# This is a phony impeachment inquiry.



## the other mike (Oct 21, 2019)

Rep. Nunes blasts the Dems again.


----------



## Jitss617 (Oct 21, 2019)

Wtf is Lindsay Graham


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 21, 2019)

Nunes is nothing more than a tRumpkin sockpuppet.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 21, 2019)

Does anybody else think Nunez looks like a fat Jon Oliver, or is it just me?


----------



## MarathonMike (Oct 21, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Does anybody else think Nunez looks like a fat Jon Oliver, or is it just me?


It's just you. And the Impeachment Inquiry is a pathetic hail Mary by a pathetic excuse for an American political party.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 21, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Does anybody else think Nunez looks like a fat Jon Oliver, or is it just me?
> ...



You keep telling yourself that, Sweetlips. Sooner or later, you might really believe it.


----------



## the other mike (Oct 21, 2019)

Pathetic left-wing spin on it.....

What Is This “Highly Anticipated” FISA Report That Conservatives Keep Talking About?

To those outside the conservative news bubble, “the FISA report” might not mean much—let alone be “highly anticipated,” as the story described it. But those who watch Fox News have been primed to think of this report as something that will show that the FBI and Justice Department were reckless, or even acted illegally, in their efforts to undermine Donald Trump


----------



## the other mike (Oct 22, 2019)

Republicans are holding a serious press conference.


----------



## the other mike (Oct 22, 2019)

This is a phony impeachment inquiry.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Oct 22, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Does anybody else think Nunez looks like a fat Jon Oliver, or is it just me?



Its just you Peckerbreath… Obviously you have no understanding on what phat is...


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Pathetic left-wing spin on it.....
> 
> What Is This “Highly Anticipated” FISA Report That Conservatives Keep Talking About?
> 
> To those outside the conservative news bubble, “the FISA report” might not mean much—let alone be “highly anticipated,” as the story described it. But those who watch Fox News have been primed to think of this report as something that will show that the FBI and Justice Department were reckless, or even acted illegally, in their efforts to undermine Donald Trump



Oh none of us on the left doubt that Fox News has been priming all of you Trumpettes on what you should be thinking.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> This is a phony impeachment inquiry.



Hmm will it still be 'phony' once the House holds the impeachment vote?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 22, 2019)

You know, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be investigated.  So far, the investigation on Trump has only been a couple of months, so you guys need to wait for a bit.

If the investigation yields information that says Trump did something wrong, then they will hold a vote to impeach in the House.  If they vote to impeach in the House, then it goes to the Senate, where the impeachment trial is held, and the Senate must vote 2/3 in favor of impeachment in order for Trump to be removed.

You Trumpsters are so busy parroting the things your dear leader says that you are not able to actually understand what is happening.  You just think that if Trump says it, it must be true.


----------



## the other mike (Oct 22, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Pathetic left-wing spin on it.....
> ...


If you really think I get all my news from Fox, that's really funny. Especially considering in 2008 I voted for Obama and hated Fox News at the time. That's how I know they're telling the truth . The so-called liberal media which was never really liberal in the first place completely lost its mind after Trump won in 2016.


----------



## the other mike (Oct 22, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be investigated.  So far, the investigation on Trump has only been a couple of months, so you guys need to wait for a bit.
> 
> If the investigation yields information that says Trump did something wrong, then they will hold a vote to impeach in the House.  If they vote to impeach in the House, then it goes to the Senate, where the impeachment trial is held, and the Senate must vote 2/3 in favor of impeachment in order for Trump to be removed.
> 
> You Trumpsters are so busy parroting the things your dear leader says that you are not able to actually understand what is happening.  You just think that if Trump says it, it must be true.


If that's truly what you believe you're in for a very rude awakening soon.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be investigated.  So far, the investigation on Trump has only been a couple of months, so you guys need to wait for a bit.
> ...



What part of the impeachment process did I get wrong?  Or, are you referring to my comment that said Trump supporters will parrot whatever Trump tells them to?  Both are factually correct.


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 22, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > This is a phony impeachment inquiry.
> ...



Yes it will still be phony because there is no evidence to back it up.


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 22, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Probably the part where there is no evidence?


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Does anybody else think Nunez looks like a fat Jon Oliver, or is it just me?
> ...


Get over it.


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 22, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Pathetic left-wing spin on it.....
> ...



None of US on the right doubt that CNN, MSNBC, MSM & NPR have been priming all you TDSers to climb aboard fake impeachment clown car.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 22, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



I guess imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Meanwhile, I leave you to parroting Fox News talking points.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 22, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



Sigh. Poor little Trumpette. Just because you disagree with the evidence doesn't mean that there isn't any.

We already have Trump admitting to asking two foreign governments to investigate a political rival. 
That by itself is something the House can impeach on. We have Trump's actual words as evidence.

The rest? Obstruction of Justice? Pretty strong evidence in the Mueller report, and his obstruction continues in the Impeachment investigation.

Intimidating witnesses and violating the Federal law protecting whistle blowers? Again- Trump's own words.

Now looks like today that Bill Taylor may have confirmed the quid pro quo in Ukraine. 

I realize that if you saw Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue, you would still declare that there is no evidence and still vote for him. 

But that isn't the same thing as the truth.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



I have no doubt you get all of your news from Fox and so called outlets even to the right of Fox- but that the 'primary' source of what you spew is the lies from Donald Trump himself.


