And this, ladies and gentlemen, is pure Leftard TDS stage 4.
Republicans put out pro-impeachment ad
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
The Libtards don’t need evidence.
They just need FEELZ
None of this Nareshkeit matters about how many legal pundits would indict Trump.
There was no Obstruction.
This was legally decided already.
You only need to look as far as Freddie’s response that he should be impeached because ‘he should be’.
LOL.
ITS OVER.
Next up will be actual indictments of Team Obama who committed real crimes to create and coverup this hoax.
There was no Obstruction.
This was legally decided already.
You only need to look as far as Freddie’s response that he should be impeached because ‘he should be’.
LOL.
ITS OVER.
Next up will be actual indictments of Team Obama who committed real crimes to create and coverup this hoax.
Mueller was charged with making a finding. The OLC opinion does not preclude that.
He was unable to make a finding of probably cause and did not. In our system, the concept of being exonerated does not even come into play nor is it a prosecutors role.
Shows us where in the report Mueller reached a conclusion of obstruction or conspiracy that rose to the level of criminality. We get the idea that he and others wish that he had been able to- but that doesnt get you there.
If your not going to bother to read the report or pay attention, why should we read your posts?
There was no legal decision. Impeachment is required to reach a legal decision against a sitting president. Turn off Infowars. AG Barr lied to defend Trump. It's obvious you haven't read the report.
It's very difficult to take someone seriously that uses terms like 'libtard' unironically. Did you marry your sister?
----------
I voted for Trump. I won't say it was a mistake because his competition was arguably worse (what a terrible gauge for a vote...) but it's time people, especially conservatives, start acting like Americans and demanding answers instead of running defense for an out of touch (alleged) billionaire with a Napoleon complex.
The only people who think there isn't a case for obstruction fall into two, sometimes overlapping categories:
1. People who have never read the Mueller Report (specifically the section on obstruction).
2. People who legitimately believe there is a "deep state" (lol) conspiracy to oust a candidate who only won because the democrats ran their worst possible candidate.
The evidence in the obstruction section of the Mueller Report is so damning they'd already have him in court if he wasn't president. Unfortunately, the DoJ can't touch a sitting president.
Impeachment must happen in order to bring the president into court and allow the evidence of the crimes allegedly committed to be heard in its entirety. If he's acquitted, he wins 2020 without contest. If not, we remove an actual criminal from the highest office in the country. The only reason the evidence wasn't entirely damning was because there were a handful of people on both sides of the aisle running defense for him and actively disobeying orders that would've been borderline witness tampering on top of obstruction. You could probably build a RICO case against him at this point.
Always-Trumpers were so quick to demand impeachment for Obama on the basis of his birth certificate, but when a billionaire with a power complex that couldn't understand always-Trumper's needs anyway gets into office they are just as quick to back off and ask for leniency. Mueller's Report specifically says in the conclusion (paraphrased) "if we could exonerate him, we would say it here. Unfortunately, we cannot given the evidence exonerate him". You'd have to be an absolutely inbred paint huffing trailer park dweller to not understand the weight of that sentence.
Last edited:
Prosecutors are not in the business of exonerating people. It simply is not part of the american legal process. It is just the ramblings of a prosecutor who could not find anything that rose to the level of criminality.
He either makes a finding of probable cause that he believes a grand jury will uphold or he does not. In this case, he did not. And no, the opinion of the OLC did not preclude him from doing that.
Since Mueller pooped out on the dems, they want to impeach him. Fine go for it. No one doubts that impeachment is a political process.
When the impeachment thing does not work out, it will be something else. Guaranteed.
"2. People who legitimately believe there is a deep state conspiracy to oust a candidate who only won because the democrats ran their worst possible candidate."
Last I knew, all the conservatives believed that Hillary lost because she was a shitty candidate but Hillary and her supporters have a conspiracy theory about how the russians worked with trump to defeat her. You might want to work on that a bit.
Last edited:
In fact they are. It would be within Mueller's power to say "there is no/not enough evidence to bring charges against X". If they, by doing this, refuse to present the case then the case is more-or-less an exoneration in the eyes of the law.
In this case Mueller has left the interpretation up to congress due to the weight of the charges and the fact the Department of Justice cannot levy a charge against a sitting president BY LAW. The difference is subtle, but very important. Mueller's entire job is to bring cases against people. He cannot in this case not because he wouldn't, but rather because he legally cannot due to the separation of the branches in the USG. Hence leaving it to the house, the only people who can bring a case of impeachment against a sitting president.
Ahh, no. They are not. They make a finding of whether there is sufficient evidence to make a probable cause case to the grand jury. It is either or. They do not "exonerate" ie, find that a person did not do something. So scrap that whole line of thinking. Not valid.
Your second paragraph and line of reasoning are also off. As I said, HE ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT PRECLUDED FROM MAKING A FINDING AND PRESENTING IT TO THE AG. The OLC opinion does not preclude that. And it would then be up to the AG to decide how to deal with it. PERIOD.
Further, there is no statement in the mueller report that says he made that finding but could not prosecute it because of the OLC opinion. He simply did not make a finding of criminality and dumped the whole thing on to Barr.
Nor is it the independent counsels job to develop cases for or refer cases to the House for impeachment. He reports to the AG and his assignment was to present a report with finding to the AG.
In addition, the question arises- if you and others believe that he was precluded from making a finding- why did he spend two years on it? The OLC opinion was in effect at the time he was appointed.