"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."

  
By:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  54 comments

"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."
One of the "defenses" that Rep Collins gave on behalf of stonewalling the congress is that "the economy is good". One has to wonder what the Republicans would do if Donald Trump didn't exist. Would they all dry up and blow away? Would they assume the fetal position? Is Donald Trump the only Republican in the world capable of keeping the economy on track?

"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.” “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Mueller Report, page 394



The Republicans and Trumpsters nationwide have tried, rather constantly, to take a "victory lap" based on Attorney General* William Barr's four page summary that 'exonerated' Trump. 

Problem :  Robert Mueller's words in the report specifically do not exonerate Trump.  ("We are unable to reach that judgement"  (say that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice))

Today in the House Judiciary Committee the ranking Republican member tried to blow off Don McGahn's refusal to testify about Trump's alleged obstruction of justice. Rep. Collins and his ilk are attempting to subvert the process of justice in the United States. Congress has a responsibility to investigate misconduct by everyone in government, including the president. There is evidence, in the form of the Mueller report material, that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice, but the Trump partisans and Trump himself are stonewalling the congress and , you might say, continuing to obstruct justice. 

One of the "defenses" that Rep Collins gave on behalf of stonewalling the congress is that "the economy is good".  One has to wonder what the Republicans would do if Donald Trump didn't exist. Would they all dry up and blow away?  Would they assume the fetal position? Is Donald Trump the only Republican in the world capable of keeping the economy on track?   What a weak defense !

The honor of the United States and its citizens is on the line, the rule of law in America is on the line. Simple decency is on the line. 

It may not be pleasant for conservatives, and some independents, to have to confront the malevolency and dysfunction of the Trump presidency, but it is inevitable. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago
Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

There could not be a clearer indication that the Congress has a right and a duty to pursue this matter. The political right and certain other people in the media and on forums like this are attempting to bamboozle the American people yet again. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

If Mueller and his crack team of left wing investigators COULD NOT reach a conclusion that there was obstruction of justice and therefore DID NOT recommend that such charges be brought against Trump, how can we trust a liberal  Democrat lynch mob to find something that is not there.

Except for a few insignificant redactions, all the evidence is out in the open. What more could Mueller provide, which couldn't be corroborated by anyone else anyway.

Since they have all the evidence and proof needed to impeach, why don't the Democrats just do it. What are they waiting for, and what are they afraid of?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 weeks ago
If Mueller and his crack team of left wing investigators COULD NOT reach a conclusion that there was obstruction of justice and therefore DID NOT recommend that such charges be brought against Trump, how can we trust a liberal  Democrat lynch mob to find something that is not there.

DOJ policy does not allow an obstruction indictment against a sitting President.  That's why his findings are supposed to go to Congress.

Except for a few insignificant redactions, all the evidence is out in the open.

Translation:  I've never bothered to look at what Barr submitted.  Perhaps you would like to detail exactly what was redacted other than Grand Jury info?

What more could Mueller provide, which couldn't be corroborated by anyone else anyway.

The ENTIRE report.

Since they have all the evidence and proof needed to impeach, why don't the Democrats just do it.

What would be the point, since the Republican held Senate will block the impeachment no matter the evidence.

What are they waiting for, and what are they afraid of?

Waiting for Trump to finish his current adventure in obstructionism?  If, as you said, the Mueller report does not call for any charges, why is Trump blocking every single attempt of the House doing their job?  Financial records, testimony, every single (completely legal) subpoena is being ignored by Trump's orders.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
That's why his findings are supposed to go to Congress.

The law authorizing Mueller says otherwise.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
Financial records, testimony, every single (completely legal) subpoena is being ignored by Trump's orders.  

What crime is he alleged to have committed, and what is the evidence for that. As has already been established, Congress has had access to ALL the contents of the report.

Isn't it true this whole process is simply a democrat fishing expedition, with hopes of catching Trump the Trout??

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.3    4 weeks ago
What crime is he alleged to have committed, and what is the evidence for that.

He is already listed as an unindicted co-conspirator with Cohen in bank fraud, and has tax fraud cases going against him.  The subpoenas are to introduce evidence as to whether he has, or has not, committed a crime.  

All subpoenas are legal, and Congress has a legal right to issue them, along with requesting (demanding) his tax returns.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    4 weeks ago

Here you go - now we'll see something.  This will bring to light Cohen's statements regarding his unindicted co-conspirator (my emphasis here and bolding)

Trump Organization Appeals Ruling Giving Democrats Access To Trump's Financial Records From Former Accounting Firm



7697f500-e3fd-11e6-ac84-796263f06e57_GMA LUCIEN BRUGGEMAN,Good Morning America 1 hour 33 minutes ago 



Lawyers for the Trump Organization on Tuesday appealed a federal judge's ruling in favor of House Democrats in their efforts to obtain President Donald Trump’s financial records, marking the first legal victory for Democrats as the Trump administration stonewalls their attempts at congressional oversight.

