Yes, Democrats Should Impeach Trump—and Make Mitch McConnell Defend His Acquittal

May 2007
5,110
2,620
your place
#91
You have no idea what I think. You're just assuming. I thought Trump would win the election. I never thought Stormy Daniels would bring him down. Although, that's another of his criminal actions, paying her off to keep her quiet during the campaign. I think the Mueller report should lead to impeachment because Mueller clearly lays out Trump's obstruction of justice. (BTW, have you read it? Do you know what it actually says? I don't think you do.)That is exactly how it's supposed to work. And comparing what Clinton did to all of the criminal activities of Trump is ridiculous. It would be morally wrong for the Dems not to impeach him.

“Morally wrong” not to take part in a partisan impeachment effort? And you are accusing me of having blinders. I can see you are locked in. Luckily impeachment will probably remain a fringe idea.
 
Jul 2007
76,365
67,327
So. Md.
#92
“Morally wrong” not to take part in a partisan impeachment effort? And you are accusing me of having blinders. I can see you are locked in. Luckily impeachment will probably remain a fringe idea.
No. It would be morally wrong to ignore the law breaking that Trump has engaged in both before he was elected and while he's been in office. Read the Mueller report and then come back and argue that he hasn't obstructed justice. You just have to read the second part where Mueller lays out all of the instances, not the whole report. I'll even give you a link.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
 
May 2012
68,715
13,696
By the wall
#93
I've gone all through this before. Mueller said it wouldn't be fair to accuse him of any crime because he couldn't take him to court where he could defend himself. This is directly form h Mueller's statement on May 29.



Full transcript: Robert Mueller’s statement on the Russia investigation

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As usual.
Then ask yourself this.

What the fuck was the point of the investigation then if he could never accuse Trump of a crime?
 
Jul 2007
76,365
67,327
So. Md.
#94
Flame Baiting
Then ask yourself this.

What the fuck was the point of the investigation then if he could never accuse Trump of a crime?
So that congress could know what the fuck happened and decide what to do from there. His report was meant for congress. Try to keep up. Otherwise STFU. You have opinions about all kinds of things and knowledge about little.

WTF is wrong with you?
 
Jul 2007
76,365
67,327
So. Md.
#95
This is the kind of outrageous and audacious shit the Republicans pull but Dems mustn't because no one would vote for them if they did? Then how the fuck do Republicans get elected in the first place?!

September 11 was supposed to be an uneventful day in North Carolina’s state capitol. Instead, it became a case study in the lengths Republican lawmakers in the state are willing to go to push through their agenda.

The state legislature was in session Wednesday morning, but Democrats were told there wouldn’t be any votes. So some lawmakers joined Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper at a ceremony for the victims of 9/11. Others stayed in their districts. Democrat state Rep. Grier Martin told me he took the time to go on a run.

Only nine Democrats went to the floor of the General Assembly. They were met with 55 Republicans ready to stage what Democrats are now calling a political ambush.

Republican leaders scheduled a surprise vote to override Cooper’s budget veto, an unprecedented partisan play that blindsided the state Democrats. Cooper called it “trickery, deception, and lies.”

North Carolina has a Democratic governor. But the state legislature is controlled by Republicans. Since late June, the state has been stuck in a legislative impasse; Cooper vetoed a two-year budget bill, arguing it underpaid teachers, awarded unnecessary giveaways to corporations and failed to include a Medicaid expansion. Republicans have been itching to override his veto ever since, unwilling to negotiate health care for low income North Carolinians.
North Carolina Republicans’ audacious power play, explained
 
May 2007
5,110
2,620
your place
#97
No. It would be morally wrong to ignore the law breaking that Trump has engaged in both before he was elected and while he's been in office. Read the Mueller report and then come back and argue that he hasn't obstructed justice. You just have to read the second part where Mueller lays out all of the instances, not the whole report. I'll even give you a link.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Oh come on. The Mueller report came out 6 months ago. You are living in an alternate reality if you think there is going to be a six month delayed reaction where all of the sudden law makers or the public is going get behind impeachment because of it.
 
May 2012
68,715
13,696
By the wall
#98
So that congress could know what the fuck happened and decide what to do from there. His report was meant for congress. Try to keep up. Otherwise STFU. You have opinions about all kinds of things and knowledge about little.

WTF is wrong with you?
That is no what his mandate said you know.

Have you even bothered to read it?

Nowhere in there does it say he cannot prosecute Trump, it says he can go after anybody.

Nowhere does it say he reports to congress either and on top of that, Congress can't file charges, the DOJ does that so you are saying the DOJ hired him to find something that Trump did illegally then wanted him to report it to congress who can not legally do anything about it?

And in fact, he never did send congress a report, he sent it to the DOJ which was his boss who then sent it to congress. The only time Mueller talked to congress is when they summoned him in for questioning where he still said that there was no collusion and he had no evidence of obstruction.

You probably didn't watch his interview either.

You are so desperate to believe you can still find something it's pathetic.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
76,365
67,327
So. Md.
That is no what his mandate said you know.

Have you even bothered to read it?

Nowhere in there does it say he cannot prosecute Trump, it says he can go after anybody.

Nowhere does it say he reports to congress either and on top of that, Congress can't file charges, the DOJ does that so you are saying the DOJ hired him to find something that Trump did illegally then wanted him to report it to congress who can not legally do anything about it?

And in fact, he never did send congress a report, he sent it to the DOJ which was his boss who then sent it to congress. The only time Mueller talked to congress is when they summoned him in for questioning where he still said that there was no collusion and he had no evidence of obstruction.

You probably didn't watch his interview either.

You are so desperate to believe you can still find something it's pathetic.
You're right that Mueller was to report to the DOJ. I was mistaken on that but Mueller could not prosecute Trump. Only congress can indict a sitting president.

And yes, I did watch his testimony before congress and I've read his report.

As he resigned from his post Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller explained that “longstanding” Department of Justice policy prevents a sitting president from being charged with a federal crime. Therefore, while his office investigated potential offenses committed by President Donald Trump, charging Trump was “not an option we could consider.”

The policy blocking indicting a sitting president dates back to the presidency of Richard Nixon. In September 1973, just under a year before Nixon resigned, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel determined that a criminal case against the president “would interfere with the President’s unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else.” Therefore, impeachment is the only manner by which a sitting president can be penalized for wrongdoing.
Why Couldn't Mueller Indict Trump? This DOJ Policy Prevented Him