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

[rambot]

I have met a few Americans in NZ, not many, but a few. Don't know if they were right or left leaning.

Online, I was discussing with an American who loved guns. He was bragging that for many, many years he has carried his gun everyday, everywhere. I told him that means he can't travel overseas, as he would be able to carry his gun. He didn't want to travel it seems.

Would I be correct in thinking that far right Americans are very patriotic and think that USA is the best place in the world and they wouldn't want to go anywhere else?

In my experience, most people who have that "gun-totin' 'merican" stereotype actually have FEAR. Despite all the bravado, they are a ball of fear. The guy you spoke to? He didn't want to travel there NOT because he can't carry a gun. He won't travel because he won't feel safe. Likely, he won't feel safe without a gun. But even then, it's just not safe in his mind.

All fear.

Don't get me wrong, PLENTY of Americans travel. I loved in S.Korea and my favourite people I met were Americans. It's the "type" of American (really, person) that just won't travel).

 

[rjs330]

I have met a few Americans in NZ, not many, but a few. Don't know if they were right or left leaning.

Online, I was discussing with an American who loved guns. He was bragging that for many, many years he has carried his gun everyday, everywhere. I told him that means he can't travel overseas, as he would be able to carry his gun. He didn't want to travel it seems.

Would I be correct in thinking that far right Americans are very patriotic and think that USA is the best place in the world and they wouldn't want to go anywhere else?

I'd say I'm a strong constitutional conservative. But I love to travel. I have been to some places where I'd love to live. As much as I support my constitutional rights I know that other countries don't have that. They are entitled to do so. But here I am entitled to support and defend my Constitution.

Just curious, but do other countries have forums like this where we can join?

 

[whatbogsends]

Also, then-candidate Trump asked for the information from Russia on a nationally televised debate.

And Russia responded within hours of that request.

 

[rjs330]

Backup...you think it is significant. Tell me why? Posing a question doesn’t tell me why it is significant, especially in this factual context.

What is the “factual context?” An investigation has produced evidence someone has committed a crime (in this instance the someone is Trump), very strong evidence at times, and the evidence is disclosed to the public. In that “factual context” I fail to see how it matters whether law enforcement has formally accused someone of committing a crime by way of formal charges before people can reach their own conclusions based on the evidence. I refer to “formal charges” as this is a method of formally accusing someone of a crime. Another method to formally accuse someone of committing a crime is a grand jury indictment.

In the absence of charges, law enforcement prudently will not say publicly whether they believe someone committed a crime. This is the category Mueller operated within. Mueller conducted a through investigation producing some very strong evidence Trump committed a crime. However, because of some very compelling reasons, such the policy a sitting President cannot be indicted, unfairness in accusing the President of a crime without being able to charge the President with a crime and thereby allow the President to vindicate himself by means of a trial, hanging an ominous cloud over the President that would impede his efficacy as President.

Now, the comments in the preceding paragraph weakens your argument. As I understand your argument, a lack of an accusation by authorities is some evidence a crime wasn’t committed. However, where, as here, the authorities did not allege a crime because of formal constraints in doing so, while also saying they can’t exonerate the suspect, undermines your notion the lack of accusation reflects a lack of evidence to support the crime.

Mueller didn’t abstain from an accusation because of a lack of evidence to support the idea a crime was committed, Mueller did not make an accusation because of formalities that restrained him from doing so, the formalities being a sitting President cannot be indicted, and related to that point is the unfairness of accusing a sitting President of a crime when the sitting President cannot vindicate himself of such an accusation since the sitting President cannot be indicted. But it is important to note, Mueller DOES BELIEVE there is evidence Trump committed a crime because Muller said based on the facts they discovered, Mueller couldn’t exonerate Trump.!

Now, if you just insist to have an accusation, despite its meaningless in this context, then you got it, in the form of Mueller stating based on the facts Mueller couldn’t exonerate Trump. Translation, there does exist incriminating evidence against Trump, evidence supporting the notion Trump committed a crime.



