Amazing: I had never seen Republicans in such disarray

No you are wrong, the House decides if person being impeached committed the offenses and if it does then impeaches him. The person will always remain an impeached person. The Senate only makes one judgement, to remove or not remove. Clinton's guilt of the charges in the articles of impeachment was not in question. That prima facie evidence was placed into evidence in the House impeachment. There was no defense of it.

Heck with Clinton the Senate limited it to three days and three witnesses and none of the Democrats ever went to the evidence room to view the evidence.
The Democrats had one goal, do not remove from office in spite of the felonies. The Senate ONLY judged should he be removed not if he was guilty or innocent of the acts. It is just a quirk in the Constitution that their reply is guilty or not guilty.

 

I don't have anything whatsoever to say. Mueller says it all. That's why I'm only sending the link.

Never heard of him/her. I'm talking about putting Trump in prison.

 

I don't remember Mueller saying anything about putting Trump in prison.

 

They most certainly can. I don't know if they will. But they certainly can.

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
—Article I, Section 2, Clause 5
​

No "consultations". No "restrictions" . "Sole Power of Impeachment". Think about that for a minute. No broader, unrestricted and unconditional power is ascribed to any government entity anywhere else in the Constitution. Not even a court can put any restrictions. Even when the Constitution grants the Senate the "sole power" to remove the President, there are restrictions. But none for the House.

 

"Remember"? Ha!

(Emphasis added)

(Page 1) "The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office."

(Page 178 - Footnote): A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official's conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. l, § 3, cl. 7. ... A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President 's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.").
​

 

Obviously you know absolutely nothing about the way the government is set up, which is that each branch of government is separate.

seriously... you need a civics... what's less than civics 101? I dunno, but you need to study up on this stuff before coming here and spouting nonsense. It just makes you look stupid.

 

ahh... see anything in there about forcing people to answer questions?

Yeah, you know nothing. Get studied up because this is ridiculous.

 

Still doesn't say anything about putting him in prison. It appears that you are stating an opinion which you said you do not do. Only facts.

 

I think what he's talking about is that Presidents have immunity until they leave office, then everything they ever did while in office can be prosecuted.

I have no idea where they get these crazy ideas of theirs, but it would be a hell of a thing to see how they plan on prosecuting trump for crimes committed when it was legal to commit them.

 

Right ... "disarray & chaos" is what you "mentioned" without demonstrating either. I provided the only example of GOP dissent during our exchange. No ... "I see 4" in my screenshot, and will gladly provide posts where you previously claimed 10 instances of obstruction. Ironic that you seem to in a "chaotic disarray" yourself. ::

 

Please enlighten us. What does "sole power" mean to you?

If you find it complicated, start with the word "sole". Tell us if, to you that means they share the authority with others or if they have full authority to carry out the proceedings regardless of other powers of government like judicial or executive powers. And then work your way up from there to "power". And then put the words together and tell us if they can force anybody to testify lest they be held in contempt and imprisoned on the spot.

 

So, to you, indicting him after he leaves office has nothing to do with putting him in prison? Ok... you can't argue against cult mentality....

 

No. It is not the same. Indicting him means he gets a fair trial which might result in a not guilty, a fine, suspended sentence, probation, etc.

In one post you claim the Mueller is not allowed to say he even committed a crime and in the next you are saying that Mueller said he should be sent to prison. You appear to be very confused.

 

"When an individual is named and charged in a grand jury indictment, the reputational harm is substantial. But at least a named defendant has the right, enshrined by the Constitution, to challenge that indictment at trial in open court. A named but unindicted co-conspirator has no such opportunity, as the guidebook acknowledges, and prosecutors must therefore be sensitive to any reputational harm. In other words, prosecutors in the Cohen case are not providing Trump with an extra level of anonymity but are instead simply following established rules."

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...ndividual-1-here-s-why-prosecutors-ncna947016

So..........the SDNY is affording Individual 1 the same courtesy Mueller extended to him. He remains unindicted for his crimes........for now. But Mueller clearly provided ample evidence Don committed the crime of obstruction on at least 4 occasions.

 

Around 1998 the conservative base of the Republican party lost control of the Republican party to the neoconservatives (RINOS)

By 2008 nobody was in control of the Republican party.

By 2017 Trump and the conservatives had gain some control of the Republican party but the Republican party still has to many neocons and never Trump Republicans.

But look at the Democratic party.

During the early 1970's the extreme radical left had hijacked the Democratic party and still have complete control over the party and DNC and keep moving to the left that now the Democrats are going socialist.

Every so often the Republican party cleans house and remakes itself.

in the 60's the Rockefeller Republicans were removed from power and replaced by the Nikonians.

In 1980 the conservatives gain control of the party.

In 1998 the neocons gained control.

By 2008 nobody was in control.

In 2016 the Republican party is again remaking itself.

The Democratic party hasn't cleaned house and remade itself in over forty years and just keep moving to the left.

 

But Golen claims he makes no assumptions. Only facts. A prediction of something which might happen in the future is not a fact In addition Golen claims on one hand that Mueller could not say Trump committed a crime and then turns around and says Mueller said he was going to prison, or some such words. A very confused man.

 

Parsing Golem's words doesn't change the underlying fact Mueller provided ample evidence of Crooked Donald's guilt.

 

Those are his words. Ample evidence is not a conviction. Even in the OJ trial, we had to wait on a verdict.

 

I see four too. What are you having problems understanding about there being 10 instances of obstruction (actually 11, as I said) for which Mueller presents evidence on the report of which 4 are 100% proven? You seem to be struggling with something, and I am completely at a loss as to what that could be, given that what I have done is mostly quote. But I would never claim to understand the mind of the Trump cult... And now I'm curious. So do explain.

As for Amash, if you mentioned him, and then you argue that he doesn't represent... whatever you mentioned him about.... then you are debating against yourself. Don't let me interrupt you... go right ahead.

 

Some more bum spin and deflection ... When will you get around to the "chaos & disarray" that you devoted the thread to?

 

Hilarious. You derailed the thread. And when your derailment flopped.... now you want to get back on track.

Sure... no problem. The disarray is on the OP. Which I started over a week ago. And they still haven't solved it. They are now divided into three groups. The most numerous is still the group that is either ignorant that Mueller does not exonerate Trump (but actually quite the opposite) or denies it (I can't tell the difference). Then there is the group that attacks Mueller. And finally those who just remain silent. There is a fourth group that kinda goes back and forth between the first two groups and can't make up their minds..

Anything to say? Go!

 

Nameless groups who have 4 different approaches to dismissing Mueller entirely. That's a solid argument that "chaos" has ensued. The GOP has a couple reps acting as spox. Some focus on Mueller's deficiencies, others FBI abuse. 1 message >>Trump 2020.

 

"Nameless groups"? You want me to give the groups a name? That's hilarious!

 

Dems make their own rules up as they go along. Pretty scary they want to trash the 5th amendment

 

Remember the "moral majority" stuff under Reagan in the 80s? When Billy Graham would come and go from the White House as he pleased and Tipper Gore was putting warning labels on rap music?

That was the Republicans shifting to the lunatic fringe, and it quickly became apparent that shifting too far away from the center was bad for business. The backlash against it resulted in Bill Clinton.The GOP learned the hard lesson, and it has since done a very good job of purging the loonies, pulling back towards the center, and steering out of the skid.

Then came the Democrat's turn, and they were like "You call that a radical shift? Well hold my beer and watch this!" and they threw over the rudder for a hard turn to port. The backlash against it resulted in Donald Trump.

But the Democrats don't appear to be learning any lessons, they just keep pushing it harder into the left turn.