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

[Allandavid]

Where? Steele dossier? Muller report? You cannot honestly believe all these individuals that have been gunning for Trump are just going to sit on it and let him remain in office. Honestly. If they had an expired parking ticket it would be on every MSM channel 24/7 for days if not weeks.

I can’t believe you are being this obtuse accidentally....

 

[LostMarbels]

Yes, one Congressperson drafted a bill to impeach. How much support did that bill get -- was it even really discussed in committee before being tabled?

Of course it was. The steele dossier was paid for by HRC and the DNC. It was most certainly discussed as part of Peter Strzok's "insurance policy. The media, ALL of the media, was pushing the russian narrative. The russian probe, Flynn, Comey, Muller, all of it, was related to Russian collusion. The impeachment bill... russian collusion. BUT, when no collusion was found it all came unglued.

This was a complete set up.

Beyond that, it just points out that there were lots of questions about Trump's activities even before taking office.

Investigate...

As you will agree to, all that bill of impeachment is for is to investigate the President to determine if impeachment (indicting) and a trial in the Senate was warranted.

I do not agree. Impeachment is necessary to CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE a sitting government official. You do not need to prepare a means of prosecution in order to investigate an individual not convicted/charged of a crime. Prosecute is the key term here. They want the ability to prosecute because of hearsay or suspension.

It is in the Mueller Report, in Section 2.

I have taken the time to provide those engaging in this conversation with cites, and refernce. If you would be so kind to cite/post what you are referring to?

And if they weren't going to "sit on it" and allow him to remain in office, why has impeachment proceedings not even been started?

Because they don't have anything. This is a political hit job. A attempt to influence the minds of voters by making it possible that maybe trump could, if...... but they have nothing to present.

I would take this into account:
18 U.S. Code § 4.Misprision of felony

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Either they know for a fact and will produce said evidence. Or they are lying thru their teeth.

 

[LostMarbels]

You might want to look at the entirety of both documents. The indictment order is a draft, not an actual filing. The same goes with Jaworsky's recommendations. It was a draft for when the green light for indictment came on. It never did so he was never indicted. Do you really think that all the news articles saying he was never indicted are just lying to the public?​

Ah... politics. You gotta love it. Why did Ford PARDON Nixon? Better question, how many would Nixon have taken down with him?

 

[SimplyMe]

Of course it was. The steele dossier was paid for by HRC and the DNC. It was most certainly discussed as part of Peter Strzok's "insurance policy. The media, ALL of the media, was pushing the russian narrative. The russian probe, Flynn, Comey, Muller, all of it, was related to Russian collusion. The impeachment bill... russian collusion. BUT, when no collusion was found it all came unglued.

This was a complete set up.

No Democrat forced Sessions, Trump, Jr., Flynn, or other member of Trump's campaign to "forget" their Russian contacts during the campaign. Even more important, it took several times for Trump, Jr. to remember all his contacts. That alone was worth an investigation, and one of the primary reasons a Special Counsel was appointed (since Sessions was implicated by not being forthcoming in Senate testimony about his meetings with Russians).

Additionally, as was pointed out, it appears the bill of impeachment you posted had little to do with Russia, and was instead centered on Trump's alleged violations of emoluments requirements (of which two cases are going through the court system).

Investigate...

Again, is that not the whole point of a House bill of impeachment, to investigate and find if there is cause to impeach?

I do not agree. Impeachment is necessary to CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE a sitting government official. You do not need to prepare a means of prosecution in order to investigate an individual not convicted/charged of a crime. Prosecute is the key term here. They want the ability to prosecute because of hearsay or suspension.

And this is simply untrue. Numerous government officials have been charged with crimes first and, only afterward, impeached; and some even convicted before being impeached. And while I'll agree you don't need a means of prosecution in order to investigate -- once again, did anyone actually support that bill of impeachment? And was it really any different than Republican efforts to impeach Obama, despite the fact there were no criminal violations ever really suspected?

