Why Democrats in Congress MUST impeach

[OscarLevant]

Democrats do not favor American patriotism. They like the wicked Bill Ayers type of modern leftist rebel and they will do any wicked thing they can to ruin good politicians to make room for the really bad politicians.

Drivel.

 

[PoppyCock]

Bad analogy. It doesnt work because it's simplistic.


Here's a Better one:

Cop sees man X. man X sees cop and runs. Cop, seeing suspicious act, tells the person to halt. Man X continues to run.

Now the cop has probable cause to pursue man x for questioning.

What was it? "Man x sees cop and runs".

That doesn't mean Man x did anything wrong, maybe X had a phobia, couldnt help it, a psyche problem, who knows, but that is what probable cause is, a reasonable suspicion upon which to act. Reasonable is the operative word on which the entire effort is just.

Does that mean that the law, who has this power, cannot abuse it? Sure, but evidence of that must be presented.

In your example, there is no probable cause, and even the correct answer, no matter what it is, is irrelevant to the matter at hand because your example is not on point.

But, in my example, there is probable cause and multiple attempts to resist a legitimate search is, indeed, obstruction, but notably in a case where there is overwhelming and continued resistance, even after it is made clear why, you continue, then, yes, indeed, whether there is a underlying crime or not, you are obstructing justice, even if you believe you did a crime, were so motivated, and discovered later that you didn't actually commit a crime. You obstructed with a guilty mindset.


Now, I"m not a lawyer. I could be wrong, So, anyone who really knows the law on this, please chime in.

So can someone be charged for resisting arrest when no other crime has occurred?

 

[marke]

Drivel.

Don't let me stop you from condemning the likes of Bill Ayers like we condemn Dylann Roof.

 

[OscarLevant]

Wrong.
And the AG and the AAG already found the evidence not to be sufficient to bring a criminal charge.

If the Dems impeach over this which hunt they lose.

Hah, Nadler is in no mood to rely on two Trump appointees to be the arbiter of what the report says, or does not say, especially given Barr's blatantly obvious water carrying for the prez, (and now Rosenstein, whom I thought would have known better, is hitching his wagon to Barr - sad )

 

[OscarLevant]

Bull****. You guys own the monopoly on cults. After eight years of Messianic worship of the Anointed Obama, aka Obama, you got no room to talk.

Incompetent reply.


( in case you're wondering, I'll break it down to you: a comment which is on par with someone pulling something out of his butt and blurting out loud in a bar is not a sufficient level of competency merit worthy of a real, intelligent, reply on a forum as this, or at least, that's how I feel about it, other's mileage may vary ).


And sometimes I write just "drivel" but that's only when I'm convinced you cannot do better.

 

[nekrodev]

I'd been on the fence about impeachment, because I don't know if having Pence take over would be any better, but I definitely think we should now for two reasons.

1 - If we don't impeach at this point, when do you impeach? Like, how much further can we let the bar be pushed?

2 - He's being investigated for other financial matters already, so if we get him out now, they can deal with charging him and **** later, and he won't be able to try to pardon himself or anything.

 

[lurchadams]

The evidence on Trump's obstruction of justice is thorough, evidenced, and overwhelming. Dems MUST impeach. I realize the impracticality of it, the potential for backfiring ( it's worth the risk ), the logistics timeline suggesting that, after an impeachment inquisition is made, which will take months, then it goes to an impeachment hearing, if so determined, and by the time we got there, the elections are near, and so, why do it?

Well, we must do it because of how history will judge dems, if we do not. In such a case as this, where there is far more evidence of continued obstruction, both in private, and publicly over several years, far more than was offered in Watergate, dems will look like they did not discharge their duties under the Constitution.

When history tests you, and tests you in a very big way, you do not flinch, you do not do what is expedient, you do not cower, you do what is right.

If we lose, we lose, but we must do it.

Impeach!

Also, as time progresses, other crimes from other investigations will likely surface, and be introduced in the articles of impeachment ( if that is possible, I dunno )

Impeachment is a horrible idea. It will give trump the opportunity to continue to play the victim. The Dems in the house have subpoena power. They should use it to have Mueller, himself testify in an open session. What the Dems should do until 2020 is exactly what the GOP did with the Benghazi show - hold hearing, subpoena person after person with knowledge of trump's obstruction attempts until trump is exposed to the world for the piece of **** he is.

Something that everyone seems to be missing because we keep attacking each other about "no ko-lu-shun, to ub-struk-shun" is that we are extremely vulnerable to a foreign attack on our voting systems. What would make the Dems look good would be to rally the nation to shore up and secure our voting systems.

 

[OscarLevant]

Here's a newsflash: If Trump had committed any crimes, Mueller would have charged him. .

Wrong!

Mueller explains why he will not prosecute because of the OLC rule prohibiting it, and it has nothing to do with crimes committed, or not.