So what? Do you know what an accusation is? It’s really nothing more than someone’s opinion in law enforcement a person committed a crime based on the evidence, but baptized with government formalities. An accusation or lack of it by the justice system says NOTHING about the strength of the evidence to support the crime.

My goodness, read what you’re writing man. Based on your logic, evidence of guilt is an accusation by authorities, which is nonsense. By that logic, you’ve just contradicted your fabled “presumption of innocence” since that presumption begins to dissipate once the government accuses, ACCUSES, someone of committing a crime. How? How is an accusation EVIDENCE at of guilt or innocence?

The answer is, it ISN’T, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court has said the existence of an arrest and/or charges (charging someone with a crime is an accusation) IS NOT evidence of guilt or innocence. Trial courts admonish juries the filing of charges, formal accusation, against the defendant IS NOT evidence of guilt or innocence, and the jury is NOT to consider in any way the fact the government has accused someone of a crime.

As a matter of fact, any potential juror can be struck for case for believing an arrest or accusation against the defendant is evidence of guilt. So, bravo for torpedoing your sacrosanct presumption of innocence.

The fact is an accusation by the government or a lack of it means very little, no I dare say it means NOTHING, especially in this factual context.

Nothing of what you said changes anything. You are entitled to believe he committed a crime. It's an opinion and doesn't mean he actually has. But it does seem off and based on bias when you don't have all the facts. When the justice system accuses someone of a crime that person still has a presumption of Innocence. But at least one can say that the justice system believes there is enough cause to accuse someone. Mueller didn't even do that. He listed things that happened that he believed should be investigated. That is a far cry from stating that we believe someone committed a crime and here's why.

 

[NotreDame]

Nothing of what you said changes anything. You are entitled to believe he committed a crime. It's an opinion and doesn't mean he actually has. But it does seem off and based on bias when you don't have all the facts. When the justice system accuses someone of a crime that person still has a presumption of Innocence. But at least one can say that the justice system believes there is enough cause to accuse someone. Mueller didn't even do that. He listed things that happened that he believed should be investigated. That is a far cry from stating that we believe someone committed a crime and here's why.

But it does seem off and based on bias when you don't have all the facts.

You presume more facts exist than what is provided in the Report. Maybe. Maybe not. You do not know whether there are more facts than what is stated in the Report. You are basing your claim of "bias" on the assumption there are more facts without knowing whether indeed there are more facts. That is a very hollow point you have just made.

You have not provided any rational objection to the conduct of relying upon the facts as elucidated in the Report and reaching a conclusion on the basis of those facts. The unsupported assumption of there are more facts is not a persuasive objection. The notion there could be more facts is not a persuasive objection.

All you have done is to touch upon the fact human beings lack omniscience. We do not know everything, we do not know every detail, we do not know every fact in existence. Rationally, however, that is not a logical impediment to examining the available evidence in existence at the present time and moment and drawing conclusions. This is exactly what is done in the scientific field, the natural sciences, and many other disciplines, like statistics, Sociology, psychology, etcetera. The criminal justice system is no different, as charges are alleged on the basis of evidence in existence at the present time and moment. I cannot tell you the number of occasions when, after filing criminal charges, the charges would subsequently be dismissed because of the discovery or disclosure of additional evidence. Yet, at the time I filed charges, I was justified in my belief there was sufficient evidence of a crime based on the available evidence in existence at the present time and moment. The fact there might be additional evidence somewhere out there, or there might not be, is not a rational reason for me to not have based my decision to charge on the then existing and available evidence.

The approach described above is not unique to or exclusively relegated to the natural sciences, scientific inquiry, or the criminal justice system, but instead is something human beings rationally do everyday in their normal course of life. The approach is also applicable here, to people scrutinizing the facts in the Report and concluding Trump committed a crime. The possibility there may be additional facts somewhere out there, or there may not be, is but a truism, but is not an objection to formulating an opinion of whether Trump committed a crime on the basis of the facts, adduced as a result of a thorough investigation, and elucidated in the Report.

