Republicans put out pro-impeachment ad

[LacesOut]

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.

Absolute horseshit, Groper.
If the evidence was so damning, they'd have impeached him already.

You are relying on MSNBC to give you lies which you will then debate...
Pure nonsense.

Mueller punted his decision to Barr.
Barr ruled how he ruled.
The Mueller Report is not many things - it's certainly NOT PROVEN.
No witness accounts, no cross examination.
Obstruction being strong or proven is FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

But, then again, facts don't matter to the TDS infected brain. Only FEEEEEELZ.

Obstruction was decided -
Follow along: IT....DID....NOT....HAPPEN..

The media has been lying to you since the beginning.
Trump is a traitor, a Russian Asset, colluded with the Kremlin, is in Putin's backpocket, pee dossiers, Illegal FISA warrants, and all other assorted lies surrounding this hoax...
The foundation of these lies comes from the DNC which lead to spying on Americans, spying on opposition campaigns, and spying on the POTUS.

The boomerang is coming back to hit your ilk in the face with the wrath of a 1000 suns...

 

[piezoe]

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.

You reasoning is far to simplistic. You reasoning conflicts with Mueller's insistence that as a DOJ employee he is bound by DOJ guidelines. Do you think like millions of Americans, perhaps most, that Mueller should have ignored the DOJ guidelines. Have you considered that the legal reasoning behind the guidelines could be wrong, or that there may be an inherent conflict of interest between the instructions Rosenstein gave Mueller and the Administrative Branch of government headed by Donald Trump, or both?

 

[piezoe]

No witness accounts

this is not correct. Witness accounts are partly what Grand Jury proceedings are about. These accounts are covered in detail in the Mueller report, but redacted. It is true that there are no cross examinations by defense attorneys. That occurs if an indictment results in a trial.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

You reasoning is far to simplistic. You reasoning conflicts with Mueller's insistence that as a DOJ employee he is bound by DOJ guidelines. Do you think like millions of Americans, perhaps most, that Mueller should have ignored the DOJ guidelines. Have you considered that the legal reasoning behind the guidelines could be wrong, or that there may be an inherent conflict of interest between the instructions Rosenstein gave Mueller and the Administrative Branch of government headed by Donald Trump, or both?

Your repetitive drivel continues to go out around three or more central questions.

First, as this has been covered multiple times, Mueller was not precluded from making a finding on whether a level of criminality rising to the level of probably cause with a likelihood of successful prosecution existed. That was his frigging job. He reports to the AG. It is not muellers job to decide what the next step would be from there. That is up to the AG. He may decide to have his Office of Legal Counsel in his administration, versus a previous one, review it again or to offer guidance. Or he may choose to ignore it because he has the authority to do that, especially if he gets an opinion that it is only advisory and is unsettled law. But Mueller did not make a finding of criminality so the issue became moot. Not to forget, that two months after the OLC issued that opinion, Clinton plead to a perjury charge. So there are various workarounds that can be done, IF THERE IS A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE by the investigators. It was not Mueller's job to decide how the outcome wouold be dealt with. It was his job to present findings with an opinion of whether they rise to the level of prosecutable criminality. It is the AG's job to see where to go from there.

Second, and you and your ilk repetitively crabwalk away from this, the question is: If you think the OLC opinion flat out precluded him from making any finding of criminality that could be successfully prosecuted, WHAT THE FUCK DID HE SPEND TWO YEARS KLUTZING AROUND TRYING TO DO IT FOR? He knew that the OLC opinion existed at the time he was appointed?

Okay, getting very repetitive. But tards gotta be tards.

Mueller turned out to be a flaccid dolt. All the lefties hate him because he did not deliver but at the same time you have to try to pump him to get at trump. Same thing with Comey. No one hates comey more than the dems who think he lost the election for Hillary, yet you have to pump him up and shill for him because he hates trump. It has made all of you a bunch of sick conflicted puppies.

 

[piezoe]

If you think the OLC opinion flat out precluded him from making any finding of criminality that could be successfully prosecuted

I think he believed he was only precluded from prosecuting the president. His investigation and resulting prosecutions put a number of people behind bars and there are more prosecutions to come and more going to jail. Curiously, they all seem to have been involved with Donald Trump in some way or other. I wonder if there is a connection? Grand juries are still proceeding as a result of Mueller's investigation. By any measure you care to use, his investigation turned up a treasure trove of criminality, or did it?

For some odd reason these people are not in jail! Comey, Bill and Hillary, McCabe, Strzok , Lisa Page ... ... ...

In your topsy turvey world all the innocent are in jail and all the guilty are free. (By the way, why is there only one vowel in "world"? Is that Mueller's fault too? Or is it yet another consequence of the maniacal workings of "the deep state"?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I think he was precluded from prosecuting only the president. His investigation and resulting prosecutions put a number of people behind bars and there are more prosecutions to come and more going to jail. Curiously they all seem to have worked for Donald Trump. I wonder if there is a connection? Grand juries are still proceeding as a result of Mueller investigation. By any measure you care to use, his investigation turned up a treasure trove of criminality.

Viewers will note the repetitive crabwalking.

