The Right Side of the News

quote:

---

Trump made NO "desperate attempts to obstruct investigation" in fact he cooperated to an extreme extent,. He called it what it was, a witch hunt nevertheless, but obstruct it, no he did not.

---

Nonsense. Aside from the fact that Trump’s desperate attempts to avoid investigation continue with the Impeachment process (and in the attempts to keep his tax returns secret) one of the biggest weaknesses in the Mueller report is that Trump himself did not testify.

quote:

---

He has no obligation to release his tax returns, that's just another part of the witch hunt.

---

He had none until a legal request was made. However I was asking about what he was doing to fulfill his promise to release them. Which makes your reaction very telling.And I note that you don’t answer about the deficit either.

quote:

---

There would be nothing wrong in them but he knows the Democrats would carry on and on and on about some little ambiguity or other to make it seem as if there was

---

Which would be a lousy way to wriggle out of his promise even if it wasn’t a steaming stack of lies.

quote:

---

I hope these miserable accusers get their rightful comeuppance

---

Lock up the opposition for exposing corruption in government. You really do want the US to become a third-world dictatorship.

Yes that's the only reason you all want him impeached, you don't like his personality, all the rest is just mde up. However, people who vote for him actually like him, doesn't mean we think everything he does is right, but he's a hundred million times better for the country than anybody running on the other side. And he's actually accomplished quite a bit for the country despite the efforts to obstruct him.

oh never mindEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Those are not criminal charges. Those were the grounds for impeachment. They are not criminal charges.

I agree Dwise deserved a suspension, but you are a troll who should be suspended also.

You're thinking of the Independent Counsel Law, which was allowed to expire around 2000. Watergate preceded but drove passage of the original law, which followed the Watergate model, mainly the appointment of a special prosecutor independent of the Justice Department. The law was modified many times between 1978 when it was enacted and 2000 when it expired. Bill Clinton was investigated under this act.The key difference between between the Nixon and Clinton investigations as contrasted to the Trump investigation is that they were conducted by a special prosecutor who, being independent of the Justice Department, could charge the president with the types crimes laid out in the Constitution. Mueller was part of the Justice Department, reporting to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and had to follow DOJ guidelines of not indicting a sitting president. He instead recommended that Congress investigate the issues he found.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add clarify.

Your wish has been granted, many times.--Percy

\How very very odd then that when asked if the rule against indicting a sitting President had affected the conclusions of his investigation he denied it emphatically. Then when interviewed by Congress affirmed it but then afterward specifically denied it again.But all Starr did was similar: he listed Clinton's criminal acts as a recommendation to Congress that they could be the basis of an impeachment. Only his list was very specific and very clear that they were indeed criminal acts. The Mueller report first concluded that there was no evidence of Russian collusion by Trump's campaign, and then in a second part listed a lot of things Trump had said that were not and could not be identified as criminal, insinuating that they were sorta kinda Obstruction of Justice. In contrast Starr KNEW that Clinton had committed obstruction of justice and very clearly identified it. To list such actions is not the same as indicting the President, it is still left to Congress to take that action. But the Mueller report found NO CRIMINAL ACTIONS WHATEVER. The House may decide to treat some of Trump's remarks as obstruction of justice whether they are criminally definable as obstruction of justice or not, and they can impeach him without such criminal charges anyway. They are supposed to impeach only on the grounds of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors but they are probably just going to make it up and not bother with such constitutional niceties. If they impeach him they aren't going to be able to do it on the basis of criminal charges because there aren't any. Or for that reason perhaps they will never impeach him. There has been no official vote to impeach and there may not be. It's all a big drama to pretend they have evidence against him though they don't, never have, never will.

OK, they were technically not criminal charges, but they wer eclearly identified as criminal actions. Nothing in the Mueller report identified anything as criminal actions, it was all vague innuendo, in the section on Obstruction of Justice. On collusion Trump was exonerated. Yes that is the right word for the report's finding no evidence of collusion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith asserts: Not true. He said there was INSUFFICIENT evidence, not ZERO.You are quoting Barr's summary, which was a lying mis-characterization - leave his lies out of this discussion.

Sorry, yes "insufficient" evidence. Means the same thing as far as conclusions go: collusion could not be proved. And since no evidence whatever was reported the word "insufficient" is a weasel word anyway. In the end Trump was exonerated of collusion.And I already posted the report by the Washington Post (Message 3137)on Mueller's clear statement that he was not saying that Barr's summary of the report's conclusions was inaccurate..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are such a troll. This has been explained to you numerous times that this is not true. Yet you persist. Troll.

what's up Theo, you seem to be angry at the world?

What laws of legal procedures are being broken? Here are the Constitutional paragraphs that mention impeachment:

quote:

---

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
...
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
...
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
...
SECTION 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
...
SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
...
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state here the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

---

Do you see anything constitutional being violated? Can you cite any law being violated? I think you're probably referring to the lack of a vote by the full House officially beginning the impeachment inquiry and defining the process to be followed. You are correct, this is different from the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings, but no such vote is required by the Constitution. Every impeachment will be different. Clinton's impeachment was not like Nixon's, and Nixon's impeachment (as far as it went) was not like Johnson's. This isn't the first difference and it won't be the last. You're thinking of the trial in the Senate. This is the impeachment phase, not the trial phase. Much of the truth is already out. May the Trumpists acknowledge the truth.--Percy

Tired of the willfully ignorant.