I have taken the time to provide those engaging in this conversation with cites, and refernce. If you would be so kind to cite/post what you are referring to?

I did -- Section 2 of the Mueller Report -- it is all there. I would think you are capable of reading through and digesting the information, without having it spoon fed to you. If not, there have been plenty of posts here spelling it out.

But since you want things made easy, this post has a couple of good links of the crimes documented in Section 2 of the Mueller Report (one in the quote part being replied to).

Because they don't have anything. This is a political hit job. A attempt to influence the minds of voters by making it possible that maybe trump could, if...... but they have nothing to present.

I would take this into account:
18 U.S. Code § 4.Misprision of felony

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev | next
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Either they know for a fact and will produce said evidence. Or they are lying thru their teeth.

As for your linked felony, as a key issue, note the use of the word, "conceals." No Democrat, that I'm aware of, is trying to "conceal" Trump's felonies. Mueller obviously did not "conceal" them, since he wrote a report laying them out. The fact that they are not immediately acting on Trump's crimes means nothing.

 

[LostMarbels]

Additionally, as was pointed out, it appears the bill of impeachment you posted had little to do with Russia, and was instead centered on Trump's alleged violations of emoluments requirements (of which two cases are going through the court system).

I just realised I had originally posted something unintended. (the original spoiler) I don't even know where that came from because I did not copy paste that intentionally. There is only one article in the bill, and it has nothing... zero to do with emoluments. I may have mislead the conversation by accident. There is nothing about emulants in the articles of impeachment.

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

Spoiler: Articles of Impeachment

H. RES. 438

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 12, 2017
Mr. Sherman (for himself and Mr. Al Green of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In his conduct while President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice during a Federal investigation in that:

Knowing that Federal law enforcement authorities were investigating possible criminal law violations of his former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn and knowing that Federal law enforcement authorities were conducting one or more investigations into Russian state interference in the 2016 campaign for President of the United States, and that such investigation(s) included the conduct of his campaign personnel and associates acting on behalf of the campaign, to include the possible collusion by those individuals with the Russian government, Donald John Trump sought to use his authority to hinder and cause the termination of such investigation(s) including through threatening, and then terminating, James Comey, who was until such termination the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The pattern of behavior leading to the conclusion that he sought to cause the hindrance or termination of said investigation(s) include the following:

(1) Requesting that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation curtail the investigation of the activities of General Michael Flynn under circumstances wherein it appeared that Director Comey might be terminated if he failed to adhere to such request.

(2) Making a determination to terminate the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and only thereafter requesting that the Deputy Attorney General provide him with a memorandum detailing inadequacies in the Director’s performance of his duties.

(3) Despite offering differing rationales for the termination of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, admitted subsequently that the main reason for the termination was that the Director would not close or alter the investigation of matters related to the involvement of Russia in the 2016 campaign for President of the United States.

(4) Stated that, once he had terminated the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the pressure of said investigation had been significantly reduced.

In all of this, Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

As for your linked felony, as a key issue, note the use of the word, "conceals." No Democrat, that I'm aware of, is trying to "conceal" Trump's felonies. Mueller obviously did not "conceal" them, since he wrote a report laying them out. The fact that they are not immediately acting on Trump's crimes means nothing.

As I already said, I do not think they are concealing anything either. You cannot conceal nothing. However, if they do have something they will be compelled to bring it forward. I honestly believe it is all a ruse.

I did -- Section 2 of the Mueller Report -- it is all there. I would think you are capable of reading through and digesting the information, without having it spoon fed to you. If not, there have been plenty of posts here spelling it out.

But since you want things made easy, this post has a couple of good links of the crimes documented in Section 2 of the Mueller Report (one in the quote part being replied to).

