"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[LostMarbels]

Lots of people have gone to prison. Flynn is being sentenced very soon.
It has been confirmed that the Russians interfered.

Lots of details with regards to Trump obstructing has been documented.
Also, many people have been cleared with regards to Conspiracy.

It wasn't all about Trump.

Sounds great... can you tell me what crime Trump committed to warrant investigation by probable cause? You know, by means of collaborating and sworn testimony/evidence in order to garner a warrant?

Kind of questionable that if they did not even determine a crime was not committed... how did they determine events were detrimental enough to get a judge to order a warrant? On what basis was 3 years of news reports, congressman's statements and this investigation based on?

Why articles of impeachment if the target was not Trump?

 

[stevil]

Sounds great... can you tell me what crime Trump committed to warrant investigation by probable cause? You know, by means of collaborating and sworn testimony/evidence in order to garner a warrant?

Again, it wasn't about Donald Trump.
The Russians were interferring in the USA election. It was cyber crime.
But then it was noticed that many people within the Trump campaign were having communications, meetings etc with Russians, and then they were lying about it.

There was much reason to investigate to find out IF a crime was happening from the campaign side. They already knew a crime was happening from the Russian side.

 

[LostMarbels]

Again, it wasn't about Donald Trump.

Forgive me, But I am literate:

H.Res.438 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article 1: Compromising the integrity of the presidency through continuing violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause.

Article 2: Violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the duties of his office by disregarding U.S. interests and pursuing the interests of a hostile foreign power, to wit, Russia.

Article 3: Impairment and obstruction of inquiries by the Justice Department and Congress into the extent of the Trump administration’s conflicts of interests and Russia ties.

Article 4: Undermining of the American judicial system through felonious intimidation of potential witnesses.

 

[LostMarbels]

Mind you, the above bill would be sentencing. Trump would be impeached for his alleged crimes. This is above and even beyond the beginning of the procedure of 'pressing charges'.

So... what "high crimes" and "felonious" actions was the President convicted of? Ah, here inlies the problem. They cannot even determine that he did not commit a crime.

SO WHY DID THEY ALREADY INTRODUCE A BILL TO SENTENCE HIM?

 

[Pommer]

Mind you, the above bill would be sentencing. Trump would be impeached for his alleged crimes. This is above and even beyond the beginning of the procedure of 'pressing charges'.

So... what "high crimes" and "felonious" actions was the President convicted of? Ah, here inlies the problem. They cannot even determine that he did not commit a crime.

SO WHY DID THEY ALREADY INTRODUCE A BILL TO SENTENCE HIM?

Because...this is the way that the Constitution requires “high crimes and misdemeanors” be dealt with, first impeach then indict (because the office of the President is outside the laws of this nation, and whomever is holding the Office has temporal immunity from prosecution.)

 

[stevil]

Forgive me, But I am literate:

H.Res.438 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

I thought we were focused on the Special Council investigation.

 

[stevil]

Mind you, the above bill would be sentencing. Trump would be impeached for his alleged crimes. This is above and even beyond the beginning of the procedure of 'pressing charges'.

So... what "high crimes" and "felonious" actions was the President convicted of? Ah, here inlies the problem. They cannot even determine that he did not commit a crime.

SO WHY DID THEY ALREADY INTRODUCE A BILL TO SENTENCE HIM?

You have used "they" in two successive sentences.
But unfortunately "they" refers to two completely separate groups.

The first "they" is the Special Council and the Justice Department.
The second "they" is congress.

As you know, the Justice Department can't charge a sitting president.
And as you also know, the process forward for an accusation of a crime by a sitting president is via congress.

The high crimes he might be accused of is obstruction of justice. IF the impeachment trial happens then the sitting President will sit in a trial in the Senate and will get to defend himself, while the other side attempt to prove his guilt.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

SO WHY DID THEY ALREADY INTRODUCE A BILL TO SENTENCE HIM?