----------



## the other mike (Oct 22, 2019)

Back on topic, which is
the stupid Democrats are doubling down on the Russia hoax.

Not only Will trump get reelected in 2020 hopefully we'll see a new Speaker of the House.


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 22, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Poor little TDSer...Just because you make up 'evidence' doesn't mean there IS any.   OH I get it you actually believed Mr. Schifty.....LOL  Trump asked them to investigate CORRUPTION that 'Sleepy Joe' and his son may have been involved in.  Remember in 2016 'Ol Joe' wasn't a candidate.  And...honestly, you are still whipping that 'dead horse' Mueller??  Too funny!!


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Rep. Nunes blasts the Dems again.


How is it phony?  The evidence is damning to Trump

To me it seems like what you Trumpets are saying is that it shouldn't matter that Trump broke the law.  He is above the law.  You worship him like Russians worship Putin.  

Acting Ukraine Ambassador Bill Taylor testified to the House that President Trump held up military aid to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate Joe Biden.

Trump's busted.

effectively confirming a quid pro quo demand on the part of the White House.

Democrats who were in the room said Taylor’s testimony described a clear connection between U.S. foreign policy and Trump’s political goals, and called it the most damaging account yet for the president, The New York Times reported.

Taylor was called to testify in the impeachment probe earlier this month, after Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine until his recent resignation, revealed text messages between himself, Taylor and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. envoy to the European Union. In a Sept. 1 text, Taylor expressed concern about a possible quid pro quo between the U.S. and Ukraine. Sondland responded by telling Taylor to “call me.”

“During that phone call, Amb. Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President [Volodymyr] Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election,” Taylor said Tuesday in his opening statement, obtained by the Post.


Do you see what Trump was trying to do?  It doesn't even matter if Biden is guilty.  He just wanted the Ukraine to say they were investigating the Biden's.  That would be enough.  Trump is a criminal.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 22, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...



You can't make this stuff up.

The United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine reportedly testified on Tuesday to House lawmakers that President Donald Trump held up military aid to Ukraine until its president agreed to investigate Joe Biden ― effectively confirming a quid pro quo demand on the part of the White House.

Acting Ambassador Bill Taylor’s private testimony for the House impeachment inquiry said it was “crazy” to make the military aid contingent on investigations of Trump’s political rivals


I'm sure cons like you defended Nixon till the minute he was thrown out of office.  What ever happened to Nixon defenders?  Or Bush defenders?  No one today admits defending those two but I'm sure you all existed back then just like you Trumpets exist now.  But when they lock Trump up will you still be his defender or will you later on admit he sucked like you now admit Bush sucked?


----------



## the other mike (Oct 22, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Thank you for that commentary Morning Joe.

Have you talked to John Brennan lately ?
Report: DOJ Review Of Origins Of Russia Probe Expanded, *CIA Officials 'Hiring Lawyers'*


----------



## the other mike (Oct 22, 2019)

Peter Schweizer: *Hunter Biden needs to testify on Ukraine, China business dealings*


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 22, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Taylor’s description of Trump’s position is in sharp contrast to how the president has characterized it. Trump has said many times that there was no quid pro quo, though his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney contradicted that last week. Mulvaney later tried to walk back his remarks.

Taylor, a former Army officer, had been serving as executive vice president at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan think tank founded by Congress, when he was appointed to run the embassy in Kyiv after Yovanovitch was removed before the end of her term following a campaign against her led by Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

He had served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009.

“He’s the epitome of a seasoned statesman,” said John Shmorhun, an American who heads the agricultural company AgroGeneration.

Before retiring from government service, Taylor was involved in diplomatic efforts surrounding several major international conflicts. He served in Jerusalem as U.S. envoy to the Quartet of Mideast peacemakers. He oversaw reconstruction in Iraq from 2004 to 2005, and from Kabul coordinated U.S. and international assistance to Afghanistan from 2002 to 2003.

He arrived in Kyiv a month after the sudden departure of Yovanovitch and the inauguration of Ukraine’s new president, prepared to steer the embassy through the transition. He was most likely not prepared for what happened next.

In July, Trump would have his now-famous phone conversation with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in which he pressed the new Ukrainian president to launch the investigations. Trump at the time had quietly put a hold on nearly $400 million in military aid that Ukraine was counting on in its fight against Russian-backed separatists.

In the follow-up to the call, Taylor exchanged texts with two of Trump’s point men on Ukraine as they were trying to get Zelenskiy to commit to the investigations before setting a date for a coveted White House visit.

In a text message to Sondland on Sept. 1, Taylor bluntly questioned Trump’s motives: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told him to call on the phone.

In texts a week later to Sondland and special envoy Volker, Taylor expressed increased concern, calling it “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” In a reply several hours later, Sondland defended Trump’s intentions and suggested they stop the back-and-forth by text.

Taylor had also texted that not giving the military aid to Ukraine would be his “nightmare” scenario because it would send the wrong message to both Kyiv and Moscow: “The Russians love it. (And I quit).”

Top Diplomat To Ukraine Provides 'Disturbing' Account In House Impeachment Probe | HuffPost


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 22, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



Oh yeah, "Taylor exchanged texts"....."Taylor expressed increased concern".....Only, Taylor was not involved in the actual call and we have the actual text of that call.  

Nice fiction writing...now for the truth from Zelenskiy....The guy you SAY was coerced.  

"KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine’s president said Tuesday that no one explained to him why millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to his country was delayed, dismissing suggestions that President Donald Trump froze the funding to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden"

Ukraine's leader: Trump didn't use US military aid as lever

Whoops....Another fake allegation bites the dust.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 22, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



What fiction writing? 
The actual texts- that Trump attempted to prevent Americans from seeing were not 'fiction'

"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," Taylor texted Sondland on September 9.

But lets look at today's testimony shall we?
US' top diplomat Taylor was told Trump wanted aid withheld until Ukraine said it would investigate Biden - CNNPolitics

Taylor testified that US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told him he'd made a mistake by telling the Ukrainian officials that a White House meeting with Zelensky "was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations."
"In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, 'everything' was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance," Taylor testified, adding that Trump wanted Zelensky "in a public box" by making a statement about ordering the investigations.

READ: Top US diplomat to Ukraine's opening statement for impeachment inquiry
Taylor says he was told by a National Security Council official that Trump told Sondland he had insisted Zelensky "go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 interference."
"Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not 'clear things up' in public, we could be at a 'stalemate.' I understood 'stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance," Taylor testified.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 22, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



That's what the investigation is for stupid.  You do the investigation, and then the House votes on what they think should happen.  IF it passes the House, then it goes to the Senate where they hold a trial for impeachment.  IF the Senate votes for impeachment by 2/3, then Trump is removed from office.  Currently, they are investigating to see if he has done anything to be impeached for.


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 22, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Ha! Ha!  Man that’s funny!  “Investigating to see if he has done anything to be impeached for”  . Talk about desperation!


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


But wait.... didn't Trump ask Zelensky to investigate Biden to see if he had done anything to be indicted for??


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 22, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Don’t play stupid. Good lawyer arguments for the indefensible


----------



## MarathonMike (Oct 22, 2019)

If this is what you Democrats want, then don't come crying to us when a Democratic President is hounded from his or her first day in office. Vive la Resistance! Fuck cooperation! Yeah that is what America is all about!


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 22, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



What good lawyer arguments?  You have not posted any.


----------



## Faun (Oct 22, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> If this is what you Democrats want, then don't come crying to us when a Democratic President is hounded from his or her first day in office. Vive la Resistance! Fuck cooperation! Yeah that is what America is all about!


Ya mean like Republicans did to Bill Clinton?


----------



## MarathonMike (Oct 23, 2019)

Faun said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > If this is what you Democrats want, then don't come crying to us when a Democratic President is hounded from his or her first day in office. Vive la Resistance! Fuck cooperation! Yeah that is what America is all about!
> ...


That would be great! If Trump could have 5 years where he could actually focus on being President just like Bill Clinton had. Donald Trump didn't get 5 years, he got maybe 5 weeks? 5 days? It wasn't much before The Resistance and Pussy Hats were marching.


----------



## Faun (Oct 23, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...


What 5 years did Clinton get? Republicans went after him, starting with Whitewater, when they took control of the Congress in 1995.

Sucks to be treated like that, huh?


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 23, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



There was a meeting of repubs on Obama's first inauguration day where they decided to not work with him on anything. Their #1 goal at that point was to make him a one term president. They failed miserably.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 23, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


I’m not the one making them.

To suggest no quid pro because the foreigner didn’t know that’s what trump was doing is hillaryous


----------



## the other mike (Oct 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> I’m not the one making them.
> 
> To suggest no quid pro because the foreigner didn’t know that’s what trump was doing is hillaryous


Do you realize you don't have to include the entire conversation every time you quote someone ?


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 23, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> I’m not the one making them.



I did not say you were.  In any case 'good lawyer arguments' do not magically equal evidence.



> To suggest no quid pro because the foreigner didn’t know that’s what trump was doing is hillaryous



There is no quid pro quo because   Nowhere in that transcript did Trump threaten Zelensky with the withholding aid and the aid had already been given.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 23, 2019)

Well, now Trump's lawyers are saying that while Trump is president, he is exempt from state and local laws and can't be prosecuted until after he leaves office.

I wonder..................can that possibly be true?  I thought that we were a nation of laws and nobody was above them, not even the president. 

Federal judges seem skeptical of Trump arguments in tax case - news - Suddenlink

*NEW YORK (AP) — Three judges on a federal appeals panel appeared inclined Wednesday to reject arguments that President Donald Trump's tax returns can't be given to a New York grand jury because he is immune from state criminal law — even if he were to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.

The hearing's most colorful exchange came when Judge Denny Chin confronted Trump attorney William S. Consovoy over what local authorities could do if Trump shot somebody on Fifth Avenue, a reference to a boast Trump made in January 2016 that doing so wouldn't cost him voters.


"Local authorities couldn't investigate. They couldn't do anything about it?" Chin asked.


Consovoy said that it was not a permanent immunity and that local authorities could act once a president was removed from office.


"Well, I'm talking about while in office," Chin said. "Nothing could be done? That's your position?"


Consovoy answered: "That is correct. That is correct. Yes."


Chin foreshadowed his shooting comparison when he asked whether the president was beyond the reach of investigators "no matter how heinous" the crime.*


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 23, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Well, now Trump's lawyers are saying that while Trump is president, he is exempt from state and local laws and can't be prosecuted until after he leaves office.
> 
> I wonder..................can that possibly be true?  I thought that we were a nation of laws and nobody was above them, not even the president.
> 
> ...



Inclinations are not judgements and Trump has nothing to be prosecuted for.