In fact, as we study the report, it goes into such detail, providing all the lettered elements require by statute ( which is given ) which comprise obstruction, so written as to be a roadmap for a future prosecutor ( which, in this case, shall be Congress in an impeachment inquiry ), which is why he presented the report in it's current form ).

 

[OscarLevant]

Impeachment is a horrible idea. It will give trump the opportunity to continue to play the victim. The Dems in the house have subpoena power. They should use it to have Mueller, himself testify in an open session. What the Dems should do until 2020 is exactly what the GOP did with the Benghazi show - hold hearing, subpoena person after person with knowledge of trump's obstruction attempts until trump is exposed to the world for the piece of **** he is.

Something that everyone seems to be missing because we keep attacking each other about "no ko-lu-shun, to ub-struk-shun" is that we are extremely vulnerable to a foreign attack on our voting systems. What would make the Dems look good would be to rally the nation to shore up and secure our voting systems.

Trump is already playing the victim, playing the victim is what he does.

Mueller will be called to testify, that's a given.

I think the evidence for his scumbaggery is already in.

His failure to respond to a Russian intrusion, that alone, is dereliction of duty. The list is long, impeachable offenses.

Moreover, the statute of limitations on his crimes I think are 5 years, and that would be 2022 for most of them, so we don't want him even to have a chance of being reelected, or he will never be made to pay for his crimes.

That's where I'm coming from. Plus, history will judge dems, if we do not do the right thing, that will have consequences long range for the democratic party.

If we do not impeach him, why are there impeachment laws? If not Trump, who?

this is a terrible precedent to set, to not impeach a guy like Trump.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

 

[Bullseye]

Incompetent reply.


( in case you're wondering, I'll break it down to you: a comment which is on par with someone pulling something out of his butt and blurting out loud in a bar is not a sufficient level of competency merit worthy of a real, intelligent, reply on a forum as this, or at least, that's how I feel about it, other's mileage may vary ).


And sometimes I write just "drivel" but that's only when I'm convinced you cannot do better.

So, I apparently nailed it; your pouty, hurt feelings reply makes that's obvious.

 

[eohrnberger]

So we let Trump get away with all the crap he's pulling?? What if a dem were to do the same thing?? You'd have the same reaction, right??

The Democrats that have orchestrated this mess have already done the same thing, and are expecting to get away with it.

 

[eohrnberger]

That's just the thing. People want Democrats to play by the rules while letting Republicans break the rules without consequences.

Funny. I'm seeing exactly the reverse.

It's truly an interesting dynamic we live in.

On this, I think we can agree.

:lamo

I think we both know the answer to that.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes, yes, please impeach. Great idea.

Considering the political backlash, absolutely.

 

[marke]

The evidence on Trump's obstruction of justice is thorough, evidenced, and overwhelming. Dems MUST impeach.

Since the evidence is so overwhelming I wonder what keeps democrats from thinking Mueller is a dummass for not indicting Trump himself? Maybe it is the hysterical democrats ignoring the evidence right in front of them who are the dummasses.

 

[eohrnberger]

Since the evidence is so overwhelming I wonder what keeps democrats from thinking Mueller is a dummass for not indicting Trump himself? Maybe it is the hysterical democrats ignoring the evidence right in front of them who are the dummasses.

Really funny how things work out.

A mere week ago, the Democrats would have re-enforced Mueller to the level of demi-god.
Now?
Not so much. They didn't get the political answer they wanted, they expected, they anticipated for 2+ years of this bull****.

So now, Mueller's is persona non grata.
Funny how fickle the Democrat's alliances are;
how dependent on politics they are;
how dependent on political advantage and expectations they are.

#DemocratsBehavingBadly

 

[lurchadams]

Trump is already playing the victim, playing the victim is what he does.

Mueller will be called to testify, that's a given.

I think the evidence for his scumbaggery is already in.

His failure to respond to a Russian intrusion, that alone, is dereliction of duty. The list is long, impeachable offenses.

Moreover, the statute of limitations on his crimes I think are 5 years, and that would be 2022 for most of them, so we don't want him even to have a chance of being reelected, or he will never be made to pay for his crimes.

That's where I'm coming from. Plus, history will judge dems, if we do not do the right thing, that will have consequences long range for the democratic party.

If we do not impeach him, why are there impeachment laws? If not Trump, who?

this is a terrible precedent to set, to not impeach a guy like Trump.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Unfortunately, we must choose between what we feel is, "right" and doing what will ensure we'll take back the presidency in 2020. If the Dems pursue impeachment, we will not win in 2020, in my opinion.

 

[OscarLevant]

So can someone be charged for resisting arrest when no other crime has occurred?

If you are trying to extrapolate what I think is driving that question to Trump, like I said, it's simplistic. Read my response, it answers it.

However, if your question seeks an answer to a simple question, regardless of the topic at hand, just google it.

