Pelosi Admits Dems Have Been Trying to Impeach Trump for Last “Two and a Half Years

[domer76]

there are always choices.
Nadlers' Impeachment Articles do not even cite crimes - a Constitutional requirement

Instead they rely on vague "Abuse of power" ( as seen from the eye of the beholder) and "Obstruction of Congress"
which is not even a real thing

Impeachment doesn’t require a crime

[Truth Detector]

Impeachment doesn’t require a crime

The Constitution demands it shit-for-brains.

[domer76]

Democrats demanded it. Without Comey the liar and the shrill crying from the Democratic Party of the Jackass, there would have been no Russia HOAX. There would have been no Ukrainian HOAX.

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

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.”
____________

Obstruction of justice - 18 USC 1501-1521
Witness intimidation 18 USC 1512
Emoluments - US Constitution
Abuse of power - no statute. Merely reason to be removed from office
Extortion – 18 USC 112
Solicitation of something of value from a foreign entity - 11CFR 110.2 and 11 CFR 300.2

______________

Extortion – 4 elements
Threat – withholding $400 million
Intent – Forcing public announcement of investigations
Fear – of loss of funding for defensive weapons against the Russians
Property – the thing of value is the investigations of 2016 tampering and the Bidens

[Truth Detector]

Trump is demolishing the separation of powers and has become a threat to the American experiment. He did that from the beginning.

Wrong; he is defending it. The Democratic Party of the Jackass is abusing their power.

[Truth Detector]

Impeachment doesn’t require a crime

The Constitution demands it shit-for-brains.

[Truth Detector]

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION......................

Mueller Report; 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.

Barr: 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.

Mueller Report; Page 182 V II:
I. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, ….. this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime…...

[Adolf_Twitler]

Again for the fact challenged:

Timeline of the Mueller HOAX:

-The special counsel appointment on May 17, 2017, came after protests, mostly from Democrats, over President Trump firing the FBI Director James Comey on May 9, 2017.

In Congress, in reaction to Comey's firing, over 130 Democratic lawmakers called for a special counsel to be appointed, over 80 Democratic lawmakers called for an independent investigation, while over 40 Republican lawmakers expressed questions or concerns.

- After questions arose regarding contacts between then-senator Jeff Sessions and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak in 2016, one of the first things Sessions did after being appointed Attorney General, was to recuse himself from any Justice Department investigations regarding Russian interference in the election.

- When the special counsel was appointed by Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, the special counsel took over an existing counterintelligence investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

- Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in his role as Acting Attorney General for matters related to the campaign due to the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, appointed Mueller, a former Director of the FBI, to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) with authority to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, including exploring any links or coordination between Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government; "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"; and any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

- Sessions resigned as Attorney General on November 7, 2018, the day after the midterm elections, writing that he had resigned at Trump's request.

- On March 14, 2019, the House voted 420–0 in favor of a non-binding resolution calling for the full special counsel report to be released to Congress and the public, excluding classified or grand jury information.

- The special counsel delivered its report to Attorney General Barr on March 22, 2019.

Spin it any way you like- I could care less about your trying to make shit up!

[domer76]

Yet the Constitution demands it.

Wrong again, idiot.

[domer76]

The Constitution demands it shit-for-brains.

Wrong again, stupid fuck.

[StoneByStone]

Yet the Constitution demands it.

To be fair, muh constitution is intentionally vague, but no, the president doesn't have to break a law to get das boot.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-answer-is-no

[Cypress]

Here it is, in context.

"Last night, as Donald Trump wrapped up a long day of borderline-hysterical tweeting, the president came up with a new line of attack against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The California Democrat, Trump claimed, “just got duped in an interview to admitting that she has been working on impeaching me for ‘two and a half years.’ In other words, she lied. This was the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats plan all along, long before the Ukraine phone call.”

As is usually the case, the president wasn’t telling the truth.

[At Politico’s “Women Rule” summit], Anna Palmer asked Pelosi to react to the criticism that Democrats are racing through their impeachment inquiry of the president.

“It’s been going on for 22 months, two-and-a-half years actually,” Pelosi said initially. Then immediately made clear she was referring to the Mueller investigation.

“I think we are not moving with speed. Was it two and a half years ago they initiated the Mueller investigation? It’s not about speed. It’s about urgency. One of the charges against the president of the United States is that he was violating his oath of office by asking for government to interfere in our election undermining the integrity of our elections,” she said."


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...m-about-pelosi

Why am I not surprised the OP was misleading and untruthful?

[StoneByStone]

That she is a lying, hypocritical partisan hack.

HYPOCRITE Pelosi on impeaching Clinton

Non-sequitur. The point is that Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump, even after he got caught colluding with Russia. Trump gave her no choice but trying to cheat again.

[Darth Omar]

To be fair, muh constitution is intentionally vague, but no, the president doesn't have to break a law to get das boot.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-answer-is-no

Even the erstwhile lefty Chris Wallace was lamenting the ‘lowering of the bar’ for impeachment.

From now on, even democrat presidents won’t need to break the law to be impeached.

Is getting rid of Trump really worth that? I know the answer.

[domer76]

Even the erstwhile lefty Chris Wallace was lamenting the ‘lowering of the bar’ for impeachment.

From now on, even democrat presidents won’t need to break the law to be impeached.

Is getting rid of Trump really worth that? I know the answer.

Breaking a law was NEVER a requirement for impeachment

[StoneByStone]

Even the erstwhile lefty Chris Wallace was lamenting the ‘lowering of the bar’ for impeachment.

Well he's wrong. In all of American history, we've only had four impeachments, and one of them didn't even go through because the president quit. And how has the bar been lowered? Should Clinton not have been impeached for lying under oath?

From now on, even democrat presidents won’t need to break the law to be impeached.

First of all, Trump did break the law. Secondly, at some point in the future, we're going to have a Democrat president that attempts bribery. I would hope that president gets impeached too. However, because the Republicans are going to let Trump get away with this, cheating to win an election through bribery is going to be normalized. If President AOC or President Omar does this, their defenders will be able to say, well Trump did it and you were ok with that.