----------



## j-mac (Oct 30, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Pathetic left-wing spin on it.....
> ...


Oh, and CNN, and MSNBC haven't been doing that to the left? What the hell is the matter with you people?  You leftist have been on a three year tear now to unseat a duly elected president all because you can't,  won't accept the result of the prior election...the behavior of the left over the past decade is purely un American...I have no more incentive to listen to any insane leftist,  fore all you people do, is lie, incite, and tantrum like 7 year olds. The Democrat party these days is a joke.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk


----------



## j-mac (Oct 30, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > This is a phony impeachment inquiry.
> ...


Being as it will be a 100% party line vote, yes

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk


----------



## j-mac (Oct 30, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be investigated.  So far, the investigation on Trump has only been a couple of months, so you guys need to wait for a bit.
> 
> If the investigation yields information that says Trump did something wrong, then they will hold a vote to impeach in the House.  If they vote to impeach in the House, then it goes to the Senate, where the impeachment trial is held, and the Senate must vote 2/3 in favor of impeachment in order for Trump to be removed.
> 
> You Trumpsters are so busy parroting the things your dear leader says that you are not able to actually understand what is happening.  You just think that if Trump says it, it must be true.


Even Nixon was allowed due process,  plus the hearings were public. What are you Democrats afraid of?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk


----------



## j-mac (Oct 30, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


What "whistleblower "??? Oh, you mean the Schiff stooge that had meetings with Schiff that he lied about? This thing is a set up, just like the whole Russian collusion bs, and you liars will pay.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 30, 2019)

j-mac said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be investigated.  So far, the investigation on Trump has only been a couple of months, so you guys need to wait for a bit.
> ...



There were lots of closed sessions before the public ones for Nixon.


----------



## Faun (Oct 30, 2019)

j-mac said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be investigated.  So far, the investigation on Trump has only been a couple of months, so you guys need to wait for a bit.
> ...


Se will be for Trump once the public hearings begin.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 30, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be investigated.  So far, the investigation on Trump has only been a couple of months...


By what calendar?
If nothing else, the Mueller Nothingburger was released over 6 months ago.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 30, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Taylor’s description of Trump’s position is in sharp contrast to how the president has characterized it. Trump has said many times that there was no quid pro quo, though his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney contradicted that last week. Mulvaney later tried to walk back his remarks....


Mindlessly bleating the bigoted, hyper-partisan narrative does not change the fact it is a bigoted, hyper-partisan narrative.

Why don't you cite the texts of the statements you refer to?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Oct 30, 2019)

j-mac said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be investigated.  So far, the investigation on Trump has only been a couple of months, so you guys need to wait for a bit.
> ...



Trump is going to be allowed due process after they finish the investigation to see if impeachment is warranted.  You gotta stop confusing the investigation phase with the impeachment phase.

Here's how it works.................

1)  The House does an investigation to see if things have been done that warrant impeachment.  If not, the process stops.  If they find something, then they vote.

2)  The House votes to see if impeachment should proceed.  If it doesn't pass, the process stops.  If not, they pass it to the Senate.

3)  The Senate has a trial for impeachment.  If they vote 2/3rds majority to impeach, the president is removed.  If not, he remains in office.

See?  You guys are moving straight from investigation to saying he's innocent.  Sorry, but you can't skip steps in this process.


----------



## okfine (Oct 30, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Rep. Nunes blasts the Dems again.


The little rich boy repubs are laughable spoiled ass punks.


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 30, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



pelosi is calling for a vote to continue the investigation.  That is a sure sign of a big fat nothingburger.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 30, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > j-mac said:
> ...



Right, and the other steps mentioned will come in time.


----------



## MarathonMike (Oct 31, 2019)

Since November 2016, the Democrats have been in the crisis manufacturing business. Doing their jobs? Not so much.


----------



## Zorro! (Oct 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Does anybody else think Nunez looks like a fat Jon Oliver, or is it just me?


Just you.

The problem for Democrats is that there is no bipartisan credibility because there are no _actual crimes_, Democrats are pushing a remedy without establishing a clear need for one, other than their own political interests:

Brokaw, who covered the Watergate scandal as a White House correspondent in 1973, said Tuesday that Democrats don’t have “the goods” on Trump.  

“The big difference is … they still don’t have what you call ‘the goods’ on this president in terms of breaking the law and being an impeachable target for them,” Brokaw said during an appearance on MSNBC.

“They’re going to start the process but they don’t have the same kind of clarity that the people who were opposed to Richard Nixon had because it was so clear that these were criminal acts that he was involved in,” he said.​

Clintongate impeachment might have been a political miscalculation, but it _did_ involve an actual crime: perjury and obstruction of justice in court. No one, however, disputed that Bill Clinton had committed a crime in lying about that personal conduct under oath in a deposition for a sexual-harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, not even Clinton himself, eventually.

In this case, House Democrats don’t even have a core statutory crime, nor are they likely to find one in Ukraine-Gate.  That’s going to be a problem for Democrats even if poor Nancy Pelosi manages to pass her credibility-repair bill tomorrow. Without a core statutory crime, there’s no possibility for removal, which will leave voters wondering what all this is really about:

If Democrats had uncovered a truly serious _crime_ in this probe, that would likely convince at least 20 Senate Republicans to make Mike Pence president. The core problem is that Ukraine-Gate doesn’t involve a statutory crime at all. The House can decide what constitutes an impeachable offense, but the Senate decides whether it’s even worthy of a full trial, let alone a removal.​An impeachment without a removal ends up looking a lot like a political stunt.  Voters will ask themselves why Democrats spent all year obsessed with impeachment under varying rationalizations and then chose the one issue on which they could almost guarantee no success in removal.


