Two years wasted on the Mueller Investigation. How will the media discredit President Trump next?

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
pikachuriu said:
Please cite one instance of Congress impeaching someone . . . where it was referred to as an indictment. Impeachment is a political act by Congress. Indictments are done by law enforcement via the Executive branch. Two completely different acts done by different entities, with different outcomes.

No wonder your Country is so messed up.

Hell, show me a quote from anyone in Congress that ever said they can indict someone.
Click to expand...
You've demonstrated your determined ignorance and I am under no obligation to help you. A quick glance at the definition of impeachment will show you it means the same as indictment in a different setting.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. It does not mean removal from office; it is only a statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law.

They are both charges leveled at a person. The DOJ has been advised that it cannot indict a sitting president so it is up to Congress to do the job. You are hung up on a technicality when in fact the Mueller Report states that Trump comitted the crime of obstructing justice. So you pose a stupid argument about hairsplitting the difference between indict vs impeach. Too funny that Trumpkins have turned into hairsplitting psuedo-lawyers in order to avoid admitting they have been made fools of by Trump.

I'm still waiting to learn what you mean when you use the word "fact". You clearly aren't using it as it is commonly used.
 
squarepush3r

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Charges of obstruction of justice by Trump are written in the Mueller report:

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations"

"The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
Click to expand...
UncleBuck said:
Was he exonerated?

The report said “does not exonerate “

Odd
Click to expand...
yes, from Russia collusion (the original point of the investigation). That part of the investigation was over actually pretty quickly (around May 2018). Mueller was just dragging it out indefinitely to see if he could get Trump on "obstruction" even though he came up empty on Russia. Obstruction regarding Comey firing, etc. Unfortunately, there can't be obstruction since there wasn't a legal proceeding to obstruct. That's why Mueller was forced to shut down his investigation, there could not be obstruction since there was no legal proceeding taking place. Barr bitch slapped Mueller and Rosenstein and the deep state down with legal facts.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
squarepush3r said:
yes, from Russia collusion
Click to expand...
the report said "does not exonerate" and listed a ton of collusion they did

squarepush3r said:
there can't be obstruction since there wasn't a legal proceeding to obstruct.
Click to expand...
mueller listed 10 instances of obstruction but said he couldnt indict a sitting president

do you think anyone is buying your lies?

only 30% of americans buy your lies. that's not even the entire trump base
 
P

pikachuriu

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
You've demonstrated your determined ignorance and I am under no obligation to help you. A quick glance at the definition of impeachment will show you it means the same as indictment in a different setting.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. It does not mean removal from office; it is only a statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law.

They are both charges leveled at a person. The DOJ has been advised that it cannot indict a sitting president so it is up to Congress to do the job. You are hung up on a technicality when in fact the Mueller Report states that Trump comitted the crime of obstructing justice. So you pose a stupid argument about hairsplitting the difference between indict vs impeach. Too funny that Trumpkins have turned into hairsplitting psuedo-lawyers in order to avoid admitting they have been made fools of by Trump.

I'm still waiting to learn what you mean when you use the word "fact". You clearly aren't using it as it is commonly used.
Click to expand...
Words matter. Congress has never indicted anyone ever. They can only impeach. Impeachment can result in removal from office.

A Grand Jury, on the other hand, can indict someone. No Grand Jury has ever impeached someone and removed them from office. The penalty after being indicted can be prison. The same cannot be said for impeachment.

No wonder your Country is so messed up.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
squarepush3r said:
yes, from Russia collusion (the original point of the investigation). That part of the investigation was over actually pretty quickly (around May 2018). Mueller was just dragging it out indefinitely to see if he could get Trump on "obstruction" even though he came up empty on Russia. Obstruction regarding Comey firing, etc. Unfortunately, there can't be obstruction since there wasn't a legal proceeding to obstruct. That's why Mueller was forced to shut down his investigation, there could not be obstruction since there was no legal proceeding taking place.
Click to expand...
LOL, you are citing Trump for a legal argument.

If you actually read the report rather than cite what you've been told by some right wing propaganda outlet, you'd see that Mueller made a very good case of Trump obstructing the investigation to the point where he could not "establish a conspiracy" between Trump, his campaign staff and the Russian Government. Obstruction of Justice is a crime in and of itself for that very reason. All by itself Trump's attempts at witness tampering as documented in the report would have sent him into a court for trial if he wasn't President. Instead, Mueller's report documents six different times where Trump took actions that were meant to obstruct the investigation. Those are just the ones he could find evidence for. One is left to guess how many time Trump managed to obstruct without leaving evidence.
 
P

pikachuriu

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
the report says 100+ secret meetings with russians and that they worked together to disseminate the materials russia stole from americans

that's collusion
Click to expand...
Not according to Mueller. I'll take his word over some uneducated shut-in on a pot forum.

