Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[dblstndrds]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

His staff informed law enforcement authorities before they listened to the offer. Do you see how that might be a crucial difference?

You mean after he listened to the phone call. 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, dblstndrds said:

You mean after he listened to the phone call. 

 

A spokesman for Schiff said, “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”

Edited June 14, 2019 by bristolboy

[dblstndrds]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

A spokesman for Schiff said, “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”

so would you agree this should happen regardless of the information and the source?

that the fbi should be notified of any info that could relate to any politician?

 

i just want to establish the rules that you want to apply to everyone equally first

Edited June 14, 2019 by dblstndrds

[heybruce]

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

Tax breaks for the rich, an exploding deficit, praising tyrants, alienating allies, taking money from the military to build an ineffective law, defying constitutional oversight, etc; you consider these "doing the right thing"?

 

34 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

What “facts” might those be?
 

 

The above facts were the ones you started replying to with nonsensical dodges.

[heybruce]

59 minutes ago, dblstndrds said:

you really do need to take a step back and not be so emotionally charged up. you seem consumed with righteous indignation.

that can't be good for anyone

People undermining democracy in the US annoys me.  So does the complacency and rationalizations of the Trump cult followers.

[dblstndrds]

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

18 hours ago, dblstndrds said:

you really do need to take a step back and not be so emotionally charged up. you seem consumed with righteous indignation.

that can't be good for anyone

People undermining democracy in the US annoys me.  So does the complacency and rationalizations of the Trump cult followers.

there is no "undermining" of democracy going on with the current potus.

 

there is, however, a constant undermining of a legally elected president because

irrational emotional people aren't able to accept legal election results.

 

if you think your ideas are better, then get elected.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, dblstndrds said:

there is no "undermining" of democracy going on with the current potus.

 

there is, however, a constant undermining of a legally elected president because

irrational emotional people aren't able to accept legal election results.

 

if you think your ideas are better, then get elected.

By leaving open the door to accepting illegal election assistance from foreign powers, Trump is leaving open the door to undermining democracy.  By resisting with every means possible Constitutional oversight Trump is undermining democracy.  By attempting to end the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election Trump attempted to undermine democracy.

 

Trump is not being undermined by anything but his own ignorance and apathy towards the job and responsibilities he has taken on.

 

I don't have to get elected (and don't want the job), dozens of people better qualified than Trump are running for office.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 2:30 AM, heybruce said:

I don't believe you.  I think you, and Trump, want the House to stop investigating Trump and successfully going to the courts for legally demanded data that would expose his crimes.  You see impeachment as a useful diversion and smoke screen.

You can believe whatever you like, as is your, and my, right.

I wasn't the one bringing impeachment up in the first place- that's down to the resistance, but perhaps Nancy is clever enough to see the downside.

This could be a classic case of being careful of what one wishes for ????

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, heybruce said:

By leaving open the door to accepting illegal election assistance from foreign powers, Trump is leaving open the door to undermining democracy.  By resisting with every means possible Constitutional oversight Trump is undermining democracy.  By attempting to end the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election Trump attempted to undermine democracy.

 

Trump is not being undermined by anything but his own ignorance and apathy towards the job and responsibilities he has taken on.

 

I don't have to get elected (and don't want the job), dozens of people better qualified than Trump are running for office.

dozens of people better qualified than Trump are running for office.

and dozens of better qualified than Trump will see Trump re elected, IMO.

It's not about being qualified, it's about whom the voters prefer.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

dozens of people better qualified than Trump are running for office.

and dozens of better qualified than Trump will see Trump re elected, IMO.

It's not about being qualified, it's about whom the voters prefer.

Yes, BS often beats competence.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You can believe whatever you like, as is your, and my, right.

I wasn't the one bringing impeachment up in the first place- that's down to the resistance, but perhaps Nancy is clever enough to see the downside.

This could be a classic case of being careful of what one wishes for ????

So if someone disagrees with Donald it means you arethe resistance?you got the trump delusion syndrome bad brother 

[user68677878]

The remedy of impeachment was designed to create a last-resort mechanism for preserving Americas constitutional system. It operates by removing executive-branch officials who have so abused power through what the framers called “high crimes and misdemeanors” that they cannot be trusted to continue in office. Trump needs to be impeached as should have his predecessor. Both are guilty of abuse of presidential power.