He can't answer the question as to why Mueller was precluded from making a finding on the issue of probable cause obstruction on Trump, even if he believed he could not be prosecuted. Nothing in the OLC opinion prevented that, and it is the AG's job to deal with the findings, where there are further legal issues related, not the independent counsel. Note also that he just goes out around the example I gave, wherein, two months after the OLC issued that opinion, a guilty plea on perjury was extracted from Clinon, WHILE HE WAS A SITTING PRESIDENT.

Nevermind. We all know that when Peizoe has no answer, he just double downs on the verbal diarrhea. It's what he does. If he were a surgeon, he would have a rap a mile long about how he is right about everything, except all his patients die on the table.

Peizoe does not matter. Allegedly we have Mueller coming in to testify. Yeh, now we are talking.

Also, Tardzoe tries to make the case that mueller knew he could not prosecute trump but was still just trying to get those around him, which is why he did not give up the ghost if he thought from the beginning that trump could not be prosecuted. Yeh right. And that is why we had months and months of trying to get trump to sit down with mueller- because mueller was just trying to implicate some of trumps associatates. Uh huh. IDIOT.

 

[piezoe]

He can't answer the question as to why Mueller was precluded from making a finding on the issue of probable cause obstruction on Trump

I can answer it. I have answered it. But why should I do it once more when Mueller laid out in great detail his finding of, as you put it, "probable cause obstruction." Not only that, but Mueller has made it perfectly clear why he did not consider indicting the President. He gave us his reason for not indicting Trump, and he gave his separate reason for not directly accusing him of criminal behavior, but rather instead just restricting his report to a recounting of the evidence of criminal behavior by the President.

If you read more and posted less you'd be doing yourself and the rest of us a favor. I'd love to chit chat more with you had you not slipped into wasting my time.

You might summarize your last 100 posts, or so, by straight out stating you disagree with Mueller, and then calling a halt to your repetitive rankling over Mueller's decision with regard to his findings on Obstruction by Trump.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

and he gave his separate reason for not directly accusing him of criminal behavior,

Correct. He did not directly accuse him of criminal behavior.

Every legal proceedings - both criminal and civil- may contain volumes of documents where there is plenty of juicy reading. In the end a prosecutor has to decide whether a finding of probably cause will be made. Mueller did not do that.

BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME. Mueller gets a participation trophy but failed to complete his primary assignment which was to reach a finding. "Uhh gee. Bill, I don't know what to do, but I just spent two years and 35 million dollars to look at it, why dont you decide."

This is about the fourth time that you go out around the point I made about Clinton entering a guilty plea on perjury two months after the OLC issued its opinion that he could not be indicted. As I said, it is not the independent counsels job to just not look at things based on his assumption of how a finding would proceed legally. There are other ways. Just do you job which is to make the finding. Yeh, the Clinton example does not work for you tards. Nothing sets you off to crabwalking quite like that.

Mueller is a dolt.

 

[LacesOut]

this is not correct. Witness accounts are partly what Grand Jury proceedings are about. These accounts are covered in detail in the Mueller report, but redacted. It is true that there are no cross examinations by defense attorneys. That occurs if an indictment results in a trial.

No witness accounts cross-examined....

 

[piezoe]

No witness accounts cross-examined....

I agree. Although a Grand Jury can question a witness, this is not at all the same as cross examination by an attorney for the accused. Furthermore, you made an excellent point when you said Obstruction was not proven. All that was offered in Mueller's report was evidence of obstruction that many attorneys considered strong and convincing evidence of Obstruction that, in their opinion, was enough to indict anyone other than the President.

We have built in safeguards for the accused in our democratic republic's System of Justice. So no matter how convincing and strong the evidence may appear, the charges are not proven until either the accused admits his guilt or the accused is found guilty in one of several types of hearings. Depending on the specific charges, the possible types of hearings include mostly procedures where the accused has an opportunity to question the evidence and to present his own witnesses and to cross examine the prosecutions witnesses either before a judge, or a judge and jury. In an Impeachment hearing the jury would be the Senate, the Prosecution would be the House, and the Judge would be the Chief Justice. However in an impeachment hearing, the accused can not be punished other than by removal from office .

Besides impeachment, the House has other ways of punishing those who interfere with its workings or desires under the Constitution. The House, according to Article One, or statute and established precedence, has the power to arrest and jail; to fine; the power of the purse, which may optionally be wielded against a recalcitrant President, Administrator, or judicial body; the power to impeach and try federal officers; the power to sanction and hold in contempt, and other powers as well.

The branches of the Federal government are not "co-equal" as is incorrectly and foolishly thought to be the case by many. Under the Constitution, and by intentional design of the Founders after long and arduous debate, the House was given power over both the Judiciary and the Executive Branch! It was argued by Hamilton that the most power in government should rest with the "people" and as the House was to be "the peoples' House"* the most power should be abide within the House. Hamilton's arguments eventually prevailed. And that is why the House is given it's three great powers: The power of the purse; the power to impeach on broad and undefined terms; and the power to specify to the Court which matters the Court may not hear. That these ultimate powers of the House are so little exercised is a curious, and perhaps unanticipated, result of the House so seldom being capable of acting "of one mind."

Currently there is the matter of certain individuals, including officers in the Executive Branch, having ignored House subpoenas. This is a matter that in the past has resulted in individuals being held in contempt of Congress -- not a matter to be taken lightly.

___________________
*In Hamilton's era "the people" in the sense of the "peoples House" were male property owners and white with very few exceptions. Everyone else was disenfranchised.