To impeach, or not to impeach: there may be an alternative

Give me your take on the wording of the Article of Impeachment.

 

What I know... and proven... is that he lied. He said one thing, the report says the opposite. The AG is not the personal attorney of the President. He does not work for the President. He works for the American people. And he knowingly obfuscated the whole report in an attempt to hide the crimes described committed by the President. This is clear. And it's hideous. And it should be rejected by all Americans who are patriots. And not just the cult followers of a deranged false "idol". I don't care what political Party you favor.

How did we get to this point in which a large number of our population now favor a criminal in power over the laws and institutions of their own country?

 

Take Andrew Johnson's Articles of Impeachment. Combine them with Nixon's and Clinton's... plus the part of Mueller's report about obstruction... and you got about 5% of the job done.

 

Your wrong period what your mad about is the way he wrote his summary. Unless there is a lie in the text how he chooses to write it is his choice. He’s the AG so naturally he was speaking from a legal stance when addressing Muellers principal conclusions. From a legal stand point did Mueller find Trump guilty of collusion or obstruction? No he didn’t ( see lack of indictments). Now there are reasons why ( lack of rock solid evidence and OLC guidelines that date back to 1973) but the opening line of Barr’s summary states that he was just addressing principal conclusions. He then gave the full report with only around 3% redactions.

What you wanted was the chief legal person in US government to write his summary from a political stance.

If not let’s go line by line of his summary and you tell me what you think is a lie and why.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2019/03/07/mueller-report/assets/amp.html

If your disgusted by Barr’s handling of this I’m sure you were down right appalled by Eric Holder withholding documents and getting contempt with 21 democrats voting yea too.

 

That’s about stuff that happened after the election, and doesn’t conclude a conspiracy to interfere in the election. Try again

 

Here is, as William Barr might call it, “the bottom line”: The Mueller report describes, in excruciating detail and with relatively few redactions, a candidate and a campaign aware of the existence of a plot by a hostile foreign government to criminally interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of supporting that candidate’s side. It describes a candidate and a campaign who welcomed the efforts and delighted in the assistance. It describes a candidate and a campaign who brazenly and serially lied to the American people about the existence of the foreign conspiracy and their contacts with it. And yet, it does not find evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy, which requires not just a shared purpose but a meeting of the minds.

Here is the other bottom line: The Mueller report describes a president who, on numerous occasions, engaged in conduct calculated to hinder a federal investigation. It finds ample evidence that at least a portion of that conduct met all of the statutory elements of criminal obstruction of justice. In some of the instances in which all of the statutory elements of obstruction are met, the report finds no persuasive constitutional or factual defenses. And yet, it declines to render a judgment on whether the president has committed a crime.

Now, the House must decide what to do with these facts. If it wants to actually confront the substance of the report, it will introduce a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-report-demands-impeachment-inquiry


https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

 

The rest of your post is B.S., What I'm "mad about" is irrelevant. What is relevant is what I have proven with a direct undeniable quote.

However, it is impossible to get through to those who have been instructed by their "prophet" not to believe their own eyes.

-"Just remember what you’re seeing and what you're reading is not what’s happening" -Donald Trump
-"Truth isn't truth" - Rudy Giuliani
-"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." -George Orwell (1984)

“I see so many parallels between Donald Trump and my dad, it’s ridiculous” -Stephan Jones, son of Jim Jones

I have already provided one of the lies that Barr told. It has been repeated over and over by wingnut media, by Trump, and by his cult.... and after three posts, you have not justified or rebutted it. Your only response was something to the effect of "that's not in the Summary".... My God!

 

Oh. There are so many examples of Barr's lies, one gets them confused. The quote is right on Page 1. You haven't even read Page 1 of the report????? I can understand that you haven't read all 448 pages. But ... Page 1? You haven't even had the curiosity to take a quick look at the report.

