Do you support the Democrats trying to Impeach the President

[Belk]

There's an old man who eats children in these woods. He lives in an old cabin.

Well, I can't really show you where, but the woods are here, and people have said that he lives there.

Uh huh. Let us know when you get a bunch of federal prosecutors to agree with you.

 

[Aldebaran]

Really? I'm certain @NotreDame will be surprised to hear that since he has a chart on it that he has presented at least twice.





OK

You call that proof? Let's take a look:
"Conduct regarding Flynn investigation": That's not even an accusation.

"Comey announcement of Russia Investigation": And Trump did what exactly?

"Comey Firing": So what? He fired an Obama-era guy. Big deal? He has that right.

"Efforts to Fire Mueller": He could have just done so with no effort. He didn't.

"Conduct Toward" (x6): Nothing specific mentioned in any of these.

 

[Aldebaran]

Uh huh. Let us know when you get a bunch of federal prosecutors to agree with you.

Considering the similarity, I doubt it would be difficult, especially if those federal prosecutors were going to make enough money.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Pelosi needs to man up, do what is right & push for impeachment of Donald Trump. It needs to be taken care of for the dignity & integrity of the country.

I trust her better judgement informed by her over 30 years experience in national politics.

If she says don't jump on impeachment just yet, I'd listen.

 

[Allandavid]

You call that proof? Let's take a look:
"Conduct regarding Flynn investigation": That's not even an accusation.

"Comey announcement of Russia Investigation": And Trump did what exactly?

"Comey Firing": So what? He fired an Obama-era guy. Big deal? He has that right.

"Efforts to Fire Mueller": He could have just done so with no effort. He didn't.

"Conduct Toward": Nothing specific mentioned in any of these.

I see the futility in trying to rationally debate with a rusted-on Trump supporter.

No matter what the evidence presented, the knee jerk response is “uh-uh”....

 

[Belk]

You call that proof? Let's take a look:
"Conduct regarding Flynn investigation": That's not even an accusation.

"Comey announcement of Russia Investigation": And Trump did what exactly?

"Comey Firing": So what? He fired an Obama-era guy. Big deal? He has that right.

"Efforts to Fire Mueller": He could have just done so with no effort. He didn't.

"Conduct Toward": Nothing specific mentioned in any of these.

No, I do not call it proof. I also do not call it anything other then what you asked for. What the accusation for obstruction of justice was based on. There you go. There it is. What it is based on. You are not now going to move the goal posts are you?

 

[Aldebaran]

I see the futility in trying to rationally debate with a rusted-on Trump supporter.

No matter what the evidence presented, the knee jerk response is “uh-uh”....

My response was "still nothing specific as to what this so-called 'obstruction of justice is about".

 

[Belk]

Considering the similarity, I doubt it would be difficult, especially if those federal prosecutors were going to make enough money.

Where did you receive your law degree?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You call that proof? Let's take a look:
"Conduct regarding Flynn investigation": That's not even an accusation.

"Comey announcement of Russia Investigation": And Trump did what exactly?

"Comey Firing": So what? He fired an Obama-era guy. Big deal? He has that right.

"Efforts to Fire Mueller": He could have just done so with no effort. He didn't.

"Conduct Toward" (x6): Nothing specific mentioned in any of these.

These are all references to actions detailed in Volume II of the Mueller Report. I'd suggest reading it. Here's a link to the Table of Contents for that section, which has handy hyperlinks to the specific text detailing the evidence for each of the points in that chart: Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index

 

[Aldebaran]

No, I do not call it proof. I also do not call it anything other then what you asked for. What the accusation for obstruction of justice was based on. There you go. There it is. What it is based on. You are not now going to move the goal posts are you?

Fine. It is an accusation based on other accusations. No different than accusing asking a guy if he still beats his wife based on the assumption that he ever beat his wife, and then charging him wife spousal abuse based on the fact that he was asked if he still beats his wife.

 

[Aldebaran]

Where did you receive your law degree?

Trump University.

 

[Aldebaran]

These are all references to actions detailed in Volume II of the Mueller Report. I'd suggest reading it. Here's a link to the Table of Contents for that section, which has handy hyperlinks to the specific text detailing the evidence for each of the points in that chart: Read the Mueller Report: Searchable Document and Index

My favorite part is where it says, "Factual results of the obstruction investigation", and then has "Press reports allege links between the Trump campaign and Russia" under it, as if what the Press alleges is now a fact.
Flimsy indeed!

 

[RocksInMyHead]

My favorite part is where it says, "Factual results of the obstruction investigation", and then has "Press reports allege links between the Trump campaign and Russia" under it, as if what the Press alleges is now a fact.
Flimsy indeed!

So the press did NOT allege links between the Trump campaign and Russia?

ETA: If this is truly what you think that sentence means, you may want to work on your reading comprehension. Press reports did indeed allege links between the Trump campaign and Russia. That is a fact. Nowhere is Mueller saying that they were correct in their allegations. However, their allegations - true or not - did have an influence on the President and the public, so they are worth mentioning.

 

[Belk]

Fine. It is an accusation based on other accusations. No different than accusing asking a guy if he still beats his wife based on the assumption that he ever beat his wife, and then charging him wife spousal abuse based on the fact that he was asked if he still beats his wife.

Trump University.

It shows. This is nothing like your analogy. Is is based on concrete actions that are well documented to have happened.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

There is plenty of evidence of a felony. Anybody but the President would probably be on trial right now.

No there isn't plenty of evidence of a felony in regards to President Donald Trump.

 

[Arcangl86]

No there isn't plenty of evidence of a felony in regards to President Donald Trump.

Special Counsel Muller laid out three different cases for obstruction of justice.

 

[Pommer]

.

 

[Allandavid]

My response was "still nothing specific as to what this so-called 'obstruction of justice is about".

And you were given specifics....which you dismissed out of hand.

What a surprise....

 

[Allandavid]

No there isn't plenty of evidence of a felony in regards to President Donald Trump.

I guess if you don’t look, you won’t see any....

 

[Belk]

No there isn't plenty of evidence of a felony in regards to President Donald Trump.

Actual lawyers disagree with you.