“It is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.” Judge Amit Mehta wrote in a ruling Monday. “Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee.”

President Trump and the Trump Organization filed suit against the Democratic chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, last month, seeking relief from his subpoena request for the president’s financial records.

The court also denied their request for a stay pending appeal, which lawyers for Trump and the Trump Organization formally filed Tuesday to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit.

The president and his legal team decried Democrats’ efforts to obtain Trump’s financial information as an “all-out political war,” in which “subpoenas are their weapon of choice.”

But in his order on Monday, Judge Mehta, an Obama appointee, sided with Democrats, whom he wrote have “facially valid legislative purposes” to obtain information requested in their subpoena of Mazars USA, the president’s former accounting firm.

"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," Mehta wrote.

Cummings served a subpoena to Mazars USA in April seeking ten years of the president's financial records in an effort to corroborate elements of Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen's testimony before the committee. Cohen claimed that Trump had defrauded insurance companies by misrepresenting the value of his assets.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat whose committee is also seeking information from the Trump administration, reacted to news of the decision, calling it "very important."

“It shows that the courts understand the importance of oversight even if the president does not,” Schiff said.

"Mazars USA will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations. We believe strongly in the ethical and professional rules and regulations that govern our industry, our work and our client interactions. As a matter of firm policy and professional rules we do not comment on the work we conduct for our clients," Mazars USA spokesperson Jennifer Farrington told ABC News on Monday.


Speaking to reporters as he departed the White House Monday evening, Trump said that he plans to appeal the judge's ruling.

"Yeah, they'll appeal it. They'll appeal it. Sure they'll appeal it," Trump said.

The president "disagreed" with the ruling and slammed the judge for being appointed by Obama.

"We disagree with that ruling. It's crazy because you look at this never happened to any other president. They're trying to get a redo. Trying to get what we used to call in school a do-over and if you look, you know, we had no collusion, we had no obstruction. We had no nothing," Trump said.

"The Democrats were very upset with the Mueller report as perhaps they should be, but, I mean the country is very happy about it because there was never anything like that. They're trying to get a do-over or redo. You can't do that as far as the financials are concerned it's totally the wrong decision by obviously an Obama appointed he was a recent Obama appointed judge," Trump added.

The House Oversight Committee was not immediately available for comment. The Trump Organization and lawyers for President Trump – both plaintiffs in the case – did not immediately respond to request for comment.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.1.6  tomwcraig  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

So, you support Congress usurping the powers of the Presidency in this case?  You see, Mueller, as Special Counsel, worked for the Executive Branch not Congress.  Mueller's report was only given to Congress and the public as a COURTESY.  Congress has no actual right to the Mueller report and definitely not to any underlying evidence.  Any support of Nadler's attempts to gain access to that evidence is support for a severe violation of the separation of powers in the US Constitution.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.7  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 weeks ago

The economy was improving under Obama. Trump just took the credit for Obama's accomplishments.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2  Ed-NavDoc    4 weeks ago

Whether Trump is guilty or innocent, and I'm not saying either way, it seems the progressive left is bound and determined to only accept a 100% smoking gun that proves them totally right while totally ignoring the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. With that in mind, said thorough investigation becomes nothing more than a exercise in futility.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2    4 weeks ago

Presumption of innocence is a legal term related to a trial in a court. I guess if impeachment of Trump goes to the senate then presumption of innocence would apply as that would be equivalent to a trial.  The House impeachment is like a grand jury. 

Mueller specifically says in the report that the FACTS prevent him from exonerating Trump on obstruction of justice. Not the wishes of snowflakes or virtue signalers or socialists, but the facts.   Let's have those facts presented to Congress, as is their duty. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 weeks ago

What facts are you talking about?

What facts are being withheld from public view?

Is Mueller holding something back?

The public has a right to know.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

Greg, I posted EXACTLY what the Mueller report says 

"...Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however,we are unable to reach that judgment.” (that Trump is exonerated)

Take your pointless complaints up with Robert Mueller. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

I would submit there are no facts at all, or Mueller would have gladly and quickly gone to the Democrats and said so.

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.4  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

Is there any wonder the full report needs to be released to the committees?  The same peeps trying to withhold the facts are the same ones who keep asking for them!  WTF?   RELEASE THE REPORT OR STOP PARROTING BARRSHIT!

