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

[Earl]

From Truth Detector:

“NO ONE got fired. NO ONE destroyed evidence. NO ONE refused to cooperate. NO ONE shut down the investigation NO ONE chose not to release the entire report. NO ONE exercised executive privilege.

Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

Case closed.

 

[Micawber]

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY: THE ORIGINS OF A LEGAL MAXIM
KENNETH PENNINGTON*
The maxim,' Innocent until proven guilty', has had a good run in the twentieth century. The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 under article eleven, section one. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Pro- tection of Human Rights in 1953 [as article 6, section 2] and was incor- porated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Po- litical Rights [as article 14, section 2]. This was a satisfying development for Americans because there are few maxims that have a greater resonance in Anglo-American, common law jurisprudence. The Anglo-American reverence for the maxim does pose an interesting conundrum: it cannot be found in the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Decla- ration of Independence, or in the Constitution of the United States; and not, I might add, in the works of the great English jurists, Bracton, Coke, and Blackstone. Nevertheless, some scholars have claimed that the maxim has been firmly embedded in English jurisprudence since the ear- liest times.”

And it will apply if and when Trump is indicted in a criminal court and placed in criminal jeopardy and tried before a jury of his peers.

Until then, sorry, you lose. What you have is an argument. You have NOTHING dispositive. And its not a good one, because the Supreme law
of the land which explicitly vests full authority in Congress says dick except that Congress gets to make its own rules and laws necessary and proper.
A maxim, you uninitiated rube, is a legal generality, like this one

de minimus no curat lex, and based thereon I hereby disregard every trifle and piddling superfluous legal butchery you commit.

 

[Earl]

A conviction in the Senate has already been precluded.

McConnell- “case closed.”

The Democrats can rant and yell til hell freezes over and there will be no conviction in the Senate.

Pelosi knows this...veremos.

 

[Micawber]

Barr testified on April 20th to the Senate Intelligence committee that he had never received any communication from Mueller about his summary of Mueller's report.

Mueller, however, sent two letters to Barr, on March 24th and March 27th, expressing concern for the misrepresentation Barr did of Mueller's report.

So Barr's already perjured himself before the Senate.

It has gotten so bad any appointed official seems to believe fealty is owed to the appointer, not to the job duties.
Barr is a PRIME example of such a WHORE.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Mueller believed it did, which is why he left the question to Congress.

He did? Please show the link to his statement in the report for that evidence.

Barr is quoted a saying:
“He made it very clear, several times, that he was not taking a position — he was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime,”

Show me where Mueller disputed this

 

[Micawber]

A conviction in the Senate has already been precluded.

McConnell- “case closed.”

The Democrats can rant and yell til hell freezes over and there will be no conviction in the Senate.

Pelosi knows this...veremos.

Debating with lies. I can say today I won't eat ice cream tomorrow, that does not legally preclude me
from eating ice cream tomorrow.

That is EXACTLY how stupid your argument is. ^ Seriously? Are you this pathetic?

Why lie when the truth will do?

 

[LV426]

A conviction in the Senate has already been precluded.

Doesn't matter.

The House can still hold impeachment hearings, can still hold an impeachment vote, and can still send to the Senate for trial.

If McConnell doesn't want to take the trial up, then that's what the 2020 election will be all about.

I'm fine with making the 2020 election a referendum on GOP governance in the Senate and White House because I know you'll lose such a referendum.

Impeachment will drive Trump insane, and he'll take it out on everyone, blowing up the GOP ahead of 2020.

 

[PoliTalker]

I agree with impeachment but it needs to wait until there is sufficient evidence to convince even Republicans, so it will stick. That will be a challenge since they are in denial.

 

[Micawber]

He did? Please show the link to his statement in the report for that evidence.

It's called inference, dummy, draw one without a crayon next time.

 

[LV426]

The Democrats can rant and yell til hell freezes over and there will be no conviction in the Senate.

Not as long as McConnell is in charge.

But...should McConnell and the GOP lose the Senate...

 

[LV426]

I agree with impeachment but it needs to wait until there is sufficient evidence to convince even Republicans, so it will stick. That will be a challenge since they are in denial.

No need to accommodate Republicans.

An impeachment inquiry will trigger Trump and he will act totally insane and blow up the GOP for not protecting him.

 

[Micawber]

I agree with impeachment but it needs to wait until there is sufficient evidence to convince even Republicans, so it will stick. That will be a challenge since they are in denial.

Disagree. It is only through impeachment that the attention of that recalcitrant target audience can be obtained.
Your hearts and minds mission is correct, but impeachment is the sine qua non of it.

 

[Micawber]

No need to accommodate Republicans.

An impeachment inquiry will trigger Trump and he will act totally insane and blow up the GOP for not protecting him.

That's also a good point. It takes little rope for president short temper to hang himself. .

 

[LV426]

He did? Please show the link to his statement in the report for that evidence.

He literally says in his report that it's up to Congress to pursue along the grounds of the 11 instances of obstruction Trump committed with support of the GOP.

Barr inserted himself into the process to create a fog of controversy.

Trump is toast.

 

[LV426]

Barr is quoted a saying:

Let me stop you right there.

Barr has no credibility.

He's already perjured himself before the Senate.

He's already been called out by Mueller for misrepresenting his report.

He's made it clear he thinks the AG's job is to protect the President.

So what Barr determines means nothing since Barr, the AG, or the DOJ isn't involved with impeachment at all.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Which applies in a court of law; but this isn't a court of law. This is a Special Counsel investigation and an impeachment proceeding. That happens in the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch.

Impeachment is a legislative function, not a judicial one. Even the Impeachment trial in the Senate isn't in a formal court of law; and the burden of evidence and proof are different.

Your attempt to want to move on is telling, though. Specifically, it reveals how weak your position is. "Move along, nothing to see here" is your strategy.

Impeachment proceeding? Is that stated somewhere in the report?

 

[LV426]

That's also a good point. It takes little rope for president short temper to hang himself. .

Why does everyone in the beltway press think Trump will act totally calm and normal, and not insane and erratic should impeachment proceedings begin?

 

[LV426]

Impeachment proceeding? Is that stated somewhere in the report?

It's what the report leads to.

 

[Southern Chicken]

He literally says in his report that it's up to Congress to pursue along the grounds of the 11 instances of obstruction Trump committed with support of the GOP.

Barr inserted himself into the process to create a fog of controversy.

Trump is toast.

That is a definition of a role and not his opinion of a crime that was committed, Do better please.

 

[Micawber]

From Truth Detector:

“NO ONE got fired. NO ONE destroyed evidence. NO ONE refused to cooperate. NO ONE shut down the investigation NO ONE chose not to release the entire report. NO ONE exercised executive privilege.

Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

Case closed.

Funny that conclusion was rebuked by the investigator and author, Mueller, who felt compelled to say so on live television after that whore came to it.