Draft: Articles of Impeachment

anatta said:
The general public doesn't care anymor
Click to expand...

Yes they do.

You're lying and pretending they don't so you don't have to defend Trump and the GOP from what is in Mueller's report (which you refuse to read because you're a coward).

It's obvious why you are trying to gaslight the public; you don't want to reconcile the fact that your piss-poor judgment and shit instincts made it so easy for Conservative conmen to make you a mark.

You're so dumb, I bet you bought a time share.
 
anatta said:
since obstruction was already shot down by Barr and Rosenwease
Click to expand...

It's not their call to make on impeachment, it's Congress'.

But by all means, defend Trump on obstruction. That's what we want; we want you to defend obstruction of justice.

Go for it. The party of "law and order" sure seems to hate law and order and will defend breaking law and order because of their egos.

Seriously, that's the only reason for your continued support of Trump; you don't want to admit your judgment steered you wrong when you chose to vote for him.

Now, you're just defending a poor choice out of ego.

Pathetic. What a freaking loser.
 
Grokmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Starr was an Independent Counsel.

Mueller was a Special Counsel.

Independent Counsels operate outside the DOJ.

Learn something instead of speaking stupidly.
 
LV426 said:
Would love to watch you and the GOP defend Paul Manafort sharing polling data with Russian spies.

Would love to watch you and the GOP defend Trump's attempt to end the SC investigation.

Would love to watch you and the GOP defend Flynn's selling out of the country.

I would love to see the Conservative defenses of that behavior. It would make for amazing TV.

"You see, Trump had to obstruct justice because the investigation made him look bad"
-You, in a few months, probably

"You see, there's nothing illegal about Paul Manafort sharing highly confidential GOP polling data with Russian spies"
-You, in a few months, probably

"You see, there's nothing wrong with Mike Flynn offering sanction relief to Russia"
-You, in a few months, probably
Click to expand...

I am laughing at morons like you trying to argue that the massive HOAX of the Mueller investigation was anything BUT a NOTHING BURGER. You're too ignorant and too much of a partisan hack to comprehend how stupid you look.
 
LV426 said:
Doesn't matter how many reps support it, it only takes one rep to introduce the proceedings and it's underway.
Click to expand...

It has to be voted on; so what your shrill lunatic argument is that once the articles are introduced, 162 reps will suddenly join in the Clown Show. You haven't been right yet. :laugh:
 
anatta said:
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
Click to expand...

You’re referring to the liar, Barr, aren’t you?
 
Grumpy said:
Earl stated that Mueller found Trump innocent. I disagreed in that Mueller found insufficent evidence to warrant charges meaning Trump was not guilty.
Click to expand...

I didn't see Earl make that claim; but Trump didn't need to found innocent. He wasn't accused of anything. After 182 pages of bullshit, Mueller's statement boiled down to this:

At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

They end with; "unable to reach that judgement." WTF does that even mean? So you could not reach any judgement after $35 million and 182 pages of baloney? WOW, just WOW.

Then there is THIS bullshit:

Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Exonerate him of WHAT? If you cannot conclude Trump did anything, what is there to exonerate him on? Let's be honest here, Mueller is a dishonest moron who bilked the American taxpayer out of $35 million.
 
domer76 said:
Let’s see, dumbfuck. To investigate if there was Russian collusion and to determine whether Trump obstructed justice. He wasn’t prevented from a determination, stupid fuck, he was prevented from indicting.

Are you that fucking dense?

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
Click to expand...

Sad, pathetic, vulgar low IQ moron.

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.
 
LV426 said:
Again, your evil is showing.

Mueller said he couldn't conclude Trump didn't commit a crime either.

Though he lays out at least 11 instances of obstruction by Trump.

You won't even talk about those.

It's obvious why.
Click to expand...

yes, because he said that after looking into those instances he could not conclude the Trump had committed any crimes.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes, because he said that after looking into those instances he could not conclude the Trump had committed any crimes.......
Click to expand...

Right, and he couldn't conclude Trump hadn't committed any crime either.

So what Mueller did was lay out the instances of obstruction Trump committed (that you still haven't defended, they're just hanging out there) for Congress to pursue on impeachment.

Mueller also said that once Trump is gone, he can be prosecuted for obstruction.

He wouldn't have said any of that if there wasn't enough evidence Trump committed obstruction.
 
I found Domer!

__7f1680e07b0e4c14bc0b64d3cf9ebb3b_width-600.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top