But at least one can say that the justice system believes there is enough cause to accuse someone.

Again, so what? What is the significance? Why is it significant at all?

He listed things that happened that he believed should be investigated.

This statement is not supported, indeed it is contradicted, by the section of the Report devoted to obstruction and attempted obstruction of justice. Mueller's Report about obstruction/attempted obstruction of justice illuminated facts discovered as a result of his investigation, not that there needed to be more investigation, and in regards to at least two but up to five instances, Mueller elucidates facts meeting every element of obstruction and explains how and why the facts meet each element of obstruction. To borrow attorney Hoeg's description from his Twitter account, which I have linked to elsewhere, "So this would appear to be the fifth claim the #MuellerReport would make on obstruction if it was in the business of establishing actual claims.." Richard Hoeg on Twitter

That is a far cry from stating that we believe someone committed a crime and here's why

This comment, based upon a factually inaccurate and contradicted premise about the Report, namely, "He listed things that happened that he believed should be investigated," is not believable, because it is based on a factually inaccurate premise, a premise contradicted by the Report.

And, as Hoeg also astutely observed, Mueller did make a de facto allegation of "we believe someone committed a crime and here's why" by detailing how and why the elements of obstruction of justice are met in regards to 5 specific instances. “Technically, per the report, the fact that making a claim without a charge would prevent the President from availing himself of such defenses in an ordinary court proceeding is why no charges were recommended. Though, I think the approach taken has had a similar effect.” Richard Hoeg on Twitter

He is right! Detailing how and why the facts meet the elements of obstruction of justice in regards to 5 specific instances is the equivalent of saying, "we" believe Trump committed obstruction of justice in these 5 instances. Augmenting the notion that showing how and why the facts meet the elements of obstruction of justice is the de facto alleging Trump committed a crime, is the Report's statement, and Mueller's, that the facts precluded them, and him, from exonerating Trump, which is translated as there IS incriminating evidence against Trump for obstruction of justice, hence, we cannot exonerate him.

Yet, you want to ignore all those facts, all those rational points, for the bizarre notions that there might be more facts, or presuming without knowing there are more facts, and attaching significance without justification to the lack of a formal accusation. None of which, right now, constitutes as a logical refutation of what I said in this post or preceding posts.

 

[rambot]

You presume more facts exist than what is provided in the Report. Maybe. Maybe not. You do not know whether there are more facts than what is stated in the Report. You are basing your claim of "bias" on the assumption there are more facts without knowing whether indeed there are more facts. That is a very hollow point you have just made.

You have not provided any rational objection to the conduct of relying upon the facts as elucidated in the Report and reaching a conclusion on the basis of those facts. The unsupported assumption of there are more facts is not a persuasive objection. The notion there could be more facts is not a persuasive objection.

All you have done is to touch upon the fact human beings lack omniscience. We do not know everything, we do not know every detail, we do not know every fact in existence. Rationally, however, that is not a logical impediment to examining the available evidence in existence at the present time and moment and drawing conclusions. This is exactly what is done in the scientific field, the natural sciences, and many other disciplines, like statistics, Sociology, psychology, etcetera. The criminal justice system is no different, as charges are alleged on the basis of evidence in existence at the present time and moment. I cannot tell you the number of occasions when, after filing criminal charges, the charges would subsequently be dismissed because of the discovery or disclosure of additional evidence. Yet, at the time I filed charges, I was justified in my belief there was sufficient evidence of a crime based on the available evidence in existence at the present time and moment. The fact there might be additional evidence somewhere out there, or there might not be, is not a rational reason for me to not have based my decision to charge on the then existing and available evidence.

