pelosi's determined to be buried with that precious gavel, and she'll never agree to impeach and risk losing it.
Lolz ... the only thing Mueller made CLEAR was that he CLOSED the book on Russiagate and had nothing else to offer. Mueller's judicial witch hunt is over, and Bob persecuted everyone within his authority to prosecute. Mueller only reminded congress that they were the only gov't body who could maliciously prosecute the US president for process crimes. I'm astonished Pelosi's rubes can be so easily strung along ... until 2025 no less. Mexifornia ought to be in ruins by then, that's 7 million asylum seekers down the road from here.
Yep, it's amazing that Pelosi is now viewed as a reasonable Democrat. As complicated as Trump's tax and financial records must be, I have to believe that there are things that can be made to look bad.
Her comment wasn't actually directed at Trump it was directed at the supporters of mentally unstable Jerry Nadler and A.O.C.'s foam at the brain-pan radical faction; to the hotheads who never learned HOW to think through politics. It was a shout out of "Hey, I hate Trump too; but here's HOW we destroy him, by using my politically savvy method and not your hotheaded method . . . that would be doomed to defeat by the U.S. Senate." Of course her method won't work either, but she's reasonably certain that Nadler's and AOC's supporters are politically too stupid to figure that out in time.
All it takes is a unscrupulous prosecutor. Cuomo's states attorneys will oblige I'm sure. What'll be really pathetic is that Trump haters will think a post term mock trial vindicates them somehow. I can't express how little I care about Trump's tax reporting ... 2006 - 2015. That's the range of financials (D)'s have subpoenaed. Not because they're desperate and vindictive though ...
Trump is guilty of running for president as an amateur and beating the professional swamp rats in washingtoon at their own game If pelosi could she’d have trump executed for that crime
There is no evidence of any impeachable offense that has been clearly stated. Basically, Mueller said he cannot prove anything against the President but he could not exonerate the President either. The President, like any other citizen of the United States, need not prove his innocence. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. So I ask once again, what impeachable offense has been committed?
No proof of crimes, but lock him up anyway. Reminds me of the scene in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” where the townspeople can’t prove the woman is a witch, but they want to burn her anyway.
Oh.. that guy was serious?? Several counts of OOJ and criminal campaign finance violations, should they want to tag that on..
See post #68... Just couldn't believe it was a serious question... It's actually not a serious question, because it just shows you aren't paying attention... The best part is the OOJ is impeachable AND indictable (in 2021)... But Nancy seems to want to go for the latter...
Not so. I have seen suspicions publically stated...accusations levied certainly...and a possible campaign finance violation. If we impeached every President who violated campaign finance law, the list of impeached Presidents would be lengthy indeed.
Try this one... https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-federal-prosecutors-8ab7691c2aa1 Here's a cool summary of possibilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump SNIP Grounds asserted for potential impeachment have included possible violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign dignitaries; alleged collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election campaign; alleged obstruction of justice with respect to investigation of the collusion claim; and accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017. ENDSNIP You could easily add the ongoing OOJ by automatically denying all subpoenas.... easily...
Personally?? Not the campaign, but personally?? Please provide that list and we can discuss..... President and Alleged Personal Violation.. EDIT - We are getting off track... Nancy doesn't want to impeach, so we should keep on what Nancy thinks will put him in prison.... It's not the same list, although similar...
Note the words "possible" and "accusations". Look, if the President is guilty of an impeachable offense, I will join you in the call for impeachment. No one should be above the law. I do require hard evidence that cannot be refuted however.