Impeaching Trump for obstructing a non-crime: Civil War

[The2ndAmendment]

If you had actually read it you wouldn't have said "no collusion"

Please cite the Mueller Report that indicates collusion.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election . Section IV describes links between the government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

Section IV starts on page 66. Good luck (page 66 = page 74 in the PDF)

From Section IV:

1. Immediate Post-Election Activity As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President- Elect. As explained below , those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches-sanctioned at high levels of the Russian government-through business rather than political contacts.

From Section IV, Volume I:

1. Immediate Post-Election Activity As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President- Elect. As explained below , those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches-sanctioned at high levels of the Russian government-through business rather than political contacts.

 

[Crepitus]

Also I just wanna mention that you armchair revolutionaries crack me the fuck up.

Losers.

There's a number of people here with a CIB and I happen to belong to the Combat Infantrymen's Association, a group of tens of thousands. Our armchair was a muddy foxhole somewhere in enemy territory. So tell us more about armchair revolutionaries and crack us up.

Then you think you had more sense than making empty threats.

I don't make threats. I make promises.

^Empty threat^

Moron.

 

[Mike473]

No collusion.

Goodbye.

I read all of Volume I.

Volume II had no citations of law or statues, just opinion.

If you had actually read it you wouldn't have said "no collusion"

I read it and there was absolutely NO COLLUSION... Reading impaired liberals...

You can't be serious.

Another one?

Has not one single one of.you actually read this damn thing?

We should all log off. Go out to dinner with our family and friends. Raise a toast to a great President and an innocent man. No collusion. No obstruction. Let's celebrate and move on to finding out who is responsible for this mess.

I tell you what, why don't you quote where in the report it says "no collusion" and I'll never bother you again.

I apologize. CNN & Maddow use collusion so often it is a buzzword. No conspiracy, no obstruction. Does that work better?

 

[Mac1958]

Cool, more "civil war" talk.

Funny.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If you had actually read it you wouldn't have said "no collusion"

Please cite the Mueller Report that indicates collusion.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election . Section IV describes links between the government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

Section IV starts on page 66. Good luck (page 66 = page 74 in the PDF)

"Collusion"?

Are you really that dumb?

Read the damn report, then you will know why I say that.

From the Mueller Report:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

`
From the Mueller Report on whether or not the Trump campaign conspired (coordinated or colluded) with the Russians to interfere with the election (if you can cite something in the report to the contrary, please do so):

Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

 

[Crepitus]

If you had actually read it you wouldn't have said "no collusion"

Please cite the Mueller Report that indicates collusion.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election . Section IV describes links between the government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

Section IV starts on page 66. Good luck (page 66 = page 74 in the PDF)

From Section IV:

1. Immediate Post-Election Activity As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President- Elect. As explained below , those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches-sanctioned at high levels of the Russian government-through business rather than political contacts.

From Section IV, Volume I:

1. Immediate Post-Election Activity As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President- Elect. As explained below , those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches-sanctioned at high levels of the Russian government-through business rather than political contacts.

That does not say "no collusion".

Keep looking.

 

[Hossfly]

Also I just wanna mention that you armchair revolutionaries crack me the fuck up.

Losers.

There's a number of people here with a CIB and I happen to belong to the Combat Infantrymen's Association, a group of tens of thousands. Our armchair was a muddy foxhole somewhere in enemy territory. So tell us more about armchair revolutionaries and crack us up.

Then you think you had more sense than making empty threats.

I don't make threats. I make promises.

^Empty threat^

Moron.

Don't worry about it.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Do it Dems.

I have no doubt that impeaching Trump for "obstruction" of a crime he did not commit would start a VERY HOT Civil War.

I'm looking forward to it.

Nothing but blood, prison and public executions of the losing side is going to settle this conflict. You've made that clear by doubling down on the Mueller Report.

Speaking from the standpoint of an opponent to Trump, it would be extremely foolish of the Democratic Party to impeach Trump. I watched Fox today, and who did they showcase besides Trump? The euphemistically called Trump Network focused on Senator and Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren and her call for impeachment.