The approach described above is not unique to or exclusively relegated to the natural sciences, scientific inquiry, or the criminal justice system, but instead is something human beings rationally do everyday in their normal course of life. The approach is also applicable here, to people scrutinizing the facts in the Report and concluding Trump committed a crime. The possibility there may be additional facts somewhere out there, or there may not be, is but a truism, but is not an objection to formulating an opinion of whether Trump committed a crime on the basis of the facts, adduced as a result of a thorough investigation, and elucidated in the Report.



Again, so what? What is the significance? Why is it significant at all?



This statement is not supported, indeed it is contradicted, by the section of the Report devoted to obstruction and attempted obstruction of justice. Mueller's Report about obstruction/attempted obstruction of justice illuminated facts discovered as a result of his investigation, not that there needed to be more investigation, and in regards to at least two but up to five instances, Mueller elucidates facts meeting every element of obstruction and explains how and why the facts meet each element of obstruction. To borrow attorney Hoeg's description from his Twitter account, which I have linked to elsewhere, "So this would appear to be the fifth claim the #MuellerReport would make on obstruction if it was in the business of establishing actual claims.." Richard Hoeg on Twitter



This comment, based upon a factually inaccurate and contradicted premise about the Report, namely, "He listed things that happened that he believed should be investigated," is not believable, because it is based on a factually inaccurate premise, a premise contradicted by the Report.

And, as Hoeg also astutely observed, Mueller did make a de facto allegation of "we believe someone committed a crime and here's why" by detailing how and why the elements of obstruction of justice are met in regards to 5 specific instances. “Technically, per the report, the fact that making a claim without a charge would prevent the President from availing himself of such defenses in an ordinary court proceeding is why no charges were recommended. Though, I think the approach taken has had a similar effect.” Richard Hoeg on Twitter

He is right! Detailing how and why the facts meet the elements of obstruction of justice in regards to 5 specific instances is the equivalent of saying, "we" believe Trump committed obstruction of justice in these 5 instances. Augmenting the notion that showing how and why the facts meet the elements of obstruction of justice is the de facto alleging Trump committed a crime, is the Report's statement, and Mueller's, that the facts precluded them, and him, from exonerating Trump, which is translated as there IS incriminating evidence against Trump for obstruction of justice, hence, we cannot exonerate him.

Yet, you want to ignore all those facts, all those rational points, for the bizarre notions that there might be more facts, or presuming without knowing there are more facts, and attaching significance without justification to the lack of a formal accusation. None of which, right now, constitutes as a logical refutation of what I said in this post or preceding posts.

I argued with a meme. You've gone to some pretty fancy language, legal clarity, and very strong arguments.

I'm curious if it will have a greater effect.

 

[stevil]

Just curious, but do other countries have forums like this where we can join?

I consider internet forums to be international.
You certainly meet people from many different countries, even here.

It's just that, I find the atheist and Christian based forums have a large amount of Americans on them.
Lots of Americans on atheist forums, in particular from Bible belt regions because they need a lot of support. They get suppressed and treated really bad in those regions.

 

[KCfromNC]

And Russia responded within hours of that request.

The important thing to remember, though is Donald has promised there was no contact between his campaign and Russia. Why would he lie about something like that?

 

[KCfromNC]

Nothing of what you said changes anything. You are entitled to believe he committed a crime. It's an opinion and doesn't mean he actually has. But it does seem off and based on bias when you don't have all the facts.

If there are already enough facts available to conclude that someone did commit a crime, I'm not sure the best defense to imply that there's even more evidence that one did.

But at least one can say that the justice system believes there is enough cause to accuse someone. Mueller didn't even do that.

Do you understand the multiple explanations of why this was the case, or does it have to be repeated yet again?

 

[rjs330]

You presume more facts exist than what is provided in the Report. Maybe. Maybe not. You do not know whether there are more facts than what is stated in the Report. You are basing your claim of "bias" on the assumption there are more facts without knowing whether indeed there are more facts. That is a very hollow point you have just made.

