House Democrats launch official impeachment i

[Unusual Tournament]

Just now, susieice said:

Mueller handed his report over to Congress. This whole Russian thing was investigated. That's why they questioned him in front of a committee. A President can be brought up before Congress for impeachment. Nixon chose to resign rather than be impeached. Clinton was impeached by the House but not by the Senate. He was acquitted. 

A bit shocked you would compare Trump with Clinton, here. 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, susieice said:

So charge him!

If the democrats have the numbers then they should. 

[+susieice]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

A bit shocked you would compare Trump with Clinton, here. 

Clinton was under impeachment. lol

[Unusual Tournament]

In all, 35 people and three companies were charged by the special counsel on matters relating both directly and indirectly to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. No members of the Trump family were charged.

Mr Mueller and his team concluded that they were unable to charge the president with a crime, but could not exonerate him either. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778

[+susieice]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

If the democrats have the numbers then they should. 

They will because Pelosi is going to have no say. She's overruled.

[+susieice]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

In all, 35 people and three companies were charged by the special counsel on matters relating both directly and indirectly to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. No members of the Trump family were charged.

Mr Mueller and his team concluded that they were unable to charge the president with a crime, but could not exonerate him either. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778

So I've been listening to this for three years for what?

[Unusual Tournament]

Just now, susieice said:

They will because Pelosi is going to have no say. She's overruled.

Fantastic! 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, susieice said:

So I've been listening to this for three years for what?

So what would you like me to do about it?

[+susieice]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

So what would you like me to do about it?

You can't do anything. The House needs to file impeachment charges.

[+susieice]

5 minutes ago, susieice said:

Clinton was under impeachment. lol

This is a statement you know. I can say Clinton in the same sentence as Trump because Clinton indeed was in the process of being impeached.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, susieice said:

You can't do anything. The House needs to file impeachment charges.

Well i agree they should

[Unusual Tournament]

4 minutes ago, susieice said:

This is a statement you know. I can say Clinton in the same sentence as Trump because Clinton indeed was in the process of being impeached.

Really going to compare one man trying to hide a sex scandal from his family to a bloke that openly pays off porn stars and holds court with Russian spys? 

[+susieice]

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

Really going to compare one man trying to hide a sex scandal from his family to a bloke that openly pays off porn stars and holds court with Russian spys? 

Really are you going to keep complaining. Take Trump in front of Congress and press the charges. Clinton paid over $800,000 to pay off Paula Jones and she was when he was Governor of Arkansas. Poor Monica didn't get much but she kept that dress! 

[Gwynbleidd]

This is from Wikipedia Risky, thanks! 

Some of Trump's campaign members, business partners, administration nominees, and family members have been subjected to intense scrutiny following intelligence reports on such Russian interference. The investigations have revealed that a number of them had various types of links to or contacts with Russian officials, business people, banks, and Russian intelligence agencies. Several investigations are underway to determine whether Trump or any of his associates have had improper dealings during their contacts with Russian officials.^[1][2][3][4]

I've just been reading the source material numbered from 1 to 4 at the bottom there in that quote.  It says, no collusion, no collusion, no collusion, only rumors.

Plus, thinking objectively re this, Trump is a businessman, he'd have business contacts all over the world in many many countries.  It's not a crime to have business associates to Russian officials, business people, banks and Russian Intel agencies.  They're not even stating Trump had these friends, but his business associates did.  That's still not criminal.  

From your article The Week, there is this:

1. Collusion is not a legal term, therefore can someone confirm it is not a crime?

2. Focused on whether or not there was sufficient evidence to charge ANY MEMBER of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy.  There was not.

"We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term," Mueller said during his opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee. "Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not."

Edited August 3, 2019 by pixiii
sorry fixing spelling

[Unusual Tournament]

2 minutes ago, pixiii said:

This is from Wikipedia Risky, thanks! 

Some of Trump's campaign members, business partners, administration nominees, and family members have been subjected to intense scrutiny following intelligence reports on such Russian interference. The investigations have revealed that a number of them had various types of links to or contacts with Russian officials, business people, banks, and Russian intelligence agencies. Several investigations are underway to determine whether Trump or any of his associates have had improper dealings during their contacts with Russian officials.^[1][2][3][4]

I've just been reading the source material numbered from 1 to 4 at the bottom there in that quote.  It says, no collusion, no collusion, no collusion, only rumors.

Plus, thinking objectively re this, Trump is a businessman, he'd have business contacts all over the world is many many countries.  It's not a crime to have business associates to Russian officials, business people, banks and Russian Intel agencies.  They're not even stating Trump had these friends, but his business associates did.  That's still not criminal.  

From your article The Week, there is this:

1. Collusion is not a legal term, therefore can someone confirm it is not a crime?

2. Focused on whether or not there was sufficient evidence to charge ANY MEMBER of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy.  There was not.

"We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term," Mueller said during his opening statement before the House Judiciary Committee. "Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not."

straight from Mueller...

In all, 35 people and three companies were charged by the special counsel on matters relating both directly and indirectly to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. No members of the Trump family were charged.

Mr Mueller and his team concluded that they were unable to charge the president with a crime, but could not exonerate him either. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778

 

[Gwynbleidd]

7 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

straight from Mueller...

In all, 35 people and three companies were charged by the special counsel on matters relating both directly and indirectly to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. No members of the Trump family were charged.

Mr Mueller and his team concluded that they were unable to charge the president with a crime, but could not exonerate him either. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778

 

•  

Thankyou and I found this too....

Quote

Mr Mueller said he had not exonerated Mr Trump of obstruction of justice.

