What The Mueller Report ACTUALLY States

[blackhawk]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

 

[caddo kid]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

 

[M14 Shooter]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

Absent a provable crime, what do you suggest Trump be impeached for?
Hurting your feelings?

 

[blackhawk]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

 

[caddo kid]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

 

[toobfreak]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Comgress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

The question remains the same. What are you investigating or going to charge him with not having a provable crime? Are you claiming the DEMOCRATS are a credible judicial body to decide Trump's fate? What the hell did we need Mueller for or pay him 35 million dollars and two years for if we need to start a whole new investigation? Just keep DIGGING until you find SOMETHING to get him out of office?

You say you have no party. I can believe that because the DNC isn't radical enough to the Left for you!

 

[caddo kid]

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Comgress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

The question remains the same. What are you investigating or going to charge him with not having a provable crime? Are you claiming the DEMOCRATS are a credible judicial body to decide Trump's fate? What the hell did we need Mueller for or pay him 35 million dollars and two years for if we need to start a whole new investigation? Just keep DIGGING until you find SOMETHING to get him out of office?

You say you have no party. I can believe that because the DNC isn't radical enough to the Left for you!

You didn't read the thread, did you?

No surprise ........

 

[edward37]

There seems to be some confusion concerning what the SC Mueller report actually contains.

Many here @ USMB seem to love to discuss the Mueller report but it is pretty obvious that 99.99% of the members here that comment on the report have NOT read the report.
I believe we need to set the record straight on a couple of the FACTS within the Mueller report.

I keep hearing members here @ USMB make really stupid statements concerning the Mueller investigation. One of the dumbest implications I constantly hear from USMB members is that there was no crime so, there could be no obstruction. That is complete baloney folks.

If we look at Volume II of the report, page 368 of the PDF, section L., Overarching Factual Issues, we can learn there is precedent law in place that precludes any underlying crime from an obstruction process. Please see the below from page 369 of the PDF of the Mueller report.

U.S. Department of Justice Atter11ey Werk Preettet // May Cetttaitt Material Preteetee U11eer Fee. R . Cril'H. P. 6(e) Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks: No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.



Now, on to the next observation. Many members here @ USMB continue to (erroneously) voice that there was NO obstruction by Trump, and/or no attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
That is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

The numerous attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation can be learned by reading pages 224 to 448 of the PDF.

So, in conclusion, I hope this will help to educate the many here @ USMB that continue to make erroneous claims concerning the Mueller report, Trump’s documented attempts to obstruct the investigation, and the fact that there is NO need to prove any underlying criminal activity to pursue an obstruction case.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

You’re welcome.

And all the morons think that's funny

 

[M14 Shooter]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress
sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"
I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Absent a provable crime, what do you suggest Trump be impeached for?

 

[caddo kid]

There seems to be some confusion concerning what the SC Mueller report actually contains.

Many here @ USMB seem to love to discuss the Mueller report but it is pretty obvious that 99.99% of the members here that comment on the report have NOT read the report.
I believe we need to set the record straight on a couple of the FACTS within the Mueller report.

I keep hearing members here @ USMB make really stupid statements concerning the Mueller investigation. One of the dumbest implications I constantly hear from USMB members is that there was no crime so, there could be no obstruction. That is complete baloney folks.

If we look at Volume II of the report, page 368 of the PDF, section L., Overarching Factual Issues, we can learn there is precedent law in place that precludes any underlying crime from an obstruction process. Please see the below from page 369 of the PDF of the Mueller report.

U.S. Department of Justice Atter11ey Werk Preettet // May Cetttaitt Material Preteetee U11eer Fee. R . Cril'H. P. 6(e) Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks: No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.



Now, on to the next observation. Many members here @ USMB continue to (erroneously) voice that there was NO obstruction by Trump, and/or no attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
That is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

The numerous attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation can be learned by reading pages 224 to 448 of the PDF.

So, in conclusion, I hope this will help to educate the many here @ USMB that continue to make erroneous claims concerning the Mueller report, Trump’s documented attempts to obstruct the investigation, and the fact that there is NO need to prove any underlying criminal activity to pursue an obstruction case.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

You’re welcome.

And all the morons think that's funny

They are morons, and they have a whole fucking army of fucking morons ..........

 

[easyt65]

There seems to be some confusion concerning what the SC Mueller report actually contains.