You have not provided any rational objection to the conduct of relying upon the facts as elucidated in the Report and reaching a conclusion on the basis of those facts. The unsupported assumption of there are more facts is not a persuasive objection. The notion there could be more facts is not a persuasive objection.

All you have done is to touch upon the fact human beings lack omniscience. We do not know everything, we do not know every detail, we do not know every fact in existence. Rationally, however, that is not a logical impediment to examining the available evidence in existence at the present time and moment and drawing conclusions. This is exactly what is done in the scientific field, the natural sciences, and many other disciplines, like statistics, Sociology, psychology, etcetera. The criminal justice system is no different, as charges are alleged on the basis of evidence in existence at the present time and moment. I cannot tell you the number of occasions when, after filing criminal charges, the charges would subsequently be dismissed because of the discovery or disclosure of additional evidence. Yet, at the time I filed charges, I was justified in my belief there was sufficient evidence of a crime based on the available evidence in existence at the present time and moment. The fact there might be additional evidence somewhere out there, or there might not be, is not a rational reason for me to not have based my decision to charge on the then existing and available evidence.

The approach described above is not unique to or exclusively relegated to the natural sciences, scientific inquiry, or the criminal justice system, but instead is something human beings rationally do everyday in their normal course of life. The approach is also applicable here, to people scrutinizing the facts in the Report and concluding Trump committed a crime. The possibility there may be additional facts somewhere out there, or there may not be, is but a truism, but is not an objection to formulating an opinion of whether Trump committed a crime on the basis of the facts, adduced as a result of a thorough investigation, and elucidated in the Report.



Again, so what? What is the significance? Why is it significant at all?



This statement is not supported, indeed it is contradicted, by the section of the Report devoted to obstruction and attempted obstruction of justice. Mueller's Report about obstruction/attempted obstruction of justice illuminated facts discovered as a result of his investigation, not that there needed to be more investigation, and in regards to at least two but up to five instances, Mueller elucidates facts meeting every element of obstruction and explains how and why the facts meet each element of obstruction. To borrow attorney Hoeg's description from his Twitter account, which I have linked to elsewhere, "So this would appear to be the fifth claim the #MuellerReport would make on obstruction if it was in the business of establishing actual claims.." Richard Hoeg on Twitter



This comment, based upon a factually inaccurate and contradicted premise about the Report, namely, "He listed things that happened that he believed should be investigated," is not believable, because it is based on a factually inaccurate premise, a premise contradicted by the Report.

And, as Hoeg also astutely observed, Mueller did make a de facto allegation of "we believe someone committed a crime and here's why" by detailing how and why the elements of obstruction of justice are met in regards to 5 specific instances. “Technically, per the report, the fact that making a claim without a charge would prevent the President from availing himself of such defenses in an ordinary court proceeding is why no charges were recommended. Though, I think the approach taken has had a similar effect.” Richard Hoeg on Twitter

He is right! Detailing how and why the facts meet the elements of obstruction of justice in regards to 5 specific instances is the equivalent of saying, "we" believe Trump committed obstruction of justice in these 5 instances. Augmenting the notion that showing how and why the facts meet the elements of obstruction of justice is the de facto alleging Trump committed a crime, is the Report's statement, and Mueller's, that the facts precluded them, and him, from exonerating Trump, which is translated as there IS incriminating evidence against Trump for obstruction of justice, hence, we cannot exonerate him.

Yet, you want to ignore all those facts, all those rational points, for the bizarre notions that there might be more facts, or presuming without knowing there are more facts, and attaching significance without justification to the lack of a formal accusation. None of which, right now, constitutes as a logical refutation of what I said in this post or preceding posts.

