Amazing: I had never seen Republicans in such disarray

Boy the Democrats have sure shown that, thanks for acknowledging.

 

He can't even be forced to appear. He does not have to participate in the proceedings. Clinton never answered questions in his impeachment.

 

In an impeachment the Senate does not decide guilt or innocence, in spite of the Constitutional requirement they respond guilty or not guilty, their judgement is limited to remove or not remove from office. The House already determined he committed the offenses and impeached him for them, the Senate merely decides whether they warrant removal from office.

 

Let us know when you convict Trump of obstruction.

Mueller couldn't do it but you guys have AOC on it now so I expect completely different results.

lol

 

There is no reason why he can't be forced to testify. Now, what he says there, can't be used later in a court of law. But he can certainly be forced to answer. That is up to the House how they want to handle it. They might not want to "muddy up" an ulterior criminal trial. But he certainly won't be able to just plead the fifth to every single question.

If Trump were a disciplined witness, you might have a point. But Trump is too stupid. He won't be able to help himself....

Not with Trump on the stand. Not with all the witnesses on the stand. They can do all those things you mention if they don't see Trump and witnesses. Especially if Trump is trying to plead the fifth and repeating "I can't remember" again and again in front of millions of Americans.

All that can turn in the last week before the elections. All they need is a good October surprise. Or even a good November surprise, like the last time. I don't care if he's not removed. I want those images of Trump saying "I can't remember" on a continuous loop 24/7 the whole week before the elections.

Yes, but keep in mind that nothing that happens today will matter on election day unless it's on tape.

 

The House didn't even hold hearings during the Clinton impeachment. You can be sure that this House will. And that Trump will be forced to appear..

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...even-say-that-trump-committed-a-crime.556548/

 

Ahh but Mueller never came up with a crime did he?

If he did he would have presented it.

Instead he gave a bunch of circumstantial evidence to congress to try and figure out.

Mueller failed but hey, keep hoping that congress can do what Mueller and his high priced team of lawyers could not.

Its nice to have hope.

 

He sure did!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...imes-100-proven-in-the-mueller-report.556547/

These are a part of the "Intent" section. If you want the details, the little number is the page on the Mueller Report where the whole case is presented.

I'm sure you're eager to read them....

Have fun!

 

I have read them but please why don't you explain to everyone what the actual crime is that Trump can be charged with.

What law did Trump violate exactly, I'm sure we would all like to know. I mean even Rachel maddow isn't leveling a specific charge against Trump but apparently you know of one.

So bring it on dude.

Walk the walk or...well you know the rest.

 

Sure.

Hey everybody! The crime is Obstruction of Justice!

Should I have used bold, or larger font?

Oh... sure....

Mueller (Pages 7 and 8 ) "Consistent with precedent and the Department of Justice's general approach to interpreting obstruction statutes , we concluded that several statutes could apply here. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 , 1505, 1512(b)(3) , 1512(c)(2). Section 1512(c)(2) is an omnibus obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or contemplated official proceedings . No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the provision to cover only conduct that impair s the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections 1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury, judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings , and they are supplemented by a provisionin Section 1512(6) aimed specifically at conduct intended to prevent or hinder the communication to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime."​

 

I read your rant du jours ... it provides no examples of chaotic behavior. Your "throwing crap at the wall" analogy makes the argument that the GOP is united in it's disgust will Bob Mueller. I'm sorry you so poorly composed your own screed, but it does not convey the chaos that I'm sure you meant it to.

 

That's a piss poor cop out. You devoted a whole thread to the 4 instances you felt Mueller got it right ... You've dismissed 60% of what you initially claimed were 10 irrefutable acts of obstruction. You've almost arrived at the correct number. Maybe Youtube AG Barr's congressional hearing ... Barr provides the correct figure = 0.

 

Then, one more time, you prove you haven't read the OP. Because it's not a "rant". I'm thrilled to see Trump cultists in disarray. What makes you think I would "rant" about it? If you ever decide to read it you will find that I did provide examples.

Tip: Read posts before you respond to them. Might help keep you from sending silly responses. But there's no guarantee in your case.

 

Stop making up crap I have never said! If you can't argue against what I quote, you can stay silent. But making up strawman arguments is dishonest.

I say what I have always said: Mueller presented ten cases (actually it looks like it was 11... I miscounted) of obstruction. Four of them with all the elements that are usually required to convict in a court of law: act, nexus, intent. For the others, there is either a possible alternative explanation, or one or two elements are missing. However, Mueller left a "roadmap" for Congress (or any future prosecutor) to rule out the alternatives or fulfill the missing elements.

A prosecutor only needs one of them to put Trump in prison.

The rest if BS that you made up. And the Trump Cult's desperation is clear in that they have to make up false statements like yours because they have run out of real arguments.

 

I see you're and I don't really blame you. All you've done is project the DNC's infighting onto the GOP. 1 dissenter, Amash, does not represent "chaos". I'm sure your dispondent because the GOP is more united than it has been in a long time. Susan Collins and Rand Paul must be really disappointing. :: I think those 2 learned something from Jeff Flake's departure. You poor liberal darlings are never going to find another RINO like McCain to sow discord for you.

 

There is a thread I opened about Trump's insanity. He sees things that aren't there. He sees people cheering for him where there are protests. And I expressed that the worst part was that some in his cult appeared to be heading in the same direction.

There are two posts you send on this thread, one after the other, that appear to confirm my fear. In one you see "ten" where I wrote "four". Here you write something about Amash, whom I have not mentioned on this thread even in passing.

All joking aside... I really don't think this is normal....

 

Sure they did both in committee and on the floor. And no Clinton did not appear butbof course Starr and then the Congress had him dead to rights and he knew he had no defense. But then Trump has nothing to defend.

 

What crime? And someone who finds out they are being falsely accused and subject to a grand jury investigation has every right to speak publicly and claim their innocence. Did Clinton get charged with obstruction for his public claims of innocence and attacks on the Starr investigation and Starr and his fellow prosecutors?

 

Your purposefully discombobulated paragraph fails in its purpose to conceal the fact that you know you are talking nonsense. The House did not hold hearings nor did they subpoena Clinton to testify. Given Clinton's popularity, it would have been a huge risk. And unnecessary given that he had already testified voluntarily before Starr.

Trump is a different story. He has not testified before anybody and is very unpopular among the general population

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...imes-100-proven-in-the-mueller-report.556547/

Who's Clinton? We're talking about Trump.

 

If you have something to say then say it

You know who he is. We're talking impeachment

Did Clinton get charged with obstruction for his public claims of innocence and attacks on the Starr investigation and Starr and his fellow prosecutors? And Clinton knew they had him dead to rights. That's what you want done with Trump.

 

No, you are wrong. The House does not arrive at a guilt or innocence by merely impeaching a President. Guilt or innocence is determined by a trial in the Senate, with the Chief Justice presiding.

Impeachment is an indictment of a political official. Look upon impeachment as similar to a grand jury proceeding.

 

Your faux confusion notwithstanding yes the House held hearings and presented evidence in committee and then on the floor. And yes as I said Clinton was never subpoenaed would not have answered to one unless he voluntarily agreed to answer. They can't subpoena Trump they can't force him to give testimony about himself.

But the question is why would the Democrats do it something that they have nothing to support any impeachable offense and without popular support and that will fail. What's the purpose?