Would this be why the Dems want to impeach?

[spartan max2]

 

Quote

Mr Mueller and his team concluded that they were unable to charge the president with a crime, but could not exonerate him either.

 

The biggest BS statement. You can only prove someones guilt, if someone did a crime; you can't prove someone didn't do something. That statement is back words on how the criminal justice system works. You never prove innocence you can only prove someones guilt. 

It was never Mulller's job to "exonerate". 

Imagine if at court the judge was like " we can't prove he broke any laws, however we can't prove he didn't break any laws " 

Lol

Edited August 3, 2019 by spartan max2

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, susieice said:

So I've been listening to this for three years for what?

You may have been listening, but you've obviously not been hearing.

[ExpandMyMind]

4 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

 

 

The biggest BS statement. You can only prove someones guilt, if someone did a crime; you can't prove someone didn't do something. That statement is back words on how the criminal justice system works. You never prove innocence you can only prove someones guilt. 

It was never Mulller's job to "exonerate". 

Imagine if at court the judge was like " we can't prove he broke any laws, however we can't prove he didn't break any laws " 

Lol

It's lawyer speak for 'we had plenty of evidence, but not enough to get a conviction'. If you read the report it's clear that there is plenty of evidence.

This is why it cannot be considered an exoneration.

[RoofGardener]

7 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Hang on the facts are that Russia used social media and technology to influence the election,

 

True. 

"Trump had meetings with ex Russian intelligence types" - No he didn't.

", Trump publicity called on Russia to help his campaign" - He made a public joke about Clinton's emails. That is all. 

", instructed his people to hinder and lie to the investigators" - True, in regards obstructing an investigation about Russian collusion. But as it has been proven that there was NO collusion, it's difficult to get het up about it. 

"and if that wasn’t enough Trump has been towing a Russian foreign policy as his own." - which is, of course, the prerogative of the President.

"Now your argument is that Mueller didn’t find anything connecting Trump to Russia so Trump has done nothing wrong and Mueller wasted his time?" If Trump truly DIDN'T collude with Russia, as Mueller concludes (sort of), then that is correct. Or rather, Mueller didn't exactly waste his time; he proved a negative. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by RoofGardener

[F3SS]

This is like a trip through the funny farm. You guys are crazy!

7 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The Senate seats up for grabs were almost all in Republican strongholds. The Senate elections went as predicted by just about everyone.

1982 scares you doesn't it? It should.

3 hours ago, pixiii said:

My Husband (the American) has a message for you Susie - he said they're not heehawing...he said it's #orangemanbad  

I'm sorry, he made me do it.  

He's right. It's a collective madness. Trump has scrambled their brains.

[Gromdor]

5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

True. 

"Trump had meetings with ex Russian intelligence types" - No he didn't.

", Trump publicity called on Russia to help his campaign" - He made a public joke about Clinton's emails. That is all. 

", instructed his people to hinder and lie to the investigators" - True. about collusion. But as that was proven to be wrong anyway, where is the harm ? 

"and if that wasn’t enough Trump has been towing a Russian foreign policy as his own." - which is, of course, the prerogative of the President.

"Now your argument is that Mueller didn’t find anything connecting Trump to Russia so Trump has done nothing wrong and Mueller wasted his time?" If Trump truly DIDN'T collude with Russia, as Mueller concludes (sort of), then that is correct. Or rather, Mueller didn't exactly waste his time; he proved a negative. 

Wait, so we know that:

1) Trump welcomed Russian interference to his benefit- Trump Tower meeting, the "Joke" on TV, etc.

2) Russia interfered with the election.

3) Trump instructed his people to lie and hinder the investigation. (Which helps himself and the Russians in any future attempts.)

You know, that might not be enough to send him to prison, but it certainly should be enough to make sure he doesn't hold a sensitive job.  I know no one in the military would be able to hold a security clearance with stuff like that looming over them.

[+susieice]

4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You may have been listening, but you've obviously not been hearing.

Then approach the Congress. Why would you let a criminal in office for three years and do nothing but complain? Pelosi is losing the battle with the Dems. You only hear what you want to hear.

[Vorg]

The "Joke" on TV were for Hillary's emails that had already been "hacked" by a then unknown entity, and had Hillary complied with U.S Freedom of Information Act laws as a Secretary of State, her emails would have been available to anyone who requested them had they been on a lawful server.  She knew what she was doing using that hidden server. Judicial watch has shown that more Classified emails have been uncovered and that there was communications between her State Department and the Clinton foundation suggesting pay for play.          She had every reason to smash blackberries, and deletes 33,000 emails all while under subpoena from Congress for this very matter, if she had something to hide.  Yet, Director Comey let her "walk free" and focused on Trump.

Ton Fitton testified before Congress on Dec 13, 2018 on this matter. Here are a few excerpts

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by South Alabam

[Unusual Tournament]

8 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

 

 

The biggest BS statement. You can only prove someones guilt, if someone did a crime; you can't prove someone didn't do something. That statement is back words on how the criminal justice system works. You never prove innocence you can only prove someones guilt. 

It was never Mulller's job to "exonerate". 

Imagine if at court the judge was like " we can't prove he broke any laws, however we can't prove he didn't break any laws " 

Lol

So all the people charged had very close ties to Trump and his family and campaign but its BS? 

Id say it closer to we can’t prove you did anything wrong but you’re no gentleman Jim, sir! Of course Trump was the one that exonerated himself. It’s common practice for people that play hard and loose with the law to take such high ground.  Gotti, Capone and others have done the same. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Captain Risky