But I'm glad we can gave this constructive dialogue. It makes me feel better about not staying in the U.S.
 
squarepush3r

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
see: mueller's report

can you now please cite where mueller said trump was exonerated?
Click to expand...
The investigation into Russia was over quite soon, early 2018 or late 2017. It was a nothingburger.

On January 8, 2018, the Mueller team requested an interview with President Trump about a wide array of subjects, including “[t]he President’s awareness of and reaction to investigations by the FBI, the House, and the Senate into possible collusion,” “[t]he President’s reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from the investigation,” and “[w]hether or not [James] Comey’s May 3, 2017 testimony led to his termination.”
Click to expand...
None of these questions related to possible collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government. They were all clearly targeted at potential obstruction by the President.

The Mueller investigation was just focusing on that, and Mueller still believes there was obstruction, however his legal definition is incorrect, since there was no actual legal proceeding going on. So, once Barr was given power, the investigation was over since Muellers definition of osbtruction didn't match up with Barr's. Mueller would have continued his witch hunt into 2020 if he could.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
squarepush3r said:
The investigation into Russia was over quite soon, early 2018 or late 2017. It was a nothingburger.



None of these questions related to possible collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government. They were all clearly targeted at potential obstruction by the President.

The Mueller investigation was just focusing on that, and Mueller still believes there was obstruction, however his legal definition is incorrect, since there was no actual legal proceeding going on. So, once Barr was given power, the investigation was over since Muellers definition of osbtruction didn't match up with Barr's. Mueller would have continued his witch hunt into 2020 if he could.
Click to expand...
You know trump colluded and obstructed, right?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
pikachuriu said:
Not according to Mueller. I'll take his word over some uneducated shut-in on a pot forum.

But I'm glad we can gave this constructive dialogue. It makes me feel better about not staying in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Can you cite the page number and paragraph where mueller said no collusion?

Because he listed a lot of collusion

You saw him collide too, right?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
pikachuriu said:
Words matter. Congress has never indicted anyone ever. They can only impeach. Impeachment can result in removal from office.

A Grand Jury, on the other hand, can indict someone. No Grand Jury has ever impeached someone and removed them from office. The penalty after being indicted can be prison. The same cannot be said for impeachment.

No wonder your Country is so messed up.
Click to expand...
The House initiates the impeachment by making charges of a public official just like the DOJ would when they indict somebody. Mueller's report documents 10 times that Trump comitted the crime of obstruction of justice. The reason he obstructed justice is because he was conspiring with a foreign power to affect our election, a very grave crime.

These words in the report are damning:

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Given that you are a Trumpkin, I can understand why you'd rather split hairs about words than talk about why Trump should be impeached on charges of obstruction of justice and then indicted on charges of obstruction of justice when he's no longer president. But I don't want that.

I want Congress to continue the investigation that Trump obstructed and continue the hunt for the critical evidence that would be used to impeach and eventually convict Trump of conspiring and accepting aid from a foreign power to affect an election. I want those investigations to play on throughout the election cycle as mood music for people to hear so that right wing propaganda organs have no chance to falsely reshape the narrative of the events
 
P

pikachuriu

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
The House initiates the impeachment by making charges of a public official just like the DOJ would when they indict somebody.
Click to expand...
Of course. Moreover, they have 2 completely definitions. Other than you, I don't recall hearing anyone, ever, claiming Congress can indict someone when in reality they meant impeach.

I understand you want to shift the topic, but try to stay on point here.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
pikachuriu said:
Of course. Moreover, they have 2 completely definitions. Other than you, I don't recall hearing anyone, ever, claiming Congress can indict someone when in reality they meant impeach.

I understand you want to shift the topic, but try to stay on point here.
Click to expand...
There you go again. You treat something as a fact when it is not. If you look at the definitions of the words, they are not completely different. I can't help if you haven't read everything that I have either. Most of what I read doesn't come in big block letters with simple text. You should sit down and read the Mueller report before you cite what's in it too.

Speaking of which, what do you mean when you use the word "fact"?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
pikachuriu said:
No collision. Nop.
Click to expand...
Is a spelling error as bad or worse than you sadly clinging to a ridiculous false narrative that is disproven by mueller's indictments and sentencing memos?

i mean i think your reality denial is far more troubling but me hitting a wrong button on my phone once is pretty bad too i guess
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
squarepush3r said:
the world must be a very confusing place for you lately
Click to expand...
it's pretty confusing when youve got mueller saying that manafort lied about sharing polling data and roger stone coordinated the release of materials russia stole from the US and don junior telling his dad to tweet about wikileaks and ten minutes later he does and you're all like "what collusion?"

actually no, that's not confusing, you're just desperate to deny reality
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top