 
 
 
JBB
2.1.5  JBB  replied to  lib50 @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

Yeah, and we all need a good hard look at Brokeahontas' taxes, too...

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.6  cjcold  replied to  lib50 @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

Every page to We the People.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

Fortunately, ethical prosecutors don't proceed based on the standard of "maybe, maybe not." Partisan politicians clearly would, though.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3    4 weeks ago

Mueller clearly stated at the top of the report that he could not indict Trump due to Dept of Justice policy concerning a sitting president. He also states that he could not make any comment about Trump's guilt at all if he was not going to indict him because without a trial the 'defendant' Trump would not have a legal forum to defend himself against the charge.  What this means is that Mueller's final comment that Trump is not exonerated is his roundabout careful way of letting everyone know that the matter needs to proceed in another venue, the appropriate one, the US Congress. 

As he usually does, Trump is trying to throw mud all over this to confuse everyone. Mueller needs to testify in public immediately so that the people can see what exactly what was concluded.   Not insignificantly, William Barr is keeping Mueller in employ so that he can delay Mueller's testimony similar to the way he delayed the release of the report itself in April. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago

Nonsense. What we recognize is that this is not about wrongdoing on Trump’s part, but the conspiracy by Obama, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Ben Rhodes, McCabe, Strozk, and other Obama Administration conspirators for their attempt to take down Trump using false allegations and the tools of the deep state.

if there is any justice left in this country, they will all get life sentences

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.2  katrix  replied to  livefreeordie @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
tools of the deep state

Conspiracy theorists crack me up.  Especially when they have no clue what legal surveillance is.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.3  Sunshine  replied to  livefreeordie @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
but the conspiracy by Obama, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Ben Rhodes, McCabe, Strozk, and other Obama Administration conspirators for their attempt to take down Trump using false allegations and the tools of the deep state.

Mueller fucked them over...didn't he?  They should have just shut up about Trump instead of pushing the collusion hoax....idiots.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    4 weeks ago

Mueller can testify anytime he wants to.

It seems he doesn't want to.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

We'll see what Barr's upcoming investigations into those bad actors will turn up.

You do understand the difference between legal surveillance, and illegal surveillance started under false pretenses, I would hope.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.4    4 weeks ago
Mueller can testify anytime he wants to. It seems he doesn't want to.

Difficult to blame him for that.   The last thing he wants to do is be in the center ring of the nutbag circus.

 
 
 
cjcold
3.1.7  cjcold  replied to  livefreeordie @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

We deep staters are now investigating you. Have a nice day.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @3.1.7    4 weeks ago

Just remember that anything the House does still has to be approved by the Senate. Good luck with that. You have a nice day also.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.1.9  livefreeordie  replied to  cjcold @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

Bring it on

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

Imagine in 1999, after Democrats had almost uniformly voted that it's okay for a President to perjure himself and obstruct justice and voted not remove Bill Clinton from office, Republicans started demanding Democrats start testifying under oath, again, about Clinton's misdeeds that they just impeached him over. 

Democrats, against all reason, got a special prosecutor appointed and he performed an exhaustive investigation. No resource or area of investigation was denied him. After spending millions of dollars over almost 2 years, he issued an exhaustive report. Democrats had their shot.  Too bad for you Mueller disappointed your partisan dreams.  The investigation is over.  Impeach on a partisan basis now or don't. But starting up the investigatory process over again would be a fundamental disservice to this country and basic precepts of justice. 

Trump is not going to be removed from office for not interfering with the investigation into a crime he didn't commit, which is the bottom line of the Mueller report.   

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 weeks ago
Trump is not going to be removed from office for not interfering with the investigation into a crime he didn't commit, which is the bottom line of the Mueller report.   

It's really all that simple. What the Democrats should do, if they want to win future elections, is work with Trump to pass legislation that benefits the people that voted them into office. The longer these Democrat clown shows go on, the less likely they will do well in future elections.

 
 
 
lib50
4.2  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 weeks ago

How did democrats get a special prosecutor appointed when they just got the majority last year?  What is is with all this selective memory loss from conservatives these days?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @4.2    4 weeks ago

democrats get a special prosecutor appointed when they just got the majority last year

Congress had nothing to do with Muller's appointment 

 
 
 
lib50
4.2.2  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

Good god.   Do you even know who appointed Mueller?     Otherwise, wtf was the point of that comment blaming democrats?   This was ALL REPUBLICAN!  Rod Rosenstein is a REPUBLICAN. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @4.2.2    4 weeks ago

Glad you managed to look that up after dragging in Congress in for some unjustifiable reason.