In all honesty I cannot take these accusations seriously. Absolutely nothing at all has been accomplished in the government except obstructing Trump. Nothing. That's all they do. Their entire focus is keeping Trump from getting anything, and retaining their own power. Absolutely nothing favorable of Trump makes it to the light of day. Every single facet of social media, news outlets, raido, polling and what have you is skewed toward liberal ideology, edited, highly censored, or banned.

 

[LostMarbels]

Numerous government officials have been charged with crimes first and, only afterward, impeached; and some even convicted before being impeached.

Exactly my point. You do not need to impeach Trump to file charges. Nor investigate. You need impeachment to prosecute and or carry sentence.

 

[stevil]

Trump has not been charged with a crime. This impeachment is literally founded on accusations only.

A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime by the DOJ. (even if they commit a crime)

The sitting president must be taken through the Congress process of impeachment in order to be forcibly removed from office and then the DOJ can charge the ex-president of a crime if that is warranted.

It is a difficult situation, the process is asking politicians to judge if the president is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanours. And deciding amongst themselves whether to throw the president out of office.
Of course the public (being so politically divided) will be suspicious about this being a partisan ploy.

If they throw him out of office and ultimately the DOJ do then not charge him, it will be a huge embarrassment to Congress and would probably cost them the next election with people not voting for them.

If they don't throw him out (potentially a partisan protection, let's say the Democrat run house pass the motion, and then the Republican run senate throw the case out) and once the President eventually goes out of office (be it this coming election or the next one), if at that time the DOJ do press charges and the ex-president gets found guilty in court, well does this have any repercussions on the protecting party? Will traditionally Republican supporters abandon their party as one that protects and harbours crime? By then, I think it is way too late.

So it comes down to the Senate held trial. IF the case against the president is so compelling to the public, will even Republican supporters turn against their party and vote them out in the upcoming election?

It all hinges on how compelling the case will be, and if the defenders can either twist it or if their supporters are willing to support Trump no matter what, even being happy with him committing crimes.

I suspect Republican supporters will be happy with Trump committing crimes as long as it supports their agenda.


If Trump truly is guilty. The one thing that might save him from future legal repercussions, is resigning and getting Pence to pardon him.

If Trump (and the Republicans) is voted out at the next election and then if DOJ charge him, he won't be getting a pardon from the Democrat President.

I'm just really interested to see how this all pans out. It is fascinating stuff.

 

[LostMarbels]

I suspect Republican supporters will be happy with Trump committing crimes as long as it supports their agenda.

Nice. Well that blows the entire idea of conversation out the water.

This entire stunt is a ploy. Sorry to break it to ya. The coup failed, and there will be ramifications. I hope they like wearing orange.

 

[SimplyMe]

Exactly my point. You do not need to impeach Trump to file charges. Nor investigate. You need impeachment to prosecute and or carry sentence.

But, as has been pointed out, that is not true for the President -- and he is the only one that applies to. The President, at least as currently the law is understood, cannot be indicted in the court system, he must be out of office first.

 

[LostMarbels]

But, as has been pointed out, that is not true for the President -- and he is the only one that applies to. The President, at least as currently the law is understood, cannot be indicted in the court system, he must be out of office first.

I dont get how you do not understand what I'm saying. They want Trump impeached so they can prosecute him by their accusations. There is no crime. Ever part of the impeachment was planned and set in motion. They want to remove him from office. That is all this is.

 

[USincognito]

Ah... politics. You gotta love it. Why did Ford PARDON Nixon? Better question, how many would Nixon have taken down with him?

View attachment 257583​

You're kidding me, right? After he resigned former President Nixon was no longer a sitting president and was then subject to criminal indictment. President Ford pardoned him preemptively before he could be charged for any of the crimes he had committed.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-explains-his-pardon-of-nixon-to-congress

When he assumed office on August 9, 1974, Ford, referring to the Watergate scandal, announced that America’s “long national nightmare” was over. There were no historical or legal precedents to guide Ford in the matter of Nixon’s pending indictment, but after much thought, he decided to give Nixon a full pardon for all offenses against the United States in order to put the tragic and disruptive scandal behind all concerned. Ford justified this decision by claiming that a long, drawn-out trial would only have further polarized the public. Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon was condemned by many and is thought to have contributed to Ford’s failure to win the presidential election of 1976.​

blue mine for emphasis

You sure are going a long way just to avoid admitting you were wrong about President Nixon getting indicted.

