Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Damn don't you read the whole post? WTF do you think my post says?
Draft: Articles of Impeachment
- Thread starter katzgar
- Start date
Damn don't you read the whole post? WTF do you think my post says?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
And the facts were comprised of *possible* instances of obstruction.
And apparently, they didn’t rise to the level where Mullet was able to draw a firm conclusion on it.
This shouldn’t be this difficult lol.
So this is a distinction without difference.
Trump and Conservatives will still have to defend him from these instances.
How do you think that's going to play out?
He did draw a conclusion; that OLC guidelines prevent a President from being charged, but he can be charged once he leaves office.
So he's saying, impeach the motherfucker over obstruction or prosecute him when he's out of office.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
BULLSHIT. BIG DIFFERENCE.
This is DEFINITE DETERMINATION of CRIMES, by a SPECIAL COUNSEL:
The Starr report cited 11 specific possible grounds for impeachment in four categories: five counts of lying under oath, four counts of obstruction of justice, one count of witness tampering and one count of abuse of constitutional authority. All of which arose from his liaison with Ms. Lewinsky and not from the Whitewater land deal and other matters Starr investigated. [8]
The outlined eleven possible grounds for impeachment allegedly committed by President Bill Clinton were given in the Introduction of the report as:
"1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.
4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.
5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.
6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.
8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.
9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.
10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.
11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States."[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report
They EITHER BRING CHARGES (when they CAN), or RECOMMEND CHARGES when they CANNOT, and MUELLER DID NEITHER.
Last edited:
No, in House hearings.
You guys are going to have to defend this shit in the House.
The Democrats are going to call forth or subpoena witnesses and grill them over what is in Mueller's report; that includes the obstruction.
So you're really in a no-win situation here; an impeachment proceeding and/or hearing will drag all this out to the public -in Prime Time- and will force you to make the bad faith, disingenuous arguments you make from the safety of anonymity on the internet, out from that shadow which will force you to own it. Do you really think these tenuous arguments you're making here will resonate with the general public? A general public that already is at 41% support for impeachment of a President who only got 46% of the vote...
Not the way the legislation was drafted for this Special Counsel.
If you read Mueller's report, you'd know why he didn't bring charges against Trump; as he says in his summary it was because of OLC guidelines, but he said those guidelines no longer apply once Trump is out of office.
Pelosi plays chess while you eat the checkers.
it does matter. Impeachment hearings galvanize everything . everything is a Bigger Deal then Nadler's hot wind bag on the usual crap nobody gives a fuck about oversight hearings
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You’re apparently one of those Pelosi was talking about who don’t understand impeachment lol.
Impeachment triggers a Senate trial. Impeachment by itself doesn’t remove Trump—it doesn’t do much of anything, in fact.
Pelosi and ‘thinking’ Democrats in the House want nothing to do with a Senate trial.
you are not taking into consideration the Russian hoax fatigue.
The general public doesn't care anymore. "no collusion" was all that mattered, and since obstruction was already shot down by Barr and Rosenweasel -good luck ginning up that fiction again! ain't gonna happen
. the moment has passed
STARR COULD NOT INDICT CLINTON EITHER.which is why he OUTLINED PROOF OF DEFINITE CRIMES , not " HE MIGHT HAVE", "HE COULD HAVE", BUT HE DID...in his report.
NO IFs ANDs or BUTs about it. READ WHAT I PROVIDED.
AS I SAID:
They EITHER BRING CHARGES (when they CAN), or RECOMMEND CHARGES when they CANNOT, and MUELLER DID NEITHER.
NO COLLUSION, and NOTHING WAS OBSTRUCTED.
It always astounds me that Conservatives think they will act totally chill and calm in the face of adversity, and not completely insane when forced to defend their own bad faith.
Trump's base is already galvanized and has been.
It was galvanized in 2016 when he lost the popular vote by 3,000,000.
It was galvanized in 2018 when the GOP lost the House by a 10,000,000 vote margin.
It is galvanized today, with his 43% approval rating.
There's no more galvanizing to be done.
All that good will and faith has been exhausted.
no you idiot. I'm talking the body politic - not factions of it
Oh, I understand impeachment...and if you read any of my posts, you'd see that I don't think we even need to hold an impeachment vote.
I think just holding preliminary hearings and calling forth witnesses will cause Trump and the GOP to trip over their own dicks.
Trump will act totally insane, and attack everyone.
He will blow up the GOP before we even get to 2020.
Rather than continue to demonstrate your massive ignorance, start at page 24.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955290-Mueller-Report-Volume-II-Obstruction.html
I actually don't want Trump removed at this point.
I want him and the GOP to have to defend themselves in public over the contents of Mueller's report for the next 17 months.
I don't believe any of you clowns could do that with any level of success. You lack the stamina, courage, and will.
And I think that way because I read Mueller's report, so I know what Trump and the GOP will have to defend themselves against.
McConnell will never hold a trial, which is why the House should vote to impeach and then make 2020 a referendum on Republican governance in the Senate.
There is no hoax fatigue.
There is Trump fatigue, though, which is why his approval (43%) is right near impeachment support (41%).
Trump only won 46% of the vote in 2016...and 41% support impeachment. If the % who support impeachment overcomes the 46% who voted for him, it's curtains.
Starr was an independent counsel, stupid fuck, not bound by DOJ rules.