They didn't. They introduced a bill to charge him. That's what impeachment proceedings are.

 

[USincognito]

Except in the media and Democratic party.

If you think the media and the Democratic party are full of leftists then "leftist" has ceased to have any meaning. Heck, even people that are pretty left for here and advocate for things like universal health care would be conservatives in European or Asian democracies.

My point was 100% correct. There are some in this country who feel that anyone to the left Ted Cruz is a "liberal" and anyone to the left of Richard Nixon is a "leftist". Their perspective has no basis in reality.

 

[USincognito]

SO WHY DID THEY ALREADY INTRODUCE A BILL TO SENTENCE HIM?

Is this more QAnon garbage?

 

[LostMarbels]

Because...this is the way that the Constitution requires “high crimes and misdemeanors” be dealt with, first impeach then indict (because the office of the President is outside the laws of this nation, and whomever is holding the Office has temporal immunity from prosecution.)

Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-30] (Introduced 07/12/2017)

Quick and concise timeline:

January 16, 1998
Janet Reno, the US Attorney General, approves the Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr's request for an expansion of the inquiry to include the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

July 29, 1998
President Clinton decides to testify voluntarily before the prosecutor over the allegations that he committed perjury in covering up a sexual affair with Ms Lewinsky.

August 3, 1998
Clinton is asked for a blood sample for DNA testing.

August 17, 1998
Bill Clinton testifies in the grand jury, acknowledging "inappropriate intimate contact" with Ms Lewinsky. But he insists the evidence he gave to the Jones case in January suit had been accurate.

September 8, 1998
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr releases his report to Congress. It has 11 possible grounds for impeachment. The House votes to make the 445-page report public.

October 5, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee votes to launch a congressional impeachment inquiry against President Clinton.

December 12, 1998
The committee approves a fourth article of impeachment on a party-line vote, accusing Clinton of abusing power in a direct parallel to Watergate-era language.

December 19, 1998
The impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.


Now let's look at Trump:

No 'grounds'. No Indictments of Trump. No trials against Trump. No testifying before grand jury. No charges brought against Trump. Articles of impeachment Introduced 07/12/2017 but the Muller investigation was not complete until March of 2019.



They moved to impeach over a year before the investigation was even finished. 100% unfounded accusation. Quite literally they want to impeach Trump over accusations so they can justify the impeachment by those accusations. They have brought no actual charges against Trump to impeach him over.

 

[LostMarbels]

They didn't. They introduced a bill to charge him. That's what impeachment proceedings are.

What charges is Trump to be indicted for that he needs to be impeached?

 

[LostMarbels]

(because the office of the President is outside the laws of this nation, and whomever is holding the Office has temporal immunity from prosecution.)

Correct... However the key word here is prosecuted. What charges for felonies, or indictments of crime, are levied against Trump that he needs to be prosecuted? We only have accusations. Trump has not been indicted or charged with anything. Why the need to impeach? What crime does Trump need to be prosecuted for?

This is realy quite simple. In july of 2017 what crimes was Trump charged for that made impeachment necessary to prosecute him?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Correct... However the key word here is prosecuted. What charges for felonies, or indictments of crime, are levied against Trump that he needs to be prosecuted? We only have accusations. Trump has not been indicted or charged with anything. Why the need to impeach? What crime does Trump need to be prosecuted for?

This is realy quite simple. In july of 2017 what crimes was Trump charged for that made impeachment necessary to prosecute him?

It’s spelled out in House Resolution 438 of the 115th Congress that you posted. Articles of Impeachment from the House is bringing forth charges against the president The impeachment hearing in the Senate is the trial to determine whether the president is guilty of the charges and should therefore be removed from the office.

 

[LostMarbels]

It’s spelled out in House Resolution 438 of the 115th Congress that you posted. Articles of Impeachment from the House is bringing forth charges against the president The impeachment hearing in the Senate is the trial to determine whether the president is guilty of the charges and should therefore be removed from the office.