----------



## MeBelle (Oct 31, 2019)

Faun said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



And where is that against any law?




Read and learn




Text - Treaty Document 106-16 - Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters


----------



## MeBelle (Oct 31, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




Lie.

Prove it.

You can't cause it's a lie!!

lol!


----------



## MeBelle (Oct 31, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Trump is going to be allowed due process after they finish the investigation to see if impeachment is warranted.  You gotta stop confusing the investigation phase with the impeachment phase.
> 
> Here's how it works.................
> 
> ...



Agreed that the process can't skip steps.


Then why did Pelosi skip the FIRST step?



> The FIRST step IS...
> 
> pelosi is calling for a vote to continue the investigation.




Kind of close - Pelosi should have called a vote for an impeachment process BEFORE all this fake "investigation".


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 31, 2019)

MeBelle said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > j-mac said:
> ...



Impeachment process against Richard Nixon - Wikipedia


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 31, 2019)

MeBelle said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Trump is going to be allowed due process after they finish the investigation to see if impeachment is warranted.  You gotta stop confusing the investigation phase with the impeachment phase.
> ...



Unless you have been living a cave, or you only listen to crazy right wing sources, you should know that a vote was not required for the investigation. In earlier impeachment  investigations they had a vote so that they would receive authority for subpoenas. The last time Republicans were in the majority in the house, they gave standing authority for subpoenas to committee chairmen. You can thank Republicans for changing that rule, removing that obstacle. I guess fox forgot to mention that to you.


----------



## Faun (Oct 31, 2019)

MeBelle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


Great, so who was investigating Biden when Trump made his call to Zelensky?


----------



## j-mac (Nov 1, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




There were also certain rights that the minority, and the President had that were fair, and the vast majority of hearings were in public, telivised....You know that....This process that the Democrat coup is following is NOTHING like either Nixon, nor Clinton, you know it.


----------



## j-mac (Nov 1, 2019)

Faun said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




This won't make it to that...It is clear that the lynching that Democrats are attempting here is really nothing more than a silent coup....All involved in this should be arrested for sedition.


----------



## j-mac (Nov 1, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




The "process" is flawed from the start...The "investigation" is really nothing more than a Democrat clown show, secret hearings, where the minority has NO path to participate honestly, and a kangaroo court where nothing but damaging, so called evidence is accepted...It's a sham, and we the people see that.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2019)

j-mac said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > j-mac said:
> ...



Trump has been given more rights for this investigation than Nixon or Clinton got. Quit whining. He actually did do that illegal crap. It's not like he's being impeached over a blowjob. That would be pretty shitty


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2019)

j-mac said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > j-mac said:
> ...


LOLOL 

You must have missed it. Democrats voted yesterday to hold open hearings. It was Republicans who voted against that.


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2019)

j-mac said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > j-mac said:
> ...


That's how all private Congressional hearings are conducted, even when led by Republicans.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 1, 2019)

Faun said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Of which Schiff can cancel anyone of them he doesn't approve of.


----------



## Faun (Nov 1, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > j-mac said:
> ...


Elections have consequences.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 1, 2019)




----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2019)

Funny how the Democrats want to hold a vote on articles of  impeachment while limiting the information Congress sees with regard to same.
How can a congressmen honestly and intelligently cast a vote for impeachment w/o all the available information?


----------



## j-mac (Nov 1, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




That's just not true...Period.


----------



## j-mac (Nov 1, 2019)

Faun said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Yes, to the perminant select committee....Only after the kangaroo secret court declares it's done with it's bs....Plus, the minority must have authorization from the majority to do everything from subpeona, to call witnesses...It's a rigged process, but we know that's the only way Democrats can do things.


----------



## j-mac (Nov 1, 2019)

Faun said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



No surprise that you're ok with that....We shall see how accepting you are when it's a Democrat in the barrel....


----------



## j-mac (Nov 1, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > j-mac said:
> ...



Yep, and that's the problem...Democrats can't prove any case they bring up unless they can stack the deck.


----------



## j-mac (Nov 1, 2019)

Faun said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Yep, they do...Too bad Democrats can't accept them....Just remember all of this when Trump wins again in 2020


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2019)

j-mac said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > j-mac said:
> ...



It's the way that Republicans set things up. If you don't like the rules, you should look to them for answers.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 3, 2019)

Well, they are saying that the public phase of this process may start as soon as next week.  Gonna be interesting.


----------



## playtime (Nov 4, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> Wtf is Lindsay Graham



tickling donny's colon.


----------



## playtime (Nov 4, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> Nunes is nothing more than a tRumpkin sockpuppet.



devin nunez' cow is more patriotic.


----------



## playtime (Nov 4, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, it took over 2 years for Nixon to be investigated.  So far, the investigation on Trump has only been a couple of months, so you guys need to wait for a bit.
> 
> If the investigation yields information that says Trump did something wrong, then they will hold a vote to impeach in the House.  If they vote to impeach in the House, then it goes to the Senate, where the impeachment trial is held, and the Senate must vote 2/3 in favor of impeachment in order for Trump to be removed.
> 
> You Trumpsters are so busy parroting the things your dear leader says that you are not able to actually understand what is happening.  You just think that if Trump says it, it must be true.



but it was only a few short months for the (R)s to come around once the open hearing started... i seriously doubt the die hard nutters will ever change their mind, but not all have to.  & if the public really starts getting fierce, then moscow mitch will cut donny loose to save his own scaly hide.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2019)

j-mac said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > j-mac said:
> ...