I've been saying all along that Trump could have committed Obstruction. None if what you said changes that. What I have said is no one including Mueller has actually brought that charge forward. Mueller says often that the things he listed were possible obstruction. He fell short of actual acts of obstruction. I don't really care what his reasoning was. He didn't accuse Trump of Obstruction. And neither has anyone else.

Could Trump have obstructed? Possibly. But possibly is a just a maybe. Maybe he did maybe he didn't. You believe he did. Fine. Some believe he didn't. Fine. I don't know if he did or didn't. Some of the incidents seem like they could be on the surface. But much of the information is based on verbal interactions. And if you know anything about about verbal interactions they are not particularly reliable.

And written interactions are just as bad sometimes. Take a look at these forums and how often stuff gets misconstrued or misunderstood.

So I will wait for someone to accuse him and bring out the evidence as to why before I say I think he did or didn't.

 

[bhsmte]

I've been saying all along that Trump could have committed Obstruction. None if what you said changes that. What I have said is no one including Mueller has actually brought that charge forward. Mueller says often that the things he listed were possible obstruction. He fell short of actual acts of obstruction. I don't really care what his reasoning was. He didn't accuse Trump of Obstruction. And neither has anyone else.

Could Trump have obstructed? Possibly. But possibly is a just a maybe. Maybe he did maybe he didn't. You believe he did. Fine. Some believe he didn't. Fine. I don't know if he did or didn't. Some of the incidents seem like they could be on the surface. But much of the information is based on verbal interactions. And if you know anything about about verbal interactions they are not particularly reliable.

And written interactions are just as bad sometimes. Take a look at these forums and how often stuff gets misconstrued or misunderstood.

So I will wait for someone to accuse him and bring out the evidence as to why before I say I think he did or didn't.

It is now up to the house, to use the evidence from the mueller report and take action if they feel obstruction occured.and or, after trump leaves office, to use the evidence to officially charge him, from the doj at that time.

 

[rjs330]

It is now up to the house, to use the evidence from the mueller report and take action if they feel obstruction occured.and or, after trump leaves office, to use the evidence to officially charge him, from the doj at that time.

And right now at least it doesn't appear that the house is too interested.

 

[bhsmte]

And right now at least it doesn't appear that the house is too interested.

Usually, impeachment is more of a political issue than anything else. It appears, the dems are concerned with perception, even though it appears they have the goods to move forward.

 

[KCfromNC]

And right now at least it doesn't appear that the house is too interested.

I'm not sure where anyone would get this idea from.

 

[bhsmte]

And right now at least it doesn't appear that the house is too interested.

They are worried, it would backfire on them and hurt 2020 prospects, plain and simple.

On the surface, they appear to have what they need to start impeachment proceedings and this would be their duty, if the majority feel the evidence is there.

On the other hand, the vast majority of politicians, are much more concerned about retaining power and staying in office, than doing their duty.

 

[stevil]

Usually, impeachment is more of a political issue than anything else. It appears, the dems are concerned with perception, even though it appears they have the goods to move forward.

But also there is the realisation that the Republicans don't care if their President is a criminal. They will support a lawless office and not consider removing law breakers out of office.

If the House impeach Trump, and it just gets rejected in the Senate, then what is the point?

Republicans are by and large not at all concerned about illegal or despicable behaviour.
They seem happy that Conway continues to break the law by disregarding the Hatch act, they seem happy that their president calls Manafort a good guy and that it is terrible what the dems did and justice system did to him (when Manafort committed many financial crimes and even participated in corrupt bribery trying to get a 16 million dollar loan and in return trying to get the bank CEO a job as secretary of the US army, the don't seem interested that the president supports Flynn who the judge says was selling his country out. they don't care that Trump had hired a strategist (Bannon) into the white house who had intimidated his wife into not testifying against him in a domestic abuse case. They don't care that Trump is issuing broad immunity to witnesses called into Congressional hearings, a clear obstruction of congressional oversight. They don't care that this government is bullying and oppressing the LGBT community, they don't care that this government is ripping innocent kids away from their parents, putting them in cages where some have died. They don't care that this govt is forcing sexual assault on pregnant woman in Missouri, forcing women to undergo an intrusive pelvic exam which has no medical utility whatsoever.