If Republicans, who portray themselves as the standard bearer want to be taken serious about maintaining the integrity of the American government, they themselves should be leading the calls for Trumps impeachment

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 3:01 PM, porphyry said:

The remedy of impeachment was designed to create a last-resort mechanism for preserving Americas constitutional system. It operates by removing executive-branch officials who have so abused power through what the framers called “high crimes and misdemeanors” that they cannot be trusted to continue in office. Trump needs to be impeached as should have his predecessor. Both are guilty of abuse of presidential power.

If Republicans, who portray themselves as the standard bearer want to be taken serious about maintaining the integrity of the American government, they themselves should be leading the calls for Trumps impeachment

If Trump's predecessor wasn't impeached then I can't see why Trump should be. 

Your last paragraph, LOL.

The GOP members know what would happen to them if they were complicit in removing Trump from office. They may not like him, they may not respect him, but they like their jobs.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 2:01 PM, heybruce said:

Yes, BS often beats competence.

Yes, it does. Absolutely. That Nixon, Bush the younger and Obama were re elected says it all, IMO.

Edited June 17, 2019 by thaibeachlovers

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If Trump's predecessor wasn't impeached then I can't see why Trump should be. 

Your last paragraph, LOL.

The GOP members know what would happen to them if they were complicit in removing Trump from office. They may not like him, they may not respect him, but they like their jobs.

Trump has obstructed justice, abused executive privilege and defied Congressional oversight. Presumably he is defying Congressional oversight in an attempt to hide other crimes.  These are grounds for impeachment.  Obama never provided grounds for impeachment.

 

I do agree with your second paragraph; spineless Republicans in the Senate who put their own re-election over the needs of the country are the reason why it is pointless for the House to send an impeachment recommendation to the Senate at this time.

[riclag]

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump has obstructed justice, abused executive privilege and defied Congressional oversight. Presumably he is defying Congressional oversight in an attempt to hide other crimes.  These are grounds for impeachment.  Obama never provided grounds for impeachment.

 

I do agree with your second paragraph; spineless Republicans in the Senate who put their own re-election over the needs of the country are the reason why it is pointless for the House to send an impeachment recommendation to the Senate at this time.

Trump has obstructed justice in the eyes of his opponents. Legal minds far more trusted and experienced have found no obstruction 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Trump has obstructed justice in the eyes of his opponents. Legal minds far more trusted and experienced have found no obstruction 

Illiberal tries to gaslight those of us who have read the Mueller report.

[riclag]

34 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump has obstructed justice, abused executive privilege and defied Congressional oversight. Presumably he is defying Congressional oversight in an attempt to hide other crimes.  These are grounds for impeachment.  Obama never provided grounds for impeachment.

 

I do agree with your second paragraph; spineless Republicans in the Senate who put their own re-election over the needs of the country are the reason why it is pointless for the House to send an impeachment recommendation to the Senate at this time.

To mention an attempt to hide other crimes  is Conspiracy theories 

[thaibeachlovers]

34 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump has obstructed justice, abused executive privilege and defied Congressional oversight. Presumably he is defying Congressional oversight in an attempt to hide other crimes.  These are grounds for impeachment.  Obama never provided grounds for impeachment.

 

I do agree with your second paragraph; spineless Republicans in the Senate who put their own re-election over the needs of the country are the reason why it is pointless for the House to send an impeachment recommendation to the Senate at this time.

In your opinion, but apparently Nancy does not agree with you. Presumably is not evidence.

In my opinion Obama did sufficient to be impeached.

BTW, there are no "grounds" for impeachment other than "high crimes and misdemeanours" which is code for whatever congress decides to impeach over.

 

IMO the Dems are spineless for not making good on their threats to impeach- Nancy, just do it! Even if it's a lost cause they should have the intestinal fortitude to do what they think is right.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In your opinion, but apparently Nancy does not agree with you. Presumably is not evidence.

In my opinion Obama did sufficient to be impeached.

BTW, there are no "grounds" for impeachment other than "high crimes and misdemeanours" which is code for whatever congress decides to impeach over.

 

IMO the Dems are spineless for not making good on their threats to impeach- Nancy, just do it! Even if it's a lost cause they should have the intestinal fortitude to do what they think is right.

I listed three definite grounds for impeachment before my presumably comment.  I'm not surprised you are cherry picking the evidence, that's what your Fox News sources do.

 

Pelosi agrees that there are grounds for impeachment, but that the timing isn't right. 

