Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate

Stretch said:
He's been like a stuck record......always leaves out "opportunities for obstruction".
If he had found "OBSTRUCTION", he would have advised Barr to that fact. But, Mullet said that he "could not conclude that."
Click to expand...

Poor DEMOCRAT Domer.

What a loser.

:rofl2:

I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. - I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable. -
 
Legion said:
DEMOCRAT Domer is dancing because he can't answer the question without exposing his lies.
Click to expand...

Probable cause involves criminal proceedings, dumbfuck.

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 2 "
 
Legion said:
You can't link to specific text that that lists "10 instances of obstruction," DEMOCRAT.

We both understand why you can't, of course.

Loser.

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

Just did, illiterate cunt. Find someone to read it to you.

"FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION"
 
Legion said:


Loser.

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...-04.18.2019-Word-Searchable.-Reduced-Size.pdf

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

"In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution"
 
domer76 said:
The OLC rules prohibited him from acting in a prosecutorial role. He reiterated that the other day with his statement.

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
Click to expand...

LIE and LAME.

Article I, section 3, clause 7, however, does not say that a person subject to impeachment may be tried only after the completion of that process, Instead the constitutional provision uses the term "nevertheless." 3 The purpose of this clause thus is to permit criminal prosecution in spite of the prior adjudication by the Senate, -- ie., to forestall, a double jeopardy argument.

https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/092473.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-148,799

“ Nevertheless” indicates that the Framers intended the Clause to signify only that prior conviction in the Senate would not constitute a bar to subsequent prosecution, not that prosecution of a person subject to impeachment could occur only after conviction in the Senate. “ The purpose of this clause thus is to permit criminal prosecution in spite of the prior adjudication by the Senate, i.e., to forestall a double jeopardy argu*ment.”

https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download

Mueller, of course, was full of shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top