Jump to content

Should Democrats impeach Trump?


OILERMAN

Recommended Posts

It seems what he has done is likely impeachable by the standards on what has led to impeachment before. But there may be something to trying to let it ride into momentum against him heading into the election and beating him, as I don't think his fans will accept it well. Especially with their propaganda recently using language suggesting they want to see their opponents executed - they're gearing up for bloodshed.

 

I mean they'll claim a rigged election too for sure, but they'll only claim that half heartedly. Impeachment would be a fittingly embarrassing end for a President his own people can't trust to make sane decisions, but it could light a fire.

Edited by OzTitan
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 546
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I go back to Obama late in his term when he decided to let McConnell threaten him about exposing Russia interference. Al Franken rolling over and resigning.    Democrats far too often lay ba

This goes to more than just the Mueller report. We know Trump was individual 1 in the Stormy Daniels pay off and he lied.    Trump gave his kids security clearances despite them failing the

Same thread. 45 minutes later...  

The problem is Trump has now been exposed as a lying crook. A lot of people already thought it but now it's in black and white and everyone sees it.  He's hiding behind the fact the sitting president can't be indicted and "collusion" isn't really a legal term. You can't have a lower bar. 

 

The obstruction is so blatant that it's not going away. The president asked people to lie, dangled pardons, threatened witnesses etc....

 

It's only going to get worse with Mueller testifying and the bank/tax records on the way and plenty more investigations. 

 

It's pretty hard to see how his term goes another two years with any kind of legitimacy. 

 

Whether or not Trump should be impeached, was collusion a crime, can the president be indicted are all seminatics. What's not in question is that Trump is out an outright lying untrustworthy crook. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

The problem is Trump has now been exposed as a lying crook. A lot of people already thought it but now it's in black and white and everyone sees it.  He's hiding behind the fact the sitting president can't be indicted and "collusion" isn't really a legal term. You can't have a lower bar. 

 

The obstruction is so blatant that it's not going away. The president asked people to lie, dangled pardons, threatened witnesses etc....

 

It's only going to get worse with Mueller testifying and the bank/tax records on the way and plenty more investigations. 

 

It's pretty hard to see how his term goes another two years with any kind of legitimacy. 

 

Whether or not Trump should be impeached, was collusion a crime, can the president be indicted are all seminatics. What's not in question is that Trump is out an outright lying untrustworthy crook. 

 

It’s a really strange situation. I can’t wrap my mind around the Mueller conclusion. He didn’t have to indict Trump unless he found outright conspiracy. He could have said he obstructed justice in his opinion and let it go from there, but he didn’t when the evidence is obvious. He had every right to state clearly that determination, yet he left the entirety of it in a grey area. Why?

 

He obviously had a reason for doing so. I don’t think it’s the fact he can’t indict either, though that plays a large roll in the entirety of it. The only thing I can think of is Mueller is asking the country to walk lightly here. He knows if the Dems impeach on Obstruction it moves nowhere and likely solidifies his re-election. That’s all I can come up with that makes sense, because the evidence is overwhelming. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

 He had every right to state clearly that determination, yet he left the entirety of it in a grey area. Why?

He said it was an issue for congress to decide 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

He said it was an issue for congress to decide 

That doesn’t make much sense. Maybe I’m wrong, but from what I understand he had the right to a conclusion even if he couldn’t indict. If that is indeed the case then it’s strange he made  essentially the opposite of a judgement on the situation. 

 

@Legaltitan @ChesterCopperpot1 I know you guys are in different fields but do you have any input on this? Could Mueller have made a judgement even without the ability to indict? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

That doesn’t make much sense. Maybe I’m wrong, but from what I understand he had the right to a conclusion even if he couldn’t indict. If that is indeed the case then it’s strange he made  essentially the opposite of a judgement on the situation. 

 

@Legaltitan @ChesterCopperpot1 I know you guys are in different fields but do you have any input on this? Could Mueller have made a judgement even without the ability to indict? 

I actually just listened to the lawfare podcast and the lawyers debate your very question. A few were critical of Mueller for “punting” and pointed out he said if he thought he was not guilty he would have said that, essentially meaning the investigation could only clear the president. The others said the doj policy kept Mueller from being able to recommend indictment and there was no reason since Trump can’t be indicted. One also pointed out that Barr took advantage of that to try and say Trump wasn’t guilty. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OILERMAN said:

I actually just listened to the lawfare podcast and the lawyers debate your very question. A few were critical of Mueller for “punting” and pointed out he said if he thought he was not guilty he would have said that, essentially meaning the investigation could only clear the president. The others said the doj policy kept Mueller from being able to recommend indictment and there was no reason since Trump can’t be indicted. One also pointed out that Barr took advantage of that to try and say Trump wasn’t guilty. 

I’ll check it out. It’s a nuance that really interests me. 

 

I personally think what happened with Comey regarding Clinton really put a clamp on the situation in Mueller’s mind. He did not want to feed the idiots with gasoline with Trump standing next to them with a Zippo. He couldn’t move on the guy and he knew regardless of his recommendation that he wouldn’t be removed through impeachment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

That doesn’t make much sense. Maybe I’m wrong, but from what I understand he had the right to a conclusion even if he couldn’t indict. If that is indeed the case then it’s strange he made  essentially the opposite of a judgement on the situation. 

 

@Legaltitan @ChesterCopperpot1 I know you guys are in different fields but do you have any input on this? Could Mueller have made a judgement even without the ability to indict? 

Based on the DOJ’s position a sitting president cannot be indicted, no, I don’t think so. But that’s just my interpretation. I wouldn’t say that’s fact. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

No. Win 2020, sit back, relax, and watch the indictments roll in from the SDNY as soon as he leaves office. Trump’s days are numbered. Whether it’s in 2021 or 2025, he’s getting indicted. He better hope he dies in office. 

Btw, the indictments from the SDNY will have almost nothing to do with Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

Based on the DOJ’s position a sitting president cannot be indicted, no, I don’t think so. But that’s just my interpretation. I wouldn’t say that’s fact. 

I’m asking if since that is the case if it stopped Mueller from making a determination on obstruction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I’m asking if since that is the case if it stopped Mueller from making a determination on obstruction. 

No. I don’t think Mueller believes he obstructed. Mueller did conclude Trump attempted to obstruct, but those attempts were quashed by his staff’s refusal to do his dirty work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is there really are no specific guidelines on what Mueller should do. The report only needed to explain who was indicted and why and who they declined to indict and why. And to the extent there was wiggle room I think Mueller wisely stayed his hand when it came to the president. At that point its more political than legal. I think he walked a pretty good balance personally but yall know as much as I do about the legal guidelines. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...