All they care about is the brand "Republican", "Trump", "MAGA"
Nothing else is of interest to them

 

[Pommer]

They are worried, it would backfire on them and hurt 2020 prospects, plain and simple.

On the surface, they appear to have what they need to start impeachment proceedings and this would be their duty, if the majority feel the evidence is there.

On the other hand, the vast majority of politicians, are much more concerned about retaining power and staying in office, than doing their duty.

The Supreme Court has a loose “Ripeness Doctrine” by which the High Court can let an issue percolate, back-and-forth, in the circuit courts until there’s a clear cut divide that can be adjudicated with precision, by The Nine.

Nancy wants to wait until there’s a “critical-mass”, (if only to appear that she’s not ready to fight to get Trump out of the White House, tooth-and-nail, everyday, forever.)

 

[rjs330]

But also there is the realisation that the Republicans don't care if their President is a criminal. They will support a lawless office and not consider removing law breakers out of office.

If the House impeach Trump, and it just gets rejected in the Senate, then what is the point?

Republicans are by and large not at all concerned about illegal or despicable behaviour.
They seem happy that Conway continues to break the law by disregarding the Hatch act, they seem happy that their president calls Manafort a good guy and that it is terrible what the dems did and justice system did to him (when Manafort committed many financial crimes and even participated in corrupt bribery trying to get a 16 million dollar loan and in return trying to get the bank CEO a job as secretary of the US army, the don't seem interested that the president supports Flynn who the judge says was selling his country out. they don't care that Trump had hired a strategist (Bannon) into the white house who had intimidated his wife into not testifying against him in a domestic abuse case. They don't care that Trump is issuing broad immunity to witnesses called into Congressional hearings, a clear obstruction of congressional oversight. They don't care that this government is bullying and oppressing the LGBT community, they don't care that this government is ripping innocent kids away from their parents, putting them in cages where some have died. They don't care that this govt is forcing sexual assault on pregnant woman in Missouri, forcing women to undergo an intrusive pelvic exam which has no medical utility whatsoever.

All they care about is the brand "Republican", "Trump", "MAGA"
Nothing else is of interest to them

Dispicable behavior is a matter if opinion. Now Congress can impeach a president for whatever, but rarely ever do. Johnson was one of the most dispicable people ever yet he wasn't impeached. Clinton's behavior was dispicable yet the Democrats supported him. It's the way of the world if politics. We could point out dispicable things Obama did too. So what? Each party is equally guilty of not impeaching someone for dispicable behavior. Were you equally angry against the Democrats? I doubt it very much. And much of what you said was despicable is sctictly a matter if opinion.

Conway is a good example. Were you equally critical of the Democrats when people in the Obama administration violated the Hatch act but weren't fired? I doubt it. You're not objective and hypocritical.

Do I think Trump should be impeached? Certainly not for the things you mention. If he is found to be guilty of obstruction, then he should be.

 

[Pommer]

Conway is a good example. Were you equally critical of the Democrats when people in the Obama administration violated the Hatch act but weren't fired? I doubt it. You're not objective and hypocritical.

Did any of the “Obama violators” have repeat violations?

‘Cause Conway did!

https://osc.gov/News/pr-19-10.pdf

 

[stevil]

Did any of the “Obama violators” have repeat violations?

‘Cause Conway did!

https://osc.gov/News/pr-19-10.pdf

We wouldn't be complaining if a person did this and was told "reminded" that it was an offense, they then apologise and try not to do it again.

It's like the H Clinton email server thing. She had a private email server, was told of her violation and then (well I presume) she then stopped using it for confidential comms, rather than defiantly continue to do it and taunt people to arrest her.