- Posts: 4627
- Thank you received: 60
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.
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.
He didn't obstruct justice and you can't say that wanting a bogus investigation to be over is in itself obstruction of 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.
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.
Brandon wrote: In reality (a foreign land for trump's tools) the idiot king told McGahn to fire Mueller. That's just one example.
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.