Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why wouldn't he use the "I" word?he spelled out impeachment as the process, without using the ''I'' word.
No, Nat, he did not call for impeachment. If the was recommending impeachment, he would have recommended impeachment. You heard what you wanted to hear.
You stupid TDS afflicted Moon Bat.
Mueller didn't say a damn word about impeachment or anything else of note.
Interpret what Mueller just stated through partisan lenses all you wish, BUT what Mueller clearly stated is that given the evidence contained and outlined in his report, Congress MUST conduct impeachment investigations and hearings.
Further, Mueller clearly stated that IF his investigation could clearly exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice, then his report would have stated such.........basically, throwing Barr's "summary" (and Barr, the Trump stooge, himself) under the proverbial bus.
No, Nat, he did not call for impeachment. If the was recommending impeachment, he would have recommended impeachment. You heard what you wanted to hear.
I couldn't disagree more.....Mueller CLEARLY stated that what his report states regarding obstruction could NOT have indicted a sitting president because of 3 issues
a. DOJ policy
b. Article I of the Constitution
c. It would be "unfair"to the accused because NO public trial to prove innocent or guilt could be held.
Only a complete moron would then conclude that the entire matter should be dropped when the CONSTITUTION outlines that a congressional trial (i.e. impeachment) should be then held.
Uhhhh, you're going to need to provide the transcript where he said what you think he said because he didn't say what you think he said. Not even a nice try. Fail.
WRONG NAT!! The Senate has the "sole power to try" and may decline to try an impeachment...please take note
NOPE!Bill Clinton was charged with Obstruction while in office ------ suborning of perjury.
No, Nat, he did not call for impeachment. If the was recommending impeachment, he would have recommended impeachment. You heard what you wanted to hear.
I couldn't disagree more.....Mueller CLEARLY stated that what his report states regarding obstruction could NOT have indicted a sitting president because of 3 issues
a. DOJ policy
b. Article I of the Constitution
c. It would be "unfair"to the accused because NO public trial to prove innocent or guilt could be held.
Only a complete moron would then conclude that the entire matter should be dropped when the CONSTITUTION outlines that a congressional trial (i.e. impeachment) should be then held.
NOPE!Bill Clinton was charged with Obstruction while in office ------ suborning of perjury.
Bill clinton was NOT criminally charged with obstruction or perjury by Starr... Kenneth Starr handed it over to Congress for impeachment, if congress chose to.... which they did.
Starr was going to charge Bill Clinton after he left office for it, but the day before Clinton left his office, he copped a deal with prosecutor Starr, so that he would not be charged and tried after he left office... gave up his law license for 5 years, could not argue any cases before the Supreme court, and other penalties they settled on in his plea bargain.
So, no new bombshells for you, no Mueller demanding Trump's head (much as you seem to hear it), no additional evidence for wrongdoing. Mueller is done, finished. The rest is Constitutional processes and political decisions.
Stupid, trump cultist pile of shit. There was no investigation into that, no evidence found of that, and the AG didn't lie about the investigation into that. What a retarded attempt on your part.We can’t clearly exonerate you from robbing the 7/11 in you neighborhood last week. So the local AG has no choice but to prosecute you.
Starr did cite crimes Clinton Committed in his report though.NOPE!Bill Clinton was charged with Obstruction while in office ------ suborning of perjury.
Bill clinton was NOT criminally charged with obstruction or perjury by Starr... Kenneth Starr handed it over to Congress for impeachment, if congress chose to.... which they did.
Starr was going to charge Bill Clinton after he left office for it, but the day before Clinton left his office, he copped a deal with prosecutor Starr, so that he would not be charged and tried after he left office... gave up his law license for 5 years, could not argue any cases before the Supreme court, and other penalties they settled on in his plea bargain.
WRONG NAT!! The Senate has the "sole power to try" and may decline to try an impeachment...please take note
NO, dimwit..........Articles of Impeachment are drawn by the House (basically outlining the prosecutorial functions before a trial)......the Senate then calls witnesses and each senator MUST then stand up and rule on a verdict..
You want to slide a few of those choice statements over here so we can read them?Interpret what Mueller just stated through partisan lenses all you wish, BUT what Mueller clearly stated is that given the evidence contained and outlined in his report, Congress MUST conduct impeachment investigations and hearings.
Further, Mueller clearly stated that IF his investigation could clearly exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice, then his report would have stated such.........basically, throwing Barr's "summary" (and Barr, the Trump stooge, himself) under the proverbial bus.
In both The Nixon and Clinton reports, crimes were cited that Nixon and Clinton could be indicted for.Stupid, trump cultist pile of shit. There was no investigation into that, no evidence found of that, and the AG didn't lie about the investigation into that. What a retarded attempt on your part.We can’t clearly exonerate you from robbing the 7/11 in you neighborhood last week. So the local AG has no choice but to prosecute you.
Stupid, trump cultist pile of shit. There was no investigation into that, no evidence found of that, and the AG didn't lie about the investigation into that. What a retarded attempt on your part.We can’t clearly exonerate you from robbing the 7/11 in you neighborhood last week. So the local AG has no choice but to prosecute you.
You can stop right there.In both The Nixon and Clinton reports, crimes were cited that Nixon and Clinton could be indicted for.
No it isn't, its retarded, and so is what you just said. How fucking stupid.cellblock's analogy is accurate