Rosenstein appointed Mueller in May of 2017 to serve as special counsel. In July of 2017, they already introduced a bill to have Trump impeached.

In that month or so, what charges were brought against Trump that he needed to be impeached so he could be criminally prosecuted?

What charges? What indictments? Seems to me this is still a fishing expedition. Impeach first, then find a reason to justify the impeachment.

 

[stevil]

Correct... However the key word here is prosecuted. What charges for felonies, or indictments of crime, are levied against Trump that he needs to be prosecuted? We only have accusations. Trump has not been indicted or charged with anything. Why the need to impeach? What crime does Trump need to be prosecuted for?

The Justice department cannot charge a sitting president due to long held policy.
Therefore it is up to congress to go through the process of impeachment. This would include an impeachment trial, where both sides can present their cases.

Only once the president is no longer in the position of office, can he actually be indicted.

This is realy quite simple. In july of 2017 what crimes was Trump charged for that made impeachment necessary to prosecute him?

Congress are not dependant on the Special Council report.
They can put a motion forward for impeachment at any time.

Many of Trump's activities were in full sight, and didn't need a Special Council report in order to make Congress aware of them. i.e. Firing of Comey who was in charge of the investigation, telling on recorded video interview that he was thinking about the Russian investigation when he decided to fire Comey, lying about the Trump tower meeting with the Russians, on recorded video asking the Russians to release dirt on Hilary etc.
A motion was put forward, but it didn't get the support needed to proceed at the time.

This stuff was all public knowledge.

Now, on release of the Special Council report, there are more details known.
There was some confusion regarding why Mueller and the Special Council hadn't stated that Trump had likely committed a crime.
Barr, who was the only Department of Justice official to speak on the matter, lied to the public and said that Mueller would have accused Trump of a crime, if there was sufficient evidence.

Mueller then made a public statement and stated that he and the Special Council would not accuse the sitting president of a crime, even if they thought he had committed a crime. This directly contradicts what Barr stated under oath. And directly contradicts what you are trying to say in this thread.

 

[LostMarbels]

The Justice department cannot charge a sitting president due to long held policy.
Therefore it is up to congress to go through the process of impeachment. This would include an impeachment trial, where both sides can present their cases.

Only once the president is no longer in the position of office, can he actually be indicted.

Incorrect. Impeachment is the process to hold any sitting government official accountable.

First you accuse. Then you investigate. Then indict, or bring up charges. Then if you want to prosecute the individual pursuant to the indictment, you must impeach them. You do not need to wait until a president is out of office to bring up charges. That being said, no charges or indictments have been brought up against Trump. They want him impeached, and face prosecution over accusations without having been formally charged with a crime.

 

[USincognito]

Correct... However the key word here is prosecuted. What charges for felonies, or indictments of crime, are levied against Trump that he needs to be prosecuted? We only have accusations. Trump has not been indicted or charged with anything. Why the need to impeach? What crime does Trump need to be prosecuted for?

As has been explained ad nauseam, presidents are immune from the law, generally, while in office so Trump cannot be charged or prosecuted with a crime. They can, however, be impeached and then charged with the crime after being removed from office.

 

[stevil]

First you accuse. Then you investigate.

Obstruction occurs during the investigate phase.
And in turn causes another round of investigation. This was happening.

The Special Council did an investigation with regards to obstruction, in order to document their findings on the president's activities as well as to incriminate any accomplices.

It seems, that lucky for those that Trump asked/ordered to help him obstruct, they refused to do as asked. Hence they didn't get charged.

Mueller stated why he would not accuse a sitting president.
Now we are here, at the stage where Congress needs to decide whether to accuse or not.

 

[USincognito]

Incorrect.

No, he is 100% correct.

Impeachment is the process to hold any sitting government official accountable.

He didn't say otherwise.

First you accuse. Then you investigate.

Mueller report...

You do not need to wait until a president is out of office to bring up charges.

Current Justice Department policy says otherwise.