My point was that Mueller was appointed due to political pressure from the dems and their lapdogs in the media. There was no legal basis for the appointment. As proven by the fact that the DOJ handled numerous prosecutions itself and Mueller relied on DOJ prosecutors for the bulk of his staff. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @4.2.2    4 weeks ago
Good god.   Do you even know who appointed Mueller?     Otherwise, wtf was the point of that comment blaming democrats?   This was ALL REPUBLICAN!  Rod Rosenstein is a REPUBLICAN. 

You are conspicuously ignoring the part where Mueller issued an exhaustive report that failed to substantiate the accusations of collusion.

Now that 2 years worth of liberal hysteria about election cheating has been flushed, they want to move on to obstruction.  Ostensibly then they'll want to move on to tax returns.  And then speeding tickets.  And then jaywalking.  And finally get a conviction on littering in Central Park in 1974, at which point they'll all claim "told you so".

They have cried wolf far too many times and far too hysterically for anybody outside their echo chambers to take them seriously.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.4    4 weeks ago
You are conspicuously ignoring the part where Mueller issued an exhaustive report that failed to substantiate the accusations of collusion.

You're ignoring the part where Mueller did not address "collusion" he addressed "conspiracy", and although he felt it did not reach legal requirements for charges, he did out line numerous instances of Trump's campaign working with the Russians for aid in winning the election.  Or were you too exhausted to read those parts of the report?

 
 
 
lib50
4.2.6  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.4    4 weeks ago

I'll say it again.  Relying on the Barrshit for your talking points means you aren't even talking about the Mueller report.   Can't even debate when one side has a false narrative.  Trumpers DID work with Russians during the campaign, they DID expect to benefit, and Mueller NEVER said Trump was exonerated,  he laid out examples of obstruction, and said the rest was up to congress to do their Constitutional jobs.  Republicans keep trying to spin, but the truth is coming out no matter how hard they try to stop it.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  lib50 @4.2.6    4 weeks ago
I'll say it again.

As you pointed out, Republican narrative stops at Barr's "summary".  They have refused to listen to anything Mueller has actually stated in the report, and are openly terrified of Mueller's redacted statements and evidence.

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.8  katrix  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.7    4 weeks ago

That's for sure.  All the attempts to prevent any facts from coming out certainly implies that there is something worth hiding ... otherwise why not be transparent?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.5    4 weeks ago
You're ignoring the part where Mueller did not address "collusion" he addressed "conspiracy",

OK.  Sure.

and although he felt it did not reach legal requirements for charges,

Exactly.  Senior investigator with decades of FBI experience and unassailable integrity says it doesn't reach the legal requirement for charges.  There you go.

It's time to move on.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.9    4 weeks ago
Exactly.  Senior investigator with decades of FBI experience and unassailable integrity says it doesn't reach the legal requirement for charges.  There you go. It's time to move on.

Impeachment proceeding do not have the same requirements as criminal requirements.  Mueller pointing out numerous instances of "collusion" and "obstruction".  Clinton was impeached for perjury, was he ever found guilty of it in a court of law?

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.2.11  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.10    4 weeks ago
Clinton was impeached for perjury, was he ever found guilty of it in a court of law?

No he wasn't because the Senate did not convict him.  So go ahead and impeach him,  enough of the party politics because that's what it appears to be all about right now. Doing everything they can to make him look bad before 2020. In the mean time, we the people are losing out due to Congress not performing their other duties.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.11    4 weeks ago
No he wasn't because the Senate did not convict him.

The Senate is not a court of law.  They couldn't "convict" him if they wanted to.

enough of the party politics because that's what it appears to be all about right now.
  • Trump ordering people to ignore completely legal subpoenas, is not obstruction and impeachable?
  • Trump ordering that the IRS not turn over his taxes, is not obstruction and impeachable?

All issued subpoenas are legal, and all requests for tax information are legitimate under the Constitution.  Obama would have been impeached 20 times over by now.

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.2.13  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.12    4 weeks ago
The Senate is not a court of law.  They couldn't "convict" him if they wanted to.

well yes & no.  At the federal level, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants to the House of Representatives "the sole power of impeachment", and Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments". So while the Senate is not a court of law, they are granted legal powers in the constitution for this issue. So when the House impeached President Clinton, the trial was held in the Senate and they did not convict him so he was not removed from office. Call it what you will, split hairs if you want,  we both know we're talking basically the same thing here.

