Impeachment proceeding are meaningless, UNLESS the R'S get a rigid rod attached to their spine.....they are KEENLY aware that the king is their ONLY hope for 2020....therefore the
blatant BLANK faces you see before you are his robots......awaiting instructions.
A bipartisan House voted this week against impeaching the President. 300+ Democrats and Republicans did not agree with the idea. A small bipartisan group of 89 Democrats and 6 Republicans did vote to impeach the current POTUS.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
homeagain wrote: Impeachment proceeding are meaningless, UNLESS the R'S get a rigid rod attached to their spine.....they are KEENLY aware that the king is their ONLY hope for 2020....therefore the
blatant BLANK faces you see before you are his robots......awaiting instructions.
I was always under the impression that actual impeachable offenses were required in order to impeach a president. There are not any, therefore he won't be impeached no matter how much the crazies hope and pray. If your worthless sources were correct in their claims of impeachable offenses there would be an impeachment process and this thread would finally be accurate. Maybe next week... wait for it.
Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense, and in every place other than the unhinged fantasy world that the right-wing nut media has created for its tools, the idiot king did his level best to obstruct justice.
Brandon wrote: Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense, and in every place other than the unhinged fantasy world that the right-wing nut media has created for its tools, the idiot king did his level best to obstruct justice.
He didn't obstruct justice and you can't say that wanting a bogus investigation to be over is in itself obstruction of justice.
Obstruction of justice would be deleting 33,000 emails from a secret server that contained classified information.
Brandon wrote: In reality (a foreign land for trump's tools) the idiot king told McGahn to fire Mueller. That's just one example.
You need to look up the definition of obstruction. You should know that Trump could have fired Mueller at any time and never did. Even if he did it would have been legal,especially since there was no real evidence of a crime. A new tool would have been appointed to carry on the hoax investigation.
Here, let me help:
obstruction of justice
ob·struc·tion of justice | \ əb-ˈstrək-shən-\
Legal Definition of obstruction of justice
: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process
the defendant's obstruction of justice led to a more severe sentence
Precisely. When the idiot king ordered McGahn to fire Mueller, that fit the definition of obstruction of justice. Fortunately for the idiot king, McGahn didn't actually do it.
In your bubble, there may be no evidence of a crime, but in reality 26 russian individuals and 3 russian organizations have been indicted for interference in the 2016 election. Is that also part of the conspiracy/hoax?
But he tried to fire Mueller, Rick, and even an attempt to obstruct justice is a crime. Just because his lawyer didn't follow through with it, and Sessions refused to un-recuse himself, doesn't mean that Trump's orders to do either doesn't mean he's not guilty of obstruction of justice. Mueller stated quite clearly: Were Trump not President of the Unites States, he'd be indicted already for his crimes. The fact that the highest office in our land is somehow exempt from justice is a travesty of justice and this flaw in our system must be addressed.
It follows that an endeavor to obstruct justice need not be successful to be criminal. See, e.g., Osborn, 385 U.S. at 333; United States v. Bucey, 876 F.2d 1297, 1314 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989); United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Barfield, 999 F.2d 1520, 1522 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. Wood, 6 F.3d 692, 695 (10th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, factual impossibility, which arises when the defendant solicits a third party to obstruct justice and the third party is a government informant, is not a valid defense. See United States v. Osborn, supra and United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d at 1228-29.
About 120 Democrats have said publicly that they would vote to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump. Nadler, of late, has argued that such a vote would be unnecessary because his committee is already engaged in an “impeachment investigation,” but Republicans have rejected that position and argue that only a formal vote can launch proceedings.
That determination is now in the hands of Beryl Howell, chief judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, who is weighing Democrats’ petition to access Mueller’s grand jury information. In their filing, committee Democrats argued that they should be treated as actively investigating impeachment because the House referred articles of impeachment to the panel in January and the fact that its members have repeatedly referenced the prospect of recommending articles over the course of their investigations.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
