20 for Election financial crimes and 20 for obstruction?
I’m right there with you man!
Damn it! @ivwshane
And off we go...
You could wait until after the term is done. If not, why not impeach and have it roll over to the next in line? if it's bad enough, the party protecting them would implode or popularity would decrease due to a president not being able to carry out their duties. I think more worrisome is a runaway presidency into autocracy than this silly worry about a president presidenting from Leavenworth. People ignorantly think nothing much must be wrong if no one is doing anything about it ie. no crime, no foul! So it seems obvious what's worse.
Even the Democrats are foolishly going along with the GOP talking points. This sounds so idiotic.
“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told@DanaBashCNN .
Wait, I thought you were perfectly okay with that?
Like who?
Problem with that rule it potentially makes the President above the law. I already gamed out how that could happen.The policy of not indicting a sitting president has been in place since Nixon, at least. It's the only logically consistent policy available. Otherwise we could conceivably get presidenting from a prison cell. The possibility of Trump being indicted while in office never existed. Mueller had no choice to make in that regard & said so.
The only Constitutional remedy to a criminal President is impeachment & removal from office. The law treats ex-Presidents just like everybody else at that point.
Should Trump survive to lose in 2020, I figure Pence will go down in the history books as President for a day, just so he can pardon Trump.
The rule is stupid and unnecessary. There already is a solution if the president was arrested and in prison: he'd be considered incapacitated and the vice president could take over, per the Constitution.Problem with that rule it potentially makes the President above the law. I already gamed out how that could happen.
The rule is stupid and unnecessary. There already is a solution if the president was arrested and in prison: he'd be considered incapacitated and the vice president could take over, per the Constitution.
I'm mostly finished reading the report. I wouldn't even know where to begin discussing the granular details. On "collusion," Trump's behavior was anywhere from sleazy to the point of disloyalty to country to a criminal conspiracy which simply can't be proven by direct evidence. We may never know. But on the issue of obstruction: FFS. Out of three possible conclusions Mueller could have drawn: prosecute, do not prosecute, or punt the decision to someone else, I can only speculate as to why he choose option 3. The sheer quantity of things Trump did - whether successful or not - to obstruct this investigation is staggering. This is one of the best cases I've ever seen for obstruction. It's a slam dunk IMO.
I have to think that Mueller for whatever reason doesn't want to be the one to recommend that Trump be prosecuted for attempting to obstruct Mueller's own investigation. Maybe Mueller thinks it would be perceived as a vendetta over Trump trying to fire Mueller more than once. So he wants another prosecutor to make that call. And Mueller knows Barr is a toady who would never prosecute Trump but that it doesn't matter anyway because Trump can't be prosecuted until he's out. Yet he also knows that a DoJ under a future administration can use this evidence he has marshalled to prosecute Trump if it so desires. That's my best guess at trying to understand why Mueller's conclusion doesn't seem to track the facts he laid out because if Trump isn't guilty of obstruction on those facts, then I'm the Dalai Lama.
The best theory I've heard... Mueller is an institutionalist, he got the OLC's guidance and that said the President couldn't be indicted because of not being able to do his work as President if under a cloud, etc etc. And if he can't be indicted for those reasons, saying he committed a crime if he couldn't be indicted would be the same thing and also not afford him the ability to prove his non guilt in court. So, his hands were pretty much tied, hence all the "language"
I want to see Lindsey Graham's 1999 speech on impeachment in constant rotation. Choke on that shit and die republicans, you and Trump deserve every bit of what's coming.
If you can impeach someone for lying about a consensual blowjob between adults, you should be apoplectic over the need to do it now.
Holy moly are you stupid? Thats not what clintion got impeached for.
I want to see Lindsey Graham's 1999 speech on impeachment in constant rotation. Choke on that shit and die republicans, you and Trump deserve every bit of what's coming.
If you can impeach someone for lying about a consensual blowjob between adults, you should be apoplectic over the need to do it now.
Also, one thing that haunts me is we're talking Hillary Clinton here.
Hillary Clinton who lost to Obama. Damaged goods.
Hillary SHOULD HAVE won easily against Trump, but female democrats were not for Hillary.
Even loyal democrats just could not stomach Hillary. Especially after Obama.
Again, damaged goods is a very hard sell for the voters.
At least Mitt Romney was smart enough to understand THAT.
And Richard Nixon's ultimate success was an absolute fluke of nature.
Fact is, nothing Donald Trump could have done or colluded with would have made any difference.
Hillary had her own problems, and from democrats within her own party.
That's why they had to screw Bernie Sanders, even though that too did not help Hillary.
It wasn't so much what Donald Trump did, it was what Hillary Clinton did not do.