 

[stevil]

This entire stunt is a ploy. Sorry to break it to ya. The coup failed, and there will be ramifications. I hope they like wearing orange.

There was no coup.
There was no stunt.

The Special Council was started by Rosenstein (a Republican).
Comey, was a main player in the initial Russian interference investigation and he was a Republican supporter and Mueller is a Republican supporter.
This has been between people concerned about crimes and was never a political thing.

 

[Allandavid]

Nice. Well that blows the entire idea of conversation out the water.

This entire stunt is a ploy. Sorry to break it to ya. The coup failed, and there will be ramifications. I hope they like wearing orange.

Be careful what you wish for.....

 

[Kentonio]

In all honesty I cannot take these accusations seriously. Absolutely nothing at all has been accomplished in the government except obstructing Trump. Nothing. That's all they do. Their entire focus is keeping Trump from getting anything, and retaining their own power. Absolutely nothing favorable of Trump makes it to the light of day. Every single facet of social media, news outlets, raido, polling and what have you is skewed toward liberal ideology, edited, highly censored, or banned.

So basically you asked for evidence of crimes, and when presented with exactly what you asked for, you declare that you don't believe it because you've already decided in your head that he's innocent because you think he's just such a swell guy.

Do you consider that to be particularly logical reasoning?

 

[LostMarbels]

So basically you asked for evidence of crimes, and when presented with exactly what you asked for, you declare that you don't believe it because you've already decided in your head that he's innocent because you think he's just such a swell guy.

Do you consider that to be particularly logical reasoning?

No and that is not what I am saying. Most people are so aggressive towards me they do not hear what I am actualy stating.

This is a cool thread and I have been reading it. I am thankful @SimplyMe linked it via this post.

My contention is not whether or not Trump is fighting dirty at times. Nor is it whether or not if he had obstructed. I do believe a lot of what Trump does is tit for tat. There is no question in my mind that those opposing Trump will do anything, by any means, to oppose Trump. Thats puts Trump in a situation where in order to survive he has to fight just as hard.

What exactly is obstruction or corrupt intent considering the false russian narrative? It is well known that this was all orchestrated by certain bad players within the government. Again, it is also common knowledge the DNC and HRC paid for the steele dossier that kicked off the entire investigation. In doing so, they conspired against DJT by creating a false narrative. That narrative was pushed by every single media outlet in the country. How does one protect themselves against a system willing to go to such lengths?

So what exactly is obstruction of a false narrative of a crime never committed, that is pushed as if it were real? How do you obstruct a fallacy?

 

[LostMarbels]

Be careful what you wish for.....

Why? I have told you many times I hold no allegiance to any official if they are corrupt. Trump is a man. Not a god. If he has done something I do believe it needs to be found out.

 

[Kentonio]

My contention is not whether or not Trump is fighting dirty at times. Nor is it whether or not if he had obstructed. I do believe a lot of what Trump does is tit for tat. There is no question in my mind that those opposing Trump will do anything, by any means, to oppose Trump. Thats puts Trump in a situation where in order to survive he has to fight just as hard.

What exactly is obstruction or corrupt intent considering the false russian narrative? It is well known that this was all orchestrated by certain bad players within the government.

What is obstruction? Simple, its a criminal offense. You don't get to just decide that you're above the law because you don't think its fair, nor do you get to play 'tit for tat' with law enforcement. If you think a president should be able to obstruct an investigation into himself, then you haven't thought through the consequences of what you're saying properly. Do you really want to set that precedent?