Many here @ USMB seem to love to discuss the Mueller report but it is pretty obvious that 99.99% of the members here that comment on the report have NOT read the report.
I believe we need to set the record straight on a couple of the FACTS within the Mueller report.

I keep hearing members here @ USMB make really stupid statements concerning the Mueller investigation. One of the dumbest implications I constantly hear from USMB members is that there was no crime so, there could be no obstruction. That is complete baloney folks.

If we look at Volume II of the report, page 368 of the PDF, section L., Overarching Factual Issues, we can learn there is precedent law in place that precludes any underlying crime from an obstruction process. Please see the below from page 369 of the PDF of the Mueller report.

U.S. Department of Justice Atter11ey Werk Preettet // May Cetttaitt Material Preteetee U11eer Fee. R . Cril'H. P. 6(e) Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks: No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.



Now, on to the next observation. Many members here @ USMB continue to (erroneously) voice that there was NO obstruction by Trump, and/or no attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
That is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

The numerous attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation can be learned by reading pages 224 to 448 of the PDF.

So, in conclusion, I hope this will help to educate the many here @ USMB that continue to make erroneous claims concerning the Mueller report, Trump’s documented attempts to obstruct the investigation, and the fact that there is NO need to prove any underlying criminal activity to pursue an obstruction case.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

You’re welcome.

You always know a snowflake is lying when they attempt to give a translation of something a Republican said or of something that did not go their way.

Hay snowflake, you let me know when the President is indicted for collusion or obstruction, ok.

Until then, this all more butt-hurt for losing AGAIN...

 

[Markle]

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Which means that basically, you have no core values, but sail along on what FEELS GOOD. That's a far left Progressive.

 

[toobfreak]

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Comgress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

The question remains the same. What are you investigating or going to charge him with not having a provable crime? Are you claiming the DEMOCRATS are a credible judicial body to decide Trump's fate? What the hell did we need Mueller for or pay him 35 million dollars and two years for if we need to start a whole new investigation? Just keep DIGGING until you find SOMETHING to get him out of office?

You say you have no party. I can believe that because the DNC isn't radical enough to the Left for you!

You didn't read the thread, did you?

No surprise ........

I READ THE FUCKING REPORT, DIMWIT. I have the entire PDF right here in my computer. You're "thread" isn't worth jack. I'm still waiting for you to copy the page where Mueller says the words:
TRUMP. GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION and charges him with Obstruction?

If he couldn't do that then he found insufficient evidence to prosecute a crime.

Apparently so has Congress because they have the report, they have the evidence and last I checked:

TRUMP WAS STILL IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Gonna stay there too.

 

[blackhawk]

What the report said is there was no collusion on obstruction Mueller did not make a determination he left that one to the AG and Deputy AG they looked at his findings and decided not to charge obstruction. Nearly committing a crime or almost committing one is not a crime you can think about robbing a bank you can even come up with a plan to do it but unless you follow through you are not guilty of robbing a bank.

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Sorry jackass but you have no sense of how government works either if you rant like a Democrat and post like a Democrat the odds are pretty good you are Democrat. Nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress has the power to impeach without reason. As I said if they wish to down this road go for it they will fail and end up looking like idiots as will those who supported such an effort.

 

[caddo kid]

There seems to be some confusion concerning what the SC Mueller report actually contains.

Many here @ USMB seem to love to discuss the Mueller report but it is pretty obvious that 99.99% of the members here that comment on the report have NOT read the report.
I believe we need to set the record straight on a couple of the FACTS within the Mueller report.

I keep hearing members here @ USMB make really stupid statements concerning the Mueller investigation. One of the dumbest implications I constantly hear from USMB members is that there was no crime so, there could be no obstruction. That is complete baloney folks.

If we look at Volume II of the report, page 368 of the PDF, section L., Overarching Factual Issues, we can learn there is precedent law in place that precludes any underlying crime from an obstruction process. Please see the below from page 369 of the PDF of the Mueller report.

U.S. Department of Justice Atter11ey Werk Preettet // May Cetttaitt Material Preteetee U11eer Fee. R . Cril'H. P. 6(e) Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks: No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.



Now, on to the next observation. Many members here @ USMB continue to (erroneously) voice that there was NO obstruction by Trump, and/or no attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
That is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

The numerous attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation can be learned by reading pages 224 to 448 of the PDF.

So, in conclusion, I hope this will help to educate the many here @ USMB that continue to make erroneous claims concerning the Mueller report, Trump’s documented attempts to obstruct the investigation, and the fact that there is NO need to prove any underlying criminal activity to pursue an obstruction case.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

You’re welcome.