 

Yeah but it doesn’t conclude there was a conspiracy. You should read past page 1

 

Here is, as William Barr might call it, “the bottom line”: The Mueller report describes, in excruciating detail and with relatively few redactions, a candidate and a campaign aware of the existence of a plot by a hostile foreign government to criminally interfere in the U.S. election for the purpose of supporting that candidate’s side. It describes a candidate and a campaign who welcomed the efforts and delighted in the assistance. It describes a candidate and a campaign who brazenly and serially lied to the American people about the existence of the foreign conspiracy and their contacts with it. And yet, it does not find evidence to support a charge of criminal conspiracy, which requires not just a shared purpose but a meeting of the minds.

 

Show me where mueller said that

 

Devastating!

 

It doesn't conclude anything because it can't! He's not allowed to.conclude anything.

Allow me to correct that. He is allowed to reach a conclusion only if that conclusion is that the President is innocent. Otherwise, he's not allowed to state any conclusion.

 

Can you show me where that's the law? Because it isn't....as prior Special Counsel have done just that. He cleared him of any conspiracy....and left up the question of obstruction to the DOJ, because his team didn't make a conclusion....the DOJ cleared him. No crimes are being recommended, and he will never be prosecuted for any crimes related to this investigation.

 

Did you defend the rights of our President before Trump the same way you defend Trump's rights? I couldn't help noticing the constant, never-ending attacks on Obama by Republicans throughout his term of office--often for fabricated, false accusations. Why was that OK for Obama but not OK now for Trump? Why are the standards different?

 

No you didn’t do anything of the sort....... Trump is clear of Collusion and Obstruction from a legal sense. Now if you wanna say from a political sense he’s not ok but with would the AG talk from a political sense?

I gave you the opportunity to go line by line through his summary and you can’t hmmmmmm ok

 

He is purposely mixing up cleared from a legal sense and cleared from a political sense. He wants the AG to talk in a political sense gee I wonder why???

 

The law? I'm sorry. But you're waaay too far behind. And there are so many interesting debates going on with those who are up to date on the news. I'm not saying that you should read the report. I understand it's very long. But I do suggest you try to watch some real news for a while. A couple of days out of the Hannity/limbaugh/Fox news bubble won't hurt you. And you might learn quite a bit about what has been going on. I don't mean anything demeaning. I just don't want to use my time bringing you up to date on every point that every moderately informed poster is well aware of.

See? You're still repeating the original fake Barr talking points. That means you're over a week behind. Too much has happened in the last week. Especially since Thursday. Look it up. But not on wingnut media. You're not going to find it there.

Here is one place you can start

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/19/william-barr-mueller-report/

 

He’s not allowed to indict a sitting president per OLC guidelines but where in those guidelines did it prevent him from taking a more firm stance? Do those guidelines prevent him from recommending impeachment to congress?

What Mueller did was take such a wishy washy stance so that anybody can see anything they want in the report. It took him 2 years to say basically maybe he did maybe he didn’t and your more mad at Barr than Mueller? Lol

 

So wait, you flipped out because I had a Glen Greenwald video explaining the Mueller report but your allowed to just link to an article instead of answering questions.......... how convenient

 

No he is not! Not according to the Mueller Report.

The question is, where did you get that idea? Because whoever told you that is lying! Did you get it from Barr? If you did, then right there you have your "line by line"

Look... there are too many facts. Too much actual news. to waste my time going "line by line" in a completely biased and worthless document like any of Barr's public statements. The talking points have been debunked. And that's all that matters about them.

The only reason any of those documents will be worth re-reading is if Barr gets impeached. Apart from that, they hold as much interest as going "line by line" on Ted Bundy's writings proclaiming his innocence.

 

Keep reading. You're almost there.

Hah! So now you attack Mueller? Funny how just a week from last Sunday he was the right-winger's sweetheart.

Bottom line: I agree. He should have ignored the OLC guidelines and went ahead and prosecuted Trump. Because he had the evidence/ Despite ... the part you are about to read (don't want to spoil the surprise).... I respect his honesty, but his wishy-wahiness is not the best for the country.

 

I must be psychic.

 

Guy unless there are indictments(spoiler alert there aren’t) he is cleared from a legal sense. It’s basic 1+1= 2 stuff

 

Nah you let an article talk for you which according to you is a no no......

Does read forum rules ring a bell?