Impeachment

Hahahaha...and he only mentioned the 2016 election and Biden's son in his tel-con, Try again. Besides that, Congress and his own Defense Department had already cleared Ukraine for the funds. Your guy's history...if you want to save the party, time is running out, or watch the Presidency and republicans in Congress go down with him.
Oh yeah...Nancy is operating under House rules passed by the Republican House under the Obama administration. Open hearings will be forthcoming, along with reports out of various committees and then the Judiciary Committee, before being sent to the floor for debating and voting.
It's good for America to get rid of crooks in office.

 

And Trump's alleged actions are far worse than what Nixon did.

 

.

 

Except that he didn't use the word "hamstrung." He just said that he accepted the DOJ policy from the outset of his investigation. If he said that he was "hamstrung" that would mean that he would've charged Trump with obstruction, but he instead said that he was NOT saying, that but for the OLC opinion he would've found obstruction.

 

How does that mean that he was lying?

 

Just in terms of Sessions, are you saying that the only thing that he did which was against Trump, was recusing himself?

 

That is a question, not an answer. We are done picking at the previous posts and previous AG's as escape hatches for this. Now its time for you pick up the mantle here and pull your own weight on Barr, which is actually the subject and name I brought up in the first place because his lack of independence is crucial to understanding the House need to do the work of the justice dept /special council in preliminary impeachment probe.

Here is the post "I think we can safely assume from the headlines and the multiple problems from the Mueller report and testimony aftermath, to the emoluments clause and taxes and this newest set of outrages for which he may be impeached and maybe even a few more I can't think off offhand, that his time has not been controversy- free with respect to rocks and hard place choices with this particular president. I going to have you do the legwork on this one. I did the other two. You see if you can find some test of independence that Barr passes, one where he separates himself from what his boss wanted and incurred that wrath. You picked the 8 month standard and what you expected me to produce and I did, now you prove that this guy is not owned by Trump.

Or you might concede that the total uniformity between what Barr says and does in his professional capacity and that title of his , and what is in Trump's interest for him to say or do in his tenure, seem - oddly parallel every friggin time."

That concession will lead the current conundrum whereby some folks want the House to forego the entire preliminary probe previously done by special councils, on which to base full House votes that they demand, and the protocals of 'fairness' that came after those special council reports were completed and distributed as the foundation for impeachment.

 

I'm not aware of anything that Barr NEEDED to separate "himself from what his boss wanted and incurred that wrath." Your question assumes that there was something.

 

Then there should be no problem if they're investigated again. You are aware of the reputation of corruption in the Ukraine? Was this inquiry you mention anything like the Mueller investigation?

No she is not. What secret investigations were undertaken during the BHO Administration? There were none. Where did you hear this?

How do you know open hearings will be forthcoming? Why aren't they open now? But yes, it's good to get rid of crooked people in government and that's what 'draining the swamp' is all about.

 

'Alleged' means nothing.

 

Investigate away...Biden's son was already cleared in Ukraine. And the House rules were changed by the Republicans during the investigation into Eric Holder's contempt of Congress. You're going to find out in great detail that The King of the Swamp is sitting in the WH.

 

If your position is that he didn't need to why did you ask for evidence that Sessions and Rosenstein did so within 'eight months'? That was what you wanted proof of, and that is what I supplied. and that effort was 'liked' I went through hoops again, just to find the goal post was not firmly planted on your side. At All. This entire colloquy was a disingenuous snipe hunt for you. I keep trying with you, but I end up thinking I am suckered time and again.

Its too bad. The brain is there and there is stream of critical thought and analysis, but you damn the stream up, if it flows and splashes on your pant legs

 

I didn't say that he "didn't need to." I said that I wasn't AWARE of anything. That doesn't mean that there wasn't something. I'm at a distinct disadvantage in not residing in the US, so I miss out on a whole lot. I just find it very telling that you haven't stated something that Barr should've separated himself from. That tells me that there wasn't anything.

I can't see why you think that. That's just baseless.

Hey, I'll take that!

 

I presumed you were a born and raised American citizen who lived here. You read as though you are. Where do you 'reside' and since when?

 

LOL. Yes, I'm not surprised that I read that way. Sometimes I think that I spend WAY too much time with US politics and not enough time with Australian politics. I've lived in Australia for most of my life, born in UK.

 

Wow . Lol I pictured you as a young male, living in an American seminary religiously affiliated college campus, typing away between classes on theology on a paper on Ecclesiastes, but not getting a very good grade because you can't stay out of here long enough to concentrate. You are supposed to have an American Midwest accent, and you were raised in a large house, in a smallish rural town surrounded by corn and wheatfields and cows with your mother, your Dad and your Uncle and Aunt and two siblings and a Springer spanial and cats.

So move to Indiana , register and get an accent coach.

 

So you understand that I said that I wasn't AWARE of anything that Barr should have separated himself from?

 

You don't like the Mueller Report. Fine. I didn't like the long-lasting, ridiculous, unfounded Benghazi investigation, which the Republicans used to harass Hillary for years. Regarding Trump, we now have rock solid, evidence that Trump broke the law with Ukraine. His actions there qualify him for investigation, impeachment, conviction & removal from office. Trump is a Russiaphile, a Putin sycophant, & a danger to America. I hope he's replaced by the end of the year.

 

At this point, the Mueller Report is basically a dead issue. With the ongoing House investigations regarding the Ukraine & Syria, the evidence against Trump is far stronger & more damaging than the Mueller Report ever was.

 

Hmmm...not quite a "dead issue." That's like the beginning of the book has nothing to do with the conclusion. The question in my mind is why since the Mueller report did NOT find Trump indictable, did he not just accept the result and move on? Maybe, it's because the investigation isn't finished? The Ukraine fiasco was/is an effort to TOTALLY discredit the Mueller report regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election. Why is that necessary? Because it is the only way to justify Trump pardons for Manafort, Flynn, and possibly Stone and Giuliani, in exchange for their silence. Trump's efforts to validate Crowdstrike have only reopened the Mueller investigation.

 

The Mueller Report was obviously incomplete if the motive was to seek out any Russian involvement in the Presidential election. Given that Russians played a role in the Steele Dossier, which led to FISA applications an approvals, there was a huge area to explore, yet ignored.

Perhaps she shouldn't have been Secretary of State if she can't be held responsible for her actions. She is also a liar and a perjurer, which makes these things carry on longer than they should.

And what is this rock solid, evidence?

Sounds like a lynching party speech.

 

I'm learning from Trump supporters on this post, that there's nothing Trump could do that would weaken their support of him, including destroying the American Constitutional government system altogether. For many years, I wondered how the German people could have been so stupid as to support Hitler after he destroyed the Parliamentary democracy they elected him under. Now I'm watching something similar happen here with Trump, & I'm just as incapable of understanding it as I was with Hitler before.

 

I don't believe Hitler ever won a free election before he assumed "emergency powers," under the Weimar Constitution. In a parliamentary system, I believe he had less than 40% of the vote (and consequently the seats in the Reichstag). To secure a majority coalition, he made a deal with the Conservatives, which gave him the Chancellorship. Then, following the Reichstag Fire (set by a communist...although it's still arguable whether or not he was "set-up"), Hitler asked the Reichstag to vote him emergency powers, which they did...and with those powers he became dictator. IMO, any system that allows a minority to constitutionally assume power is flawed.

 

We can never get enough of these Trump as Hitler analogies.

Some great Leftist insights there. Keep 'em coming..

 

I believe you drew the analogy. I didn't mention his name. Why do you think Trump is like Hitler?