You always know a snowflake is lying when they attempt to give a translation of something a Republican said or of something that did not go their way.

Hay snowflake, you let me know when the President is indicted for collusion or obstruction, ok.

Until then, this all more butt-hurt for losing AGAIN...

Well, you obviously never read the report, you obviously never read post 31, and you obviously never read post 39.

If you would have bothered to read ANY of that you would already know that Mueller never intended to initiate an indictment against Trump, nor decline an indictment against Trump.

That's OK though; I created the thread for those here such as yourself & I didn't expect your brain dead ass to learn a fucking thing from the thread.

You passed.

 

[DBA]

Ironically, the case sighted in Mueller's report (United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015)), could be used to indict Hillary. "The indictment alleges that Kergil and Resnick violated that statute when, "upon learning of a criminal investigation, [they] agreed with each other to destroy documents and electronic files relevant to a Federal grand jury investigation regarding the fraudulent procurement of life insurance policies."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There seems to be some confusion concerning what the SC Mueller report actually contains.

Many here @ USMB seem to love to discuss the Mueller report but it is pretty obvious that 99.99% of the members here that comment on the report have NOT read the report.
I believe we need to set the record straight on a couple of the FACTS within the Mueller report.

I keep hearing members here @ USMB make really stupid statements concerning the Mueller investigation. One of the dumbest implications I constantly hear from USMB members is that there was no crime so, there could be no obstruction. That is complete baloney folks.

If we look at Volume II of the report, page 368 of the PDF, section L., Overarching Factual Issues, we can learn there is precedent law in place that precludes any underlying crime from an obstruction process. Please see the below from page 369 of the PDF of the Mueller report.

U.S. Department of Justice Atter11ey Werk Preettet // May Cetttaitt Material Preteetee U11eer Fee. R . Cril'H. P. 6(e) Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

There you have it folks: No underlying crime need be proven for an obstruction case to be determined, and/or pursued.



Now, on to the next observation. Many members here @ USMB continue to (erroneously) voice that there was NO obstruction by Trump, and/or no attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
That is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

The numerous attempts by Trump to obstruct the Mueller investigation can be learned by reading pages 224 to 448 of the PDF.

So, in conclusion, I hope this will help to educate the many here @ USMB that continue to make erroneous claims concerning the Mueller report, Trump’s documented attempts to obstruct the investigation, and the fact that there is NO need to prove any underlying criminal activity to pursue an obstruction case.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

You’re welcome.

And your remedy is what???

IMPEACHMENT.

Impeach or shut the fuck up.

.

 

[caddo kid]

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Which means that basically, you have no core values, but sail along on what FEELS GOOD. That's a far left Progressive.

So, you don't believe in the responsibility of Congress to be a check on the executive.

You call me far left?

You don't even believe in the basic tenets of The Constitution & you call me "far left"

This thread was created for some here to learn, to understand but if you have no basic belief in YOUR own Constitution then you have no hope.

That is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse than any "far left"

You should just move to Venezuela ................

 

[caddo kid]

Wrong; Mueller left it up to Congress to determine.

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Sorry jackass but you have no sense of how government works either if you rant like a Democrat and post like a Democrat the odds are pretty good you are Democrat. Nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress has the power to impeach without reason. As I said if they wish to down this road go for it they will fail and end up looking like idiots as will those who supported such an effort.

Congress most certainly has PLENTY reason to impeach the asshole; pay attention

 

[DBA]

Congress can try and impeach if they wish which will fail but that is all they can do they have no criminal prosecution power.

Exactly, which is their responsibility to do so

If there is evidence to support it yes your party’s candidate not winning an election is not grounds for impeachment. Even Nancy Pelosi has enough sense not to go down that road but if the Democrats are hell bound and determined to go down it be my guest.

as I stated previously, it is the responsibility of Congress

sorry jack ass but I don't have a "party"

I believe in The Constitution, period, and the document has no party; neither do I

Sorry jackass but you have no sense of how government works either if you rant like a Democrat and post like a Democrat the odds are pretty good you are Democrat. Nowhere in the constitution does it say Congress has the power to impeach without reason. As I said if they wish to down this road go for it they will fail and end up looking like idiots as will those who supported such an effort.

Congress most certainly has PLENTY reason to impeach the asshole; pay attention

Ok, and the also have plenty of evidence to indict Hillary, right? Where are the Democrats on that?