Some things people just won't swallow. Orange Coke and Hillary Clinton.
And then to add insult to injury, Bill Clinton. Enough said?
Biden should have gone up against Trump in 2016, but the Clinton machine would have attacked Joe as well as attacking Bernie.
And least us not forget, it was NOT necessarily the attacking of Sanders that did it, it was THE WAY they did it to Bernie.
THAT, many democrats just wouldn't stand for. And thus we got Donald Trump.
Was that con artist Trump's fault? Or Hillary Clinton's fault?
That's ridiculous. As the chief federal law enforcement officer the Prez can order any federal LEO who tries to arrest him to cease & desist. Basic chain of command. There's no legal way to take a sitting Prez into custody.
It would be an illegal order and could be lawfully ignored. The idea that the President is not bound by the law is laughable at best. It literally makes him a king. What would happen if, for example, he just murdered congress and declared himself President for life? Would we all have to just shrug our shoulders and hope that someone assassinated him because there is no legal way to remove him since he could simply fire anyone that tried?
Off topic for this thread but Romney made a mistake getting the nominee in 2012 instead of 2016 as he likely would have won. I'm guessing there's not a single Democratic voter out there who wouldn't rather have president Romney instead of president Trump if they had that choice.
Now back on topic, I can't really see the Dem leadership making a big and ongoing push for the grand jury part of the report. There's just too much damaging stuff in the redacted report already and continuing to make a big stink about the redacted portions will just hand Trump a talking point about how he's being "unfairly persecuted." Which is bullshit of course, but still. Focusing on picking the best nominee and beating Trump in 2020 would be the more productive use of Dem time at this point instead of the diminishing returns of seeking the redacted parts of the report. The redacted parts should be released for transparency, but as a political tactic not so much.
Holy moly are you stupid? Thats not what clintion got impeached for.
Yes, Trump was spreading a rumor, and you clarified that's all he was doing.I wasn't spreading any rumor. I only clarified what he actually said as some don't read very well.
Oh so they've already thrown Sarah over the transom.I heard the new communications lady, forget her name, today being asked questions on NPR. It was hilarious. You could tell that woman was just seething, wouldn't answer a straight question and brought up the Clinton Foundation in under 6 seconds. She sounded like she had just received a firm kick to the cat, and the host maintained a perfect tempo and polite, even voice. It was glorious.
And it's only going to get worse for him from here on out haha. I keep thinking of the "My presidency is over. I'm fucked." comment.
Awesome stuff!
Oh so they've already thrown Sarah over the transom.
I think they will push for the grand jury information as if they are smart their goal will be a steady stream of hearings and revelations from today up through November 2020.
Not a full court press, not the most important thing they are doing, just something so that like once a month we find out something new and ugly about Trump. (They can combine this with other investigations too) You basically make it into an ‘oh Christ, what now?’ situation. That’s exactly what the Benghazi investigation was all about and it was really effective.
About Romney though I 100% agree, although I think he wouldn’t have won the 2016 primary. I have a lot of problems with Mitt Romney but he appears to be intelligent, hardworking, sane, and not corrupt. That’s a lot more than I can say for Trump.
Saw that last night. Republicans, hypocrisy be thy name.I want to see Lindsey Graham's 1999 speech on impeachment in constant rotation. Choke on that shit and die republicans, you and Trump deserve every bit of what's coming.
If you can impeach someone for lying about a consensual blowjob between adults, you should be apoplectic over the need to do it now.
Em, kay..............Also, one thing that haunts me is we're talking Hillary Clinton here.
Hillary Clinton who lost to Obama. Damaged goods.
Hillary SHOULD HAVE won easily against Trump, but female democrats were not for Hillary.
Even loyal democrats just could not stomach Hillary. Especially after Obama.
Again, damaged goods is a very hard sell for the voters.
At least Mitt Romney was smart enough to understand THAT.
And Richard Nixon's ultimate success was an absolute fluke of nature.
Fact is, nothing Donald Trump could have done or colluded with would have made any difference.
Hillary had her own problems, and from democrats within her own party.
That's why they had to screw Bernie Sanders, even though that too did not help Hillary.
It wasn't so much what Donald Trump did, it was what Hillary Clinton did not do.
Some things people just won't swallow. Orange Coke and Hillary Clinton.
And then to add insult to injury, Bill Clinton. Enough said?
Biden should have gone up against Trump in 2016, but the Clinton machine would have attacked Joe as well as attacking Bernie.
And least us not forget, it was NOT necessarily the attacking of Sanders that did it, it was THE WAY they did it to Bernie.
THAT, many democrats just wouldn't stand for. And thus we got Donald Trump.
Was that con artist Trump's fault? Or Hillary Clinton's fault?