 

You have given no "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by Obama.  If not being liked by a fraction of the public were grounds for impeachment, Trump would have been out of office before he was sworn in.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 2:30 AM, heybruce said:

I listed three definite grounds for impeachment before my presumably comment.  I'm not surprised you are cherry picking the evidence, that's what your Fox News sources do.

 

Pelosi agrees that there are grounds for impeachment, but that the timing isn't right. 

 

You have given no "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by Obama.  If not being liked by a fraction of the public were grounds for impeachment, Trump would have been out of office before he was sworn in.

I refer to Obama's apology tour of the world; also sucking up to big bank managers and letting them off the hook, instead of prosecuting them and seeing them in jail, where they belong. That, IMO was grounds for impeachment.

Misdemeanours can mean anything congress wants it to mean.

 

Pelosi, LOL. She has realised that impeachment is a poisoned chalice, and is coming up with spurious grounds for not doing it.

Perhaps she thinks just before the election would be a better time politically.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 2:30 AM, heybruce said:

that's what your Fox News sources do.

Cut the lies. I haven't seen Fox in over 6 months, and don't use them as a source.

[bristolboy]

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Cut the lies. I haven't seen Fox in over 6 months, and don't use them as a source.

Sounds to me like you're one of their sources.

[heybruce]

53 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I refer to Obama's apology tour of the world; also sucking up to big bank managers and letting them off the hook, instead of prosecuting them and seeing them in jail, where they belong. That, IMO was grounds for impeachment.

Misdemeanours can mean anything congress wants it to mean.

 

Pelosi, LOL. She has realised that impeachment is a poisoned chalice, and is coming up with spurious grounds for not doing it.

Perhaps she thinks just before the election would be a better time politically.

" The following selections are quotes from President Barack Obama's speeches. Mitt Romney argued in his book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, that the remarks constitute apologies. Our analysis, however, concluded they did not fit the formal definition of apologies; read our full report. "  https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/obama-quotes/  

 

Your "apology tour" nonsense is fake news.  What specifically did Obama apologize for that he shouldn't have?

 

Obama and many others wanted to prosecute the bankers, but you need crimes to do that.  With few exceptions the bankers took advantage of legal opportunities and nearly crashed the world economy.  The proper response to that is better regulation of banks, but Trump isn't into regulating.

 

You haven't given any grounds for impeaching Obama other than the fact that you didn't like him.

 

Funny how you think you can read Pelosi's mind.  Another symptom of TDS I suppose.

 

[heybruce]

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Cut the lies. I haven't seen Fox in over 6 months, and don't use them as a source.

But you definitely ignore inconvenient facts and cherry-pick, or invent, "facts" that suit your beliefs.  I suppose you could have picked that up from Trump instead of Fox.

[roobaa01]

no impeachment but reelected as president, thats how it will finish.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 6:29 PM, heybruce said:

You haven't given any grounds for impeaching Obama other than the fact that you didn't like him.

 

Funny how you think you can read Pelosi's mind.  Another symptom of TDS I suppose.

 

Visa versa on Trump. Far as I can see there are no high crimes or misdemeanours, whatever you present as "evidence". Maybe's are not proof.

 

I can't read Nancy's mind. I'm just repeating what has been said by others.

However, a few posters claim to know what I'm thinking, as in using Fox for a source, when I haven't even seen it for over 6 months.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 6:32 PM, heybruce said:

But you definitely ignore inconvenient facts and cherry-pick, or invent, "facts" that suit your beliefs.  I suppose you could have picked that up from Trump instead of Fox.

The thread isn't about me.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Visa versa on Trump. Far as I can see there are no high crimes or misdemeanours, whatever you present as "evidence". Maybe's are not proof.

 

I can't read Nancy's mind. I'm just repeating what has been said by others.

However, a few posters claim to know what I'm thinking, as in using Fox for a source, when I haven't even seen it for over 6 months.

Mueller outlined many instances of obstruction of justice.  Add to that is Trump's reprogramming money allocated by Congress for specific purposes, a clear violation of the Constitution.  And Trump's going to the courts with futile objections to Congressional oversight is another clear violation of the Constitution.  I consider these high crimes and misdemeanors.    What do you consider to be Obama's high crimes and misdemeanors?

 

Six months isn't that long.  Fox News, through its insane pundits posing as journalists, was eagerly spreading lies and misdirection about Trump back then.

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The thread isn't about me.

But it is worthwhile to identify posters presenting false or intentionally misleading information.