And by 'flawed' you mean you don't like it. 

This is the investigation- the 'court' will happen once the House votes to Impeach Donald Trump. 

Speaking of 'sham'- notice how President Trump is fighting tooth and nail to prevent people from testifying and from releasing documents?

What is your Orange Messiah so scared the House will find?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2019)

j-mac said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


You mean when you hope to crown Trump President for life?


----------



## playtime (Nov 4, 2019)

Syriusly said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



basket dwellers refused to acknowledge that 'innocent' people don't obstruct anything or anybody who would prove them innocent.  

duh duh DUH.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 4, 2019)

Donald Trump is fighting on a lot of fronts to prevent people from knowing what he has done.

Remember- Trump didn't just spontaneously tell voters about his secret attempt to get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into his political rival- he only did so after outed by a whistleblower.
Remember- Trump didn't want voters to know about his adultery with a porn star- so he paid her over 100K to keep quiet, and swore to his beloved followers that claims that he had paid anyone off was Fake News
Remember- Trump didn't want voters to know about his adultery with a Playboy bunny- so he asked the National Enquirer CEO to buy- and bury the store- because you know.....FAKE NEWS.....

Now Trump is fighting to keep his tax returns from Congress, and fighting to keep his aides from testifying to Congress, and fighting to keep the American public from seeing the documents behind the Ukraine fiasco.

How many things is Trump scared of that voters will see?


----------



## peach174 (Nov 4, 2019)

Meanwhile we got Joe on tape bragging how he withheld tax payer money and got the lawyer fired from looking into his sons company he was working for.
Ukraine got their military aid of actual weapons from Trump.
The last administration gave them pillows and blankets.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 4, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Meanwhile we got Joe on tape bragging how he withheld tax payer money and got the lawyer fired from looking into his sons company he was working for.
> Ukraine got their military aid of actual weapons from Trump.
> The last administration gave them pillows and blankets.


All perfectly legal

Trump?
Doesn’t look so good


----------



## peach174 (Nov 4, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile we got Joe on tape bragging how he withheld tax payer money and got the lawyer fired from looking into his sons company he was working for.
> ...



So quid pro quo is OK for Biden but not Trump.
Double standard.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 4, 2019)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Nothing wrong with quid pro quo if you do it on behalf of your country

Trump?  Donny you got some splain’n to do


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2019)

playtime said:


> basket dwellers refused to acknowledge that 'innocent' people don't obstruct anything or anybody who would prove them innocent.


Ah - you read the Mueller report.   Good show.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 4, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Actually giving real weapons and not checking to make sure the new administration wasn't corrupt like the last 2 were is common sense.

That's what all our Presidents are suppose to do.
That's why Obama did not give them weapons.
Instead he gave them blankets and pillows.


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Meanwhile we got Joe on tape bragging how he withheld tax payer money and got the lawyer fired from looking into his sons company he was working for.
> Ukraine got their military aid of actual weapons from Trump.
> The last administration gave them pillows and blankets.


Liar. No one was looking into his son's company when Biden did that.


----------



## playtime (Nov 6, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > basket dwellers refused to acknowledge that 'innocent' people don't obstruct anything or anybody who would prove them innocent.
> ...



you mean the part where mueller stated there was obstruction, or the part where he said there was 'insufficient'  evidence to conclude conspiracy because of the destruction of docs, stonewalling, & interviewees claiming the 5th in the redacted version?  no - that will be congress' job since a court order overrode barr's enabling cover-up .  i'm willing to bet one of them thar peeps who took the fifth is traitor tot. 

those that exercise their constitutional right & take the fifth - do it so they won't incriminate themselves....

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  russian adoptions............... LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2019)

playtime said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...


Nowhere does Mueller make the determination that Trump committed obstruction of Justice.  Nowhere.


> ...or the part where he said there was 'insufficient'  evidence to conclude conspiracy because of the destruction of docs, stonewalling, & interviewees claiming the 5th in the redacted version?


Nowhere does he say this.  Nowhere.


----------



## playtime (Nov 6, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



mueller could not explicitly say that because of DOJ policy.  but he listed 10 cases in which they should be investigated by congress.

The 10 instances of possible obstruction in Mueller report

& barr  include in his little synopsis, that mueller didn't say no obstruction took place - in fact bob reiterated  that if that were the case - then he would have 'so stated' that there was no obstruction.

as for insufficient evidence?  ya, he said that.

*Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence*
*Tech challenges prevented special counsel from establishing full picture of what happened*

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against individuals connected with President Donald Trump’s campaign for their ties to Russia, but he said the investigation faced numerous challenges, including technological ones, in establishing a full picture of what transpired in 2015 and 2016.

“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign,* the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges*,” Mueller wrote in his report made public Thursday by the Justice Department.

In investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russian individuals, Mueller’s team ran into technological hurdles, in addition to old-fashioned ones such as unavailable foreign witnesses, according to the report.

The special counsel’s office “learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long term retention of data or communication records,” the report said. “In such cases the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with the other known facts.”
[...]

Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence


*On a number of important questions, Mueller never got answers*
[,,,]

One of the themes in the partially redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team is that, in a number of key areas, they were left unable to determine the facts surrounding a particular issue. In both of the report's volumes — the first addressing possible conspiracy between Russia and President Trump's 2016 campaign and the second addressing possible obstruction of justice — there are examples of how and where Mueller's investigators hit brick walls.

The report itself provides an overview of the problems Mueller's team faced. (The report refers to Mueller's team as “the Office.")

"*Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity,” *it states. Internal Justice Department guidelines blocked outreach to some witnesses. Other material was potentially subject to attorney-client privilege and screened before being given to Mueller's team.

“Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed,” the report continues, “they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete. . . . And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.”
[...]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...t-questions-robert-mueller-never-got-answers/

i don't lie nor make shit up.   you're welcome for learning the truth.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2019)

playtime said:


> Mueller could not explicitly say that because of DOJ policy.  but he listed 10 cases in which they should be investigated by congress.
> The 10 instances of possible obstruction in Mueller report


Mueller stated that a charge of obstruction required a factual determination of an obstructive and, a nexus between that obstructive act, and corrupt intent.
Your link cites Mueller's factual determination of 10 obstructive and their nexus to an instigation - please quote the text from the report where Mueller makes a factual determination of corrupt intent.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 6, 2019)

Faun said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile we got Joe on tape bragging how he withheld tax payer money and got the lawyer fired from looking into his sons company he was working for.
> ...



Two different issues.
I was talking about Military aid not corrupt business over there.


----------



## Faun (Nov 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


You lied and got caught -- deal with it. There was no one looking into his son's company as you falsely claimed.


----------



## playtime (Nov 7, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > Mueller could not explicitly say that because of DOJ policy.  but he listed 10 cases in which they should be investigated by congress.
> ...



he can't because he follows DOJ policy & punted to congress.  he left them a road map for them to do their constitutionally mandated job. he also included the words ' does not exonerate him' 

nice try though.

i noticed you steered clear about the part of destroyed evidence & people taking the 5th.  

'insufficient' evidence is not the same as no evidence as well.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2019)

playtime said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...


Nothing in DOJ policy precluded Mueller from making the factual determination that 10 obstructive acts were committed - which he did.
Nothing in DOJ policy precluded Mueller from making the factual determination that those 10 acts had a nexus with an investigation - which he did.
Nothing in DOJ policy precluded Mueller from making a factual determination of corrupt intent.
Nothing.
So.... please quote the text from the report where Mueller makes a factual determination of corrupt intent


----------



## playtime (Nov 7, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



 he couldn't conclude whether trump obstructed justice because he cannot 'charge' him with a crime because he would not be able to defend himself in a court of law because a sitting prez cannot be indicted.  you really are trying so hard, but no cookie for you.


----------



## playtime (Nov 7, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



AND you never addressed the part where mueller said there was insufficient evidence due to destruction etc... remember where you said he NEVER said that...  NEVER?

i do.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2019)

playtime said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...


But he CAN make the factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent, a necessary component to a charge of obstruction.
Where does he do this?


----------



## playtime (Nov 7, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



since donny refused to answer the majority of the written questions posed to him - most he was 'unable to recall or he didn't remember'  even though he said he would not only meet with mueller - (which he pussied out on) but that 'he had the best memory ever'... making him a liar too.  

you're still failing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2019)

playtime said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...


I'm sorry -- I don't see Mueller's factual determination of corrupt intent.
Well?


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Nov 7, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Rep. Nunes blasts the Dems again.



Nunes? 

Isn’t he suing a cow? 

which should tell y’all everything about Nunes.


----------



## Obejoekenobe (Nov 7, 2019)

Yeah those Holsteins. They know how to Teat slap you silly.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 7, 2019)

Obejoekenobe said:


> Nunes?
> 
> Isn’t he suing a cow?
> 
> which should tell y’all everything about Nunes.


It’s no coincidence that Democrats have gone apoplectic about the memo. It clearly shows that the FBI, under the direction of then-Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andy McCabe, presented paid political dirt to the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court in order to obtain warrants to spy on American citizens.

*'Nunes memo' revelations prove the FBI makes up its own rules*


----------



## Faun (Nov 7, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> > Nunes?
> ...


LOL 

Democrats refuted Nunes' memo.


----------



## Horse Mucker (Nov 8, 2019)

playtime said:


> *On a number of important questions, Mueller never got answers*
> [,,,]
> 
> One of the themes in the partially redacted report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team is that, in a number of key areas, they were left unable to determine the facts surrounding a particular issue. In both of the report's volumes — the first addressing possible conspiracy between Russia and President Trump's 2016 campaign and the second addressing possible obstruction of justice — there are examples of how and where Mueller's investigators hit brick walls..



Most importantly Mueller never got to interview President Trump.  The closest he got was Trump and his lawyers answering mutually agreed to questions that severely limited the scope Mueller was probing.

Rudy Giuliani called letting President Trump sit down for a deposition would be  "perjury trap"  Or as others would observe, that Trump can't help but lie.


----------



## playtime (Nov 8, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



lol...  no worries, donny may not have skirted that 'rusher' thing once the full report is unredacted & it's not looking good for roger stone & his  role in all of this.  everything between russia & ukraine might be tied altogether in a pretty package.    besides, donny very well might be looking at obstruction charges in this latest round of articles CONcerning ukraine. anyhoo, just like with OJ - couldn't nab him the first time, but he couldn't quite go free in the end.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2019)

playtime said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...