As for your last line there, no it isn't well known that its all orchestrated by bad players. That's just the narrative that Trump and his cronies have been pumping out into the right wing media since the investigation began, and they did it because they knew it would work. We're now at a point where people like yourself will ignore any evidence, any proof, because you think the whole thing is a setup. You've been manipulated into handing Trump a free pass no matter what he's proven to have done.

Again, it is also common knowledge the DNC and HRC paid for the steele dossier that kicked off the entire investigation. In doing so, they conspired against DJT by creating a false narrative. That narrative was pushed by every single media outlet in the country. How does one protect themselves against a system willing to go to such lengths?

So what exactly is obstruction of a false narrative of a crime never committed, that is pushed as if it were real? How do you obstruct a fallacy?

• The Steele dossier was part of the Fusion investigation that was initial paid for by Republican opponents of Trump.
• The Steele dossier did not kick off the whole investigation, which you'd know if you'd actually read the Mueller report.
• Obstructing a legal investigation is a crime regardless of whether any crime is proven. This is basic law, not rocket science.

 

[LostMarbels]

There was no coup.

Thwarted

There was no stunt.

Attempted

The Special Council was started by Rosenstein (a Republican).Comey, was a main player in the initial Russian interference investigation and he was a Republican supporter and Mueller is a Republican supporter.

This is why I will forever refer to these individuals as "they". Im sure there are independents as well and I grow tired of petty semantics. They want Trump removed from office.

This has been between people concerned about crimes and was never a political thing.

I honestly hope you do not believe that. I would be more comfortable believing you are wilfully defending your own opinions, beliefs, and ideals; rather than consider that you actualy believe all of this is on the up and up. I mean this in a sincerely friendly way. I respect you right to speech and defend what you believe in. However it scars the stuffing out of me that people actually except what is provided without understanding what they believe.

 

[stevil]

What exactly is obstruction or corrupt intent considering the false russian narrative?

The Russians interfered in the USA 2016 election. It is not a false narrative at all.

Plus, obstructing an investigation is an illegal act, for whatever reason.

The justice department and the Special Council need to do their job, they need to investigate what went on. Whether Trump is covering up a crime or whether he is merely just trying to get the investigation out of his hair, it doesn't matter. He needs to help the investigators and not impede them. He certainly needs not to advise people to lie to them or to encourage them not to comply. He can't go about telling them they are bad if they comply and great if they resist. He can't go about dangling pardons to get them not to comply.

It is well known that this was all orchestrated by certain bad players within the government.

That is the Fox opinion show's narrative, but not what is being stated in proper news items, including Fox news with Shep and Wallace.

Again, it is also common knowledge the DNC and HRC paid for the steele dossier that kicked off the entire investigation.

Again a Fox opinion show narrative. The dossier did not kick off the entire investigation.

In doing so, they conspired against DJT by creating a false narrative. That narrative was pushed by every single media outlet in the country. How does one protect themselves against a system willing to go to such lengths?

It's quite a conspiracy, to think that all news media outlets are out to get Trump and to do it by inventing a narrative, this conspiracy then claims that the FBI, CIA and all are also out to get Trump. It claims that Mueller is now suddenly a leftie, that Comey is now suddenly a leftie, that the judges giving warrants must be lefties.

It's one hell of a conspiracy.
And one which a person might believe in if they only watch Hannity, Gingrich, Carlson, Ingrahm and Pirro and perhaps back that up with Brietbart

So what exactly is obstruction of a false narrative of a crime never committed, that is pushed as if it were real? How do you obstruct a fallacy?

It is illegal to obstruct an investigation. Doesn't matter if the "crime" being investigated turns out to be false or not. The investigators need to do their job and people need to help them investigate, not obstruct.

 

[LostMarbels]

You sure are going a long way just to avoid admitting you were wrong about President Nixon getting indicted.

August 6th he was indicted. On the 8th he resigned. On the 9th he was pardoned. That is what sparked such outrage. He got to walk. Politics.