Wikileaks has a whole page on the subject. I'm here to debate the topic at hand, not provide answers to easily google-able points of law and criminal procedure which are not on point with the subject being discussed.

 

[OscarLevant]

Don't let me stop you from condemning the likes of Bill Ayers like we condemn Dylann Roof.

irrelevant.

 

[OscarLevant]

So, I apparently nailed it; your pouty, hurt feelings reply makes that's obvious.

more evidence I'm correct. Thank you.

 

[OscarLevant]

Since the evidence is so overwhelming I wonder what keeps democrats from thinking Mueller is a dummass for not indicting Trump himself? Maybe it is the hysterical democrats ignoring the evidence right in front of them who are the dummasses.

No, Mueller is not a dummy at all. In fact, he's highly intelligent. The prez is a hot potato way too big for SC to indict.

In fact, he did the right thing. This ( indicting a prez ) shouldn't be a matter for one individual to decide (which it would be if Mueller did try and indict ), hence he stated he was following OLC rule to not prosecute a sitting president, and provided the roadmap (the report) for Congress entailing all that is necessary for a case of impeachment via the charge of obstruction.

 

[OscarLevant]

Unfortunately, we must choose between what we feel is, "right" and doing what will ensure we'll take back the presidency in 2020. If the Dems pursue impeachment, we will not win in 2020, in my opinion.

You're making a mistake, a huge one.

This issue amounts to dems being put to a test, put forth to them by history. How will history judge them?

The GOP, clearly, has decided to align with a corrupt man. Let them, they are fools.

On an issue with as much gravity that this one possesses, we must set aside politics, and follow the call of duty, what is just, what is the moral thing to do, what is the right thing to do.

Because if we do not do that, we will not only lose, we will lose America, for she will surely decline if we let a guy like Trump do 'business as usual'. We might not succeed, but it cannot come to pass that we did not try. To not do so would be the death knell to the democratic party.

They way to win the hearts of Americans is to do the right thing, especially when the call of history commands it.

The stakes are too high to flub this test that we, as democrats, face.

 

[lurchadams]

You're making a mistake, a huge one.

This issue amounts to dems being put to a test, put forth to them by history. How will history judge them?

The GOP, clearly, has decided to align with a corrupt man. Let them, they are fools.

On an issue with as much gravity that this one possesses, we must set aside politics, and follow the call of duty, what is just, what is the moral thing to do, what is the right thing to do.

Because if we do not do that, we will not only lose, we will lose America, for she will surely decline if we let a guy like Trump do 'business as usual'. We might not succeed, but it cannot come to pass that we did not try. To not do so would be the death knell to the democratic party.

They way to win the hearts of Americans is to do the right thing, especially when the call of history commands it.

The stakes are too high to flub this test that we, as democrats, face.

You know I'm celebrating 420 right now, so pardon any perceived impairment on my part.

You, my friend, are a true believer. I'm comparing you now to heroes such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Barack Obama. I'm not being sarcastic. You are steadfast in your beliefs in that the only course is the morally correct course. You are willing to die for your cause! You are whatever the opposite of a pragmatist is.

I am a pragmatist. I have kids to put through college and I don't want the world to end. If we allow THE CURRENT GOP to prevail in 2020, we are on the road to a real disaster. Do you think this current leadership from the top down would be able to navigate a serious national crisis if we had one right now? We are all 5 minutes from being in serious, serious trouble my friend.

Besides, as I said, our current national voting system is a system so insecure it's just dying to being ****ed with by our enemies. Let the Dems campaign to fix that - then we can work on the kind of change you want.

I'm not morally inferior, my friend, I promise you. We have time to effect the change you want. After 2020!

 

[Bullseye]

more evidence I'm correct. Thank you.

You interpret this "evidence" almost as well as yo interpret Mueller's "evidence". :lol:

 

[marke]

No, Mueller is not a dummy at all. In fact, he's highly intelligent. The prez is a hot potato way too big for SC to indict.

In fact, he did the right thing. This ( indicting a prez ) shouldn't be a matter for one individual to decide (which it would be if Mueller did try and indict ), hence he stated he was following OLC rule to not prosecute a sitting president, and provided the roadmap (the report) for Congress entailing all that is necessary for a case of impeachment via the charge of obstruction.

Dummass democrats claimed Trump obstructed an investigation when he fired the lying sleazeball Comey. That is because dummass democats are dummasses.

 

[PoppyCock]

If you are trying to extrapolate what I think is driving that question to Trump, like I said, it's simplistic. Read my response, it answers it.

However, if your question seeks an answer to a simple question, regardless of the topic at hand, just google it.

Wikileaks has a whole page on the subject. I'm here to debate the topic at hand, not provide answers to easily google-able points of law and criminal procedure which are not on point with the subject being discussed.

It is directly on point, if he is innocent there is nothing to "obstruct".