You're going to keep waiting. Thus far, the Congress has not successfully impeached a president for an uncons utional reason.
What would be an uncons utional reason, derp?
Explain.
This has been covered psychopav. And in any event, this isn't rocket science.
Hitchin' yourself to an unhinged cuck.
No. You didn't cover it at all.
Don't lie on top of everything.
Post your laws and court cases that back up your claim.
I did.
Psychopav truth.
Post the laws and court cases that back up your claim.
I did.
Why can't you?
Logic 101, by Robert Mueller:
"If we thought the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
We did not say so.
Ergo:_______________________________
Fill in the blank, moron.
lol "Can't still"Trump as president. Cant still wrap my head around that beauty.
What a stupid mother er.America
Kenny Starr recommended impeachment, why didn't Boy Scout Mueller?
the OLC memos supporting an imperial, lawless presidency
“There is Substantial and Credible Information that President Clinton Committed Acts that May Cons ute Grounds for an Impeachment.”
That’s on page five of the Starr Report…right after the table of contents.
“If we had confidence the President didn’t commit a crime, we would have said so.”
(And that’s the end of the story, after pages and pages of reading — no recommendation, no conclusion, no “yes” or “no” to impeachment hearings)
That’s Mueller today (and in his report.)
Wait — what the?
Do you see the difference?
Could it be any bigger?
Let me spell it out.
Starr was absolutely crystal clear, direct, and unequivocal. He reached a formal conclusion .
That was this: crimes may have been committed — Congress needs to hold impeachment hearings to judge for itself now.
He explicitly recommended impeachment hearings (not impeachment, just the hearings.)
Mueller, on the other hand, doesn’t formally conclude…anything.
Nothing at all.
He doesn’t use the word impeachment, or grounds, or cons ute.
He just leaves everything…to the reader. We have to infer. Guess. Grasp in the dark.
What the does he actually mean?
The problem is that Mueller’s non-conclusion can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. "
https://eand.co/ken-starr-recommende...r-fdd35b611562
I bet this negative evaluation of Mueller will become more common, esp if Pelosi chickens out and/or Trash is reelected.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-31-2019 at 10:36 AM.
William Barr contradicts his congressional testimony on Trump obstruction in new interview
Attorney General William Barr contradicted his congressional testimony during an interview broadcast by CBS News.
explained why he did not agree that evidence presented in the report amounted to obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.
“We didn’t agree with the legal analysis, a lot of the legal analysis in the report,” Barr said.
“It did not reflect the views of the department,
it was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers. So we applied what we thought was the right law.”
But that contradicts what Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee
“Although we disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law,”
Barr told Congress at the start of the month,
“we accepted the special counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and
evaluated the analysis as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusion.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/watch-william-barr-contradicts-his-congressional-testimony-on-trump-obstruction-in-new-interview/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=272
Lying s bags can't keep their body of lies coherent.
I believe the reason is that after the Clinton impeachment -
Congress changed the rules - and the OLC memo was changed to PREVENT another impeachment of a sitting president.
Mueller was bound by that memo -
although I agree -
Mueller should have challenged that memo - or maybe he tried and Rosenstein/Barr did not allow it.
Barr: "we applied what we thought was the right law"William Barr contradicts his congressional testimony on Trump obstruction in new interview
Attorney General William Barr contradicted his congressional testimony during an interview broadcast by CBS News.
explained why he did not agree that evidence presented in the report amounted to obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.
“We didn’t agree with the legal analysis, a lot of the legal analysis in the report,” Barr said.
“It did not reflect the views of the department,
it was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers. So we applied what we thought was the right law.”
But that contradicts what Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee
“Although we disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law,”
Barr told Congress at the start of the month,
“we accepted the special counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and
evaluated the analysis as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusion.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/watch-william-barr-contradicts-his-congressional-testimony-on-trump-obstruction-in-new-interview/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=272
Lying s bags can't keep their body of lies coherent.
Barr under questioning under oath to Kamala Harris:
Harris: Did you review all of the underlying evidence before making a prosecutorial decision to not charge the president with obstruction?
Barr: "no"
So Barr made the biggest prosecutorial decision of the last 100 years regarding a president - WITHOUT reviewing all the evidence.
But - the CULT is ok with this.
He can write his own ing OLC memo to achieve whatever objectives.
"The New York Times recently unearthed a thorough legal memo, prepared twenty years ago for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, that advances the view that a sitting president can be indicted while still in office.
For those keeping score, this new memo sharpens an internal divide within the Department of Justice on this important question.
Two memos authored by the Office of Legal Counsel—
one in 1973, in the midst of the Nixon impeachment saga,
the other in 2000, on the heels of the Clinton impeachment saga—
take the view that a sitting president is immune from indictment.
By contrast, two different memos—
authored by the Office of Special Counsel investigating Nixon, and
the Office of Independent Counsel investigating Clinton—
reach the opposite conclusion."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity
OLC memos are NOT the ing law, are not Cons utional, but purely political do ents, in "memos".
Boy Scout Mueller chickened the out.
I wonder how many of his team disagreed with his no-conclusion, no-recommendation bull
i cannot disagree with you
i want mueller to testify to explain why trump, trump jr, jared
were not compelled to testify
here is what would be happening if a democrat criminal family was committing these crimes;
fox news would be airing impeachment hearings 24/7
the entire criminal family would be on fox tv- testifying
the dem criminal prez would be in jail for perjury, porn star payoffs and conspiracy with russia
the usa would be clutching their pearls due to fox tv going all in
Fox, TV audience of a few M in a country of 300M+
they don't ing run the country, except for the old, senile, pissed off, loser white guys
I was laughing at you. Thanks for paying me tribute AND the free rent.
You posted a case with a false conclusion.
He also said there is no case for obstruction or collusion, moron.
How is the conclusion false?
I quoted the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in a unanimous binding decision.
I also quoted the Cons ution of the United States of America which was the basis of that unanimous binding decision.
You haven't posted anything to support your claim that SCOTUS can just undo an impeachment.
Let's see the law and court decisions that back up your claim.
He did. If you had read the report, you would know that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
