Nancy Pelosi and impeachment

[asaratis]

@montecresto1

So, if there are infact ten examples of obstruction of justice in muellers report,

Had there been ANY examples, even one of obstruction of justice, Mueller would have pointed in out.

I haven’t seen where any of these legal genius Trump-haters have listed the examples.

Can you name them for us?

[LouMan]

Only toilet paper…

[TWR]

You must be pretty young then. Bill Clinton actually did break the law, was successfully impeached for doing so and lost his law license as a result.

[TWR]

So far only two Democrats have even read the unredacted report and it’s classified so they can’t reveal what’s in it.

[TrumpTrain]

@montecresto1

Trump’s the one with the log of indecency in his eye

…says this forum’s resident pathological liar and general ignoramus.

[tt53]

@montecresto1

We were presented with the two worst choices in my lifetime

And the never ending whining continues .

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

Only died-in-the-wool anti-Trumpers believe that President Trump has “broken the law.” Yet you state it as though it were an unquestioned fact.

Not exactly, but most every democrat that has read the MR has stated emphatically that there are ten accounts of obstruction of justice in it that Mueller could have and would have indicted for if not for the OLC “standard”. An impeachment inquiry is what would determine if in fact it is “unquestioned fact”.

As I have stated previously–I really do not know just why I need to repeat myself so often–I am very much in favor of impeachment. And not merely an “inquiry,” either.

I truly believe that it would give Donald Trump “martyr” status–thereby practically ensuring his re-election in 2020.

And it would almost certainly increase the Republicans’ current 53-47 majority in the Senate.

The Republicans might even retake the House.

And it is much more likely that space aliens will pay us a visit than it is that the Senate will muster the two-thirds supermajority (67 votes) needed to convict, and thereby remove the president from office.

So please, please impeach!

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

Moreover, I really do not know how you might justify her nastiness by noting that Ms. Pelosi has “read the Mueller report.”

How is it she got nasty, it’s lawful to put people in prison that have broken the law.

Only diehard anti-Trumpers believe that he has “broken the law”–which, in any case, Is certainly not a conclusion reached by the Mueller report.

[montecresto1]

@pjohns

As I have stated previously–I really do not know just why I need to repeat myself so often–I am very much in favor of impeachment. And not merely an “inquiry,” either.

Wow, ok. I don’t know how I missed that. Unless you mean impeachment alone.

[montecresto1]

@pjohns

Only diehard anti-Trumpers believe that he has “broken the law”–which, in any case, Is certainly not a conclusion reached by the Mueller report.

Again, the many Dems that have read it disagree. This is why I’d like to see an inquiry that allows better access, particularly to redacted material so that a more complete picture can be seen.

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

Only diehard anti-Trumpers believe that he has “broken the law”–which, in any case, Is certainly not a conclusion reached by the Mueller report.

Again, the many Dems that have read it disagree. This is why I’d like to see an inquiry that allows better access, particularly to redacted material so that a more complete picture can be seen.

It is my understanding–and please correct me if I am mistaken–that most Democrats have not even bothered to read the redacted report; so they should really not whine about wanting to read an unredacted version of it.

[montecresto1]

@pjohns

And it is much more likely that space aliens will pay us a visit than it is that the Senate will muster the two-thirds supermajority (67 votes) needed to convict, and thereby remove the president from office.

Certainly if an inquiry was empty handed but proceedings continued anyway. But as I pointed out to you sometime ago. There was scant support from republicans when proceedings began on Nixon, but as evidence mounted, republicans came on board. America is in measure of magnitudes more bipolar today and such integrity from the republicans (or democrats in a reversed situation) would probably be lacking.

Again, this is what Pelosi meant (by opposing impeachment) and preferring to wait for him to be out of office and prosecuted/imprisoned.

[TWR]

No they don’t, they are simply perpetuating another continuing lie just as they did with the “Russian Collusion” and “Treason” claims for two years knowing full well they were lying even then.

It’s all they have to run on.

They succeeded well enough to retake the house in 2018 but it isn’t going to work in 2020.

[TrumpTrain]

@montecresto1

Again, the many Dems that have read it disagree. This is why I’d like to see an inquiry that allows better access, particularly to redacted material so that a more complete picture can be seen.

For two years the great Mueller, the standard for ethics, had the entire resources of the federal government plus an army of 40 prosecutors behind him, with the ability to question anybody he wanted to. After two years of interrogations, grand juries, and access to anybody he wanted to question, he came up with jack. There can be no investigation with more access and resources than that.

Theses types of ignorant stupid comments by you are why you are ridiculed daily.

Its over. There is nothing. You have been duped by fake news and your own hate.

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

And it is much more likely that space aliens will pay us a visit than it is that the Senate will muster the two-thirds supermajority (67 votes) needed to convict, and thereby remove the president from office.

Certainly if an inquiry was empty handed but proceedings continued anyway. But as I pointed out to you sometime ago. There was scant support from republicans when proceedings began on Nixon, but as evidence mounted, republicans came on board. America is in measure of magnitudes more bipolar today and such integrity from the republicans (or democrats in a reversed situation) would probably be lacking.

Again, this is what Pelosi meant (by opposing impeachment) and preferring to wait for him to be out of office and prosecuted/imprisoned.

You are correct in noting that the country is especially polarized nowadays.

But the very idea that “evidence” would mount (thereby changing senators’ minds) if only hearings were held, is the wet dream of anti-Trumpers.

In this country, I believe that we are supposed to prosecute the crime–not the man…

[montecresto1]

@pjohns

But the very idea that “evidence” would mount (thereby changing senators’ minds) if only hearings were held, is the wet dream of anti-Trumpers.

Not at all. It could be that the inquiry uncovers no further evidence…

[montecresto1]

@pjohns

In this country, I believe that we are supposed to prosecute the crime –not the man…

No disagreement with that…

[pjohns]

@montecresto1

@pjohns

But the very idea that “evidence” would mount (thereby changing senators’ minds) if only hearings were held, is the wet dream of anti-Trumpers.

Not at all. It could be that the inquiry uncovers no further evidence…

I seriously doubt that the Democrat-controlled House–which is simply replete with anti-Trumpers; in addition to which, those who are not quite so rabid in their hatred for the president will likely tend to pander to their base–would act as a neutral body here.

In any case, you appear to believe that there is sufficient evidence against the president to bind him over for trial.

And I find that conclusion to be, at best, entirely laughable…

[LouMan]

They do not need evidence merely the political will to prove.

It is no longer a legal decision but a political decision.

[LouMan]

@pjohns

In this country, I believe that we are supposed to prosecute the crime –not the man…

At one time that was true. The resist movement has changed the paradigm to guilty until proven innocent. Just ask Kavanaugh.