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

"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,"


The Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president meant that "charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider," Mueller said, adding that the Constitution requires a "process other than the criminal justice system" to address wrongdoing by a president.

1 plus 1 = criminal
 
Southern Chicken said:
None of the above states they were 11 instance of obstruction of justice. Just the overview details on the inquiry. You and anti trumpers inserted your opinion that the report has these instances of obstruction of justice
Click to expand...

10 instances.

Analysis
Overview
Obstructive act
Nexus to a proceeding
Intent

Work on your literacy skills, moron.
 
If Trump had not obstructed justice then Mueller with more and better evidence on election conspiracy would have had to punt on that collusion anyway, according to his logic.
 
Micawber said:
"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,"


The Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president meant that "charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider," Mueller said, adding that the Constitution requires a "process other than the criminal justice system" to address wrongdoing by a president.

1 plus 1 = criminal
Click to expand...

Did not Clearly equal inconclusive
 
Cinnabar said:
The reality TV optics would be poetic justice and would take the racketeer down. All of Trump's crimes would be out there for the world to see. Pelosi do what The Constitution demands you do already!
Click to expand...

Are you literally retarded? You posted a poll and article that is 2 years old, in the current events section no less. Fucking retard.
 
domer76 said:
Sure not, stupid fuck.

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation."

Each section has an in depth overview, states the evidence and identifies the obstructive act.
Click to expand...

and yet.....the bottom line......page 182 of Part 2......."this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and yet.....the bottom line......page 182 of Part 2......."this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".........
Click to expand...

“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.”
 
Cinnabar said:
The reality TV optics would be poetic justice and would take the racketeer down. All of Trump's crimes would be out there for the world to see. Pelosi do what The Constitution demands you do already!
Click to expand...

Okay, literal retard, Cinabarr, posted a two-year-old article and poll from the hill. Now, compare that to a more recent article from the hill. let's see who will be the first to spot what is wrong with this picture.

Here is the 2 year old article posted by the literal retard.
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...port-impeaching-trump-than-nixon-at-the-start

Here is the more recent article
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...port-for-impeaching-trump-rises-to-41-percent
 
Southern Chicken said:
More ad hominem and no substance to our discussion.
Click to expand...

:lolup::rofl2:

I’ve quoted the report for you morons more times than I can count. I’ve provided the entire text. I’ve qouted Meuller directly. But your stubborn, blind, willful ignorance is getting in your way. Your lack of reading comprehension doesn’t help, either.

You are a complete dumbfuck, halfwit. No two ways about it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
.."this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".........
Click to expand...

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“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.”
 
It's a Gordian knot Mueller tied you Trumplings

1. If we could have exonerated we would have...
2. Here are 11 areas of fact that tend in reason to make it more or less probable that Trump obstructed justice
3. We cannot charge a sitting potus with a crime
4. It violated fundamental fairness to publish conclusion in this forum that Trump was guilty given that no charges could possibly be filed and so he could not be offered opportunity to vindicate himself

5. There is a constitutional process called impeachment where this must be resolved


These things pretty much pin you Trumplings down to the lower left guilty quadrant...

Not exonerated, unlawful to charge him, here is a bunch of evidence to use and to impeach him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top