Trump Republicans talk more about impeachment than the Democrats. Trump Republicans want the Democrats to impeach Trump. Warren, AOC, Omar, and Tlaib, Democratic women who favor impeachment, are doing more damage to the Democratic Party than Trump ever could. Their rhetoric is designed to give Trump four more years.

What is the purpose here? Is it impeachment? No. Is it removing Trump from the Oval Office? YES!

Impeachment will not do that. Unless Trump murders someone, no way will Trump Republicans vote to convict Trump. Notice the total silence from the GOP leadership regarding the damaging and embarrassing evidence in the redacted version of the Mueller Report. Nothing from McConnell or Graham. They don't care. All they care about is re-electing Trump. Convicting Trump on impeachment charges won't do that.

In addition, the Democratic Party will be blamed for the shame of a failed impeachment. In addition, if the House impeaches, all that will be accomplished in the next two years is impeachment proceedings and trial in the Senate. Everything else will grind to a halt.

Which is why the Democratic leadership -- Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer, Nadler and others -- are saying, as things stand now, there will be no impeachment proceeding. According to the leadership, there will be impeachment only if there is overwhelming, bipartisan grounds for doing so.

Why? First, the Democratic Party will be blamed for wasting taxpayer dollars and enormous time on the failed attempt, and impeachment assuredly would fail. Second, Trump would become a martyr, a victim of Democratic overreach. Three, the Democrats want to run against a crippled candidate in 2020, not a martyr. Investigations in the House will continue, including examining the unredacted version of the Mueller Report along with the underlying evidence.

What is amazing to me is, why in the hell can't Warren, a freaking Senator, see that. Amazing, positively amazing. The three young things, AOC, Omar, and Tlaib can be excused for their inexperience and incredible naïveté, but a Senator. Incredible.

As for Trump getting off light, he will suffer the indignity of a sitting President being defeated. Also, the DOJ has a rule that a sitting President can't be indicted. There are a number of crimes Trump could be charged with after leaving office.

 

[Crepitus]

If you had actually read it you wouldn't have said "no collusion"

Please cite the Mueller Report that indicates collusion.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election . Section IV describes links between the government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

Section IV starts on page 66. Good luck (page 66 = page 74 in the PDF)

"Collusion"?

Are you really that dumb?

Read the damn report, then you will know why I say that.

From the Mueller Report:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

And that my children is why I laugh every time some dingbat repeats the "no collusion" mantra.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you had actually read it you wouldn't have said "no collusion"

Please cite the Mueller Report that indicates collusion.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election . Section IV describes links between the government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

Section IV starts on page 66. Good luck (page 66 = page 74 in the PDF)

"Collusion"?

Are you really that dumb?

Read the damn report, then you will know why I say that.

From the Mueller Report:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

And finally to answer your question:

Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

"Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Bingo..

The reading impaired wont find this very important point as they are busy looking for a non-crime to charge him with...

 

[Mike473]

Can we all raise a toast to President Trump and celebrate our great President? No Conspiracy. No Collusion. No Obstruction. Low unemployment. Great economy. Getting out of foreign wars. Renegotiating terrible Clinton era trade deals and on and on!

 

[MaryL]

Yet here we are, Liberal democrats that stand against foreigners colluding in our political system, somehow defend illegal aliens from Latin America violating immigration laws, to the point of unconstitionaly creating artificial laws? Pot calling the kettle black? Creating sanctuary cities without and above the Constitional processes beyond and outside the whishes of the American populace? That is what happening.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And that my children is why I laugh every time some dingbat repeats the "no collusion" mantra.

From the Mueller Report on whether or not the Trump campaign conspired (coordinated or colluded) with the Russians to interfere with the election (if you can cite something in the report to the contrary, please do so):

Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So you're going impeach Trump on twitter posts?

Demonstrating yet again that every reply beginning with "So..." inevitably ends up lying and distorting.

I am not doing anything, dummy. I'm just waiting for all those who have actually read the report (which you clearly have not) to react with the same disgust I cannot get rid of, and draw their own conclusions (which you clearly can not).

Cite the parts of the Mueller Report that disgust you. I've cited over 4000 words of report in this thread already. Your turn.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you had actually read it you wouldn't have said "no collusion"

Please cite the Mueller Report that indicates collusion