You understand that, absent a factual determination of corrupt intent, there can be no obstruction of justice - right?
And, since Mueller made no such factual determination, there is no factual basis for a charge of obstruction of justice - right?


----------



## playtime (Nov 8, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



you don't understand that he was a special counsel - not a prosecutor.  donny covering for his son  thru his ridiculous tweeting aboard air force one re: the 'adoptions' was a blatant lie.

i'll bet that's listed in the top 10 examples he gave.  your arms must be dead tired carrying that water for so long.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2019)

playtime said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...


This does not affect what I said in any way.
No factual determination of corrupt intent = no obstruction of justice.


----------



## playtime (Nov 8, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



The crime can take any number of forms, whether it's bribery, tampering with evidence, lying to investigators, abusing one's power, or some other act intended to impede a criminal investigation. The federal obstruction of justice statute is written broadly and focuses more on the _effect_ (or intended effect) of a particular action rather than the specific act itself. Therefore, seemingly innocuous acts could be construed as criminal activity if they have the intended effect of impeding justice.

*Elements of an Obstruction of Justice Charge*

The elements required for a conviction on an obstruction of justice charge differ slightly by code section. For instance, prosecutors must prove the following elements for a conviction under section 1503 of the federal statute (influencing or injuring an officer or juror):


There was a pending federal judicial proceeding;
The defendant knew of the proceeding; and
The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding.
But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any _actual_ obstruction -- the defendant's attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.

Obstruction of Justice - FindLaw


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2019)

playtime said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > playtime said:
> ...


You understand that, absent a factual determination of corrupt intent, there can be no obstruction of justice - right?
And, since Mueller made no such factual determination, there is no factual basis for a charge of obstruction of justice - right?


----------



## Zorro! (Dec 17, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Obejoekenobe said:
> 
> 
> > Nunes?
> ...


*Schiff: Hey, how could I know that the FBI’s FISA applications were so bad? *





Nunes: “your rehabilitation will be a long, arduous process.”

Nunes [URL='https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/02/the-full-nunes-memo-annotated/']wrote a memo in February 2018 detailing allegations against the FBI of abusing the FISA process, Schiff issued a detailed rebuttal and went on a national tour to defend the FBI, claiming that he knew “the FBI acted appropriately in seeking a warrant on Carter Page.” Schiff insisted that the FBI did nothing wrong right up to the moment in which Horowitz made it clear that there was serious misconduct in the warrant applications — and that it was basically just as bad as Nunes had warned all along.[/URL]

Chris Wallace asked Schiff on _Fox News Sunday_ to explain how he could have gotten this so wrong. “I think it’s only fair to judge what we knew at the time,” Schiff replied, “not what would be revealed two years later.” What _who_ knew at the time?

It takes a lot of cheek to claim that Horowitz’ report debunks Nunes’ criticisms. Even the Washington Post threw cold water on that revisionist history. The Nunes memo turned out to be vindicated, not debunked, Aaron Blake wrote at the time. The only thing debunked was Schiff’s attempt at debunking Nunes.

It takes even more cheek for Schiff to tell Wallace that he’d have gladly called out the FBI at the time had he only known of these issues:

Given what you know now — we talked earlier to Director Comey, and he basically said, “I was wrong in what I represented back in 2018.” Are you willing to admit that you were wrong in your defense of the FBI’s FISA process?​
Adam Schiff: Oh, I’m certainly willing to admit that the Inspector General found serious abuses of FISA that I was unaware of. Had I known of them, Chris, yes, I would have called out the FBI at the same time. But I think it’s only fair to judge what we knew at the time, not what would be revealed two years later. But yes, there were very serious abuses of the FISA process. They need to be corrected; we need to make sure they never happen again.​
This is nonsense on stilts. Nunes knew enough about these misrepresentations and omissions to write a detailed memo warning that the Page FISA warrants had been secured on false premises. How did Nunes know about this “two years earlier” and not Schiff? Was it because Nunes actually did his job and Schiff was only concerned about pursuing a nonsense conspiracy theory in an effort to reverse the 2016 election?

We certainly know what Nunes thinks. He sent Schiff a letter recommending “rehabilitation,” but that requires an admission of having a problem in the first place. Good luck with that as Schiff’s latest impeachment rationalization wends its way through the House of Representatives.


----------



## regent (Jan 31, 2020)

Do Republicans believe the American citizens are this stupid that they will fall for a cheap con-job such as this?


----------



## Zorro! (Jan 31, 2020)

regent said:


> Do Republicans believe the American citizens are this stupid that they will fall for a cheap con-job such as this?


The American Electorate picked Trump and picked well.  Trump is having an Amazing Presidency.  We've never had it so good!

The American Electorate Will See Right Through This:  *TOM STEYER: I IDENTIFY AS POOR!*



It’s come to this: Tom Steyer, one of the flailing Democratic presidential candidates who remains in the race only because he is rich and has plenty of money to spend on a vanity candidacy, tells an Iowa audience: 

“I know that people describe me as being a rich person, but that isn’t how I think of myself. My mom was from Minneapolis, Minnesota….”​
If Steyer identifies as a poor man, he should go all the way and identify as a poor trans teenager. He might have a shot.

Can you imagine what President Trump would have to say about Steyer’s poor-man identification? It would be worth the price of admission to hear him mock Steyer, but he probably doesn’t rise to a level where Trump will bother.

If this whole president thing doesn’t work out for Steyer, he could star in a remake of “The Jerk.”


----------