All issued subpoenas are legal, and all requests for tax information are legitimate under the Constitution.  Obama would have been impeached 20 times over by now.

And where have I implied that any of that is ok? Both sides play party politics in order to maintain their power and money and neither side cares at all about the people of this country. IMO all that is going on is party politics playing games to try to come out on top in 2020.

This steaming pile of shit that Washington has become started back before Reagan and has only been getting worse with each passing year. It's not going to get any better until we the people stop defending "our side", vote them all out and work to restrict their powers so they cannot reform it. Unfortunately I have very little hope this can actually be accomplished as most people blindly follow their tribes. Kind of makes me glad I'm old and have fewer years to watch this crap because it's not entertaining, just pointless.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.14  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.10    4 weeks ago
Impeachment proceeding do not have the same requirements as criminal requirements. 

Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  I'm not sure how those aren't criminal requirements.

Mueller pointing out numerous instances of "collusion" and "obstruction".

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,”

After 2 years and 488 pages, Mueller and Co. can't conclude he committed a crime.  They don't know that he didn't, but they can't say he did.  Well....in America....even asshole NY real estate developers get the benefit of the doubt on that. 

Basically Mueller concludes "this asshole is shady as fuck, but we can't prove an actual crime."  

Now if the report had said that he committed a high crime and/or misdemeanor.. then impeach him right now. No objection from me.  Ramrod that case through and let's go get tacos.  I would much rather have Mike Pence as president any day.

But it didn't say that.   The best case for obstruction is that he attempted to have Meuller fired.  But of course Mueller wasn't fired....so the worst we really have is "attempted" obstruction of justice, which is basically like trying to grab somebody's face mask but being too slow to catch them.  It's sad and pathetic but not actually a 15 yd penalty.

  Clinton was impeached for perjury, was he ever found guilty of it in a court of law?

Charges were never brought against him outside the HoR, as far as I know.  Once the Senate refused to remove him, that was the end of it.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.13    3 weeks ago
well yes & no.  At the federal level, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants to the House of Representatives "the sole power of impeachment", and Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments".

Actually that's a "NO".  Ability to impeach is not a "criminal court of law".

And where have I implied that any of that is ok? 

Never claimed that you said it was "ok", I said that it qualified as obstruction and was therefore another impeachable offense.

Both sides play party politics in order to maintain their power and money and neither side cares at all about the people of this country.

I will agree with the 1st half of your statement, but not the 2nd half.  1 party has introduced bills and ideas to help the citizens, it just wasn't the Republicans.

This steaming pile of shit that Washington has become started back before Reagan and has only been getting worse with each passing year. It's not going to get any better until we the people stop defending "our side", vote them all out and work to restrict their powers so they cannot reform it. Unfortunately I have very little hope this can actually be accomplished as most people blindly follow their tribes. Kind of makes me glad I'm old and have fewer years to watch this crap because it's not entertaining, just pointless.

A little extreme, a little too general, but would agree with much of your premise.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

 when they just got the majority last year? 

They are dangerously close to losing thatnext year...and badly.

 
 
 
JBB
5.1  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @5    4 weeks ago

On what other than you're wildest wet dreams do you base that highly unlikely and factually baseless prediction?

 
 
 
bbl-1
6  bbl-1    4 weeks ago

If Team Trump has nothing to hide it has nothing to fear.  State their case and show their evidence under oath.  This is not complicated.

As far as Rep. Collins---he said nothing, offered nothing and instead stuck with the same 'dog eared' script.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

"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."

Bullshit !

All Mr. Mueller did was give us a "Might be, Might Not Be" ….. non-committal.... non-conclusion.....as so STATED !

Seems to me....that just told the "Party", the "Party" should just drag on and on, on and on, on and on

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @7    4 weeks ago
Seems to me....that just told the "Party", the "Party" should just drag on and on, on and on, on and on

Like Benghazi did?  If Hillary had won the election, do you think we'd be on Benghazi investigation 10 or 11 by now?

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1    4 weeks ago

Like Benghazi did ? That's your response ?

I don't give a Fuck about Benghazi. Americans Died, and it's done, over, blown off as if nothing !

Typical Politics ! 

You Happy Now ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

You Happy Now ?

For someone who replies to half the comments with "but Hillary" or "but Obama", you seem awfully touchy when a legitimate comparison is made.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.2    3 weeks ago
For someone who replies to half the comments with "but Hillary" or "but Obama"

I do?

....or.....

Was that just another "Conjecture and Innuendo Projection' by you ….. AGAIN ?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Don Overton
JohnRussell
bugsy
XXJefferson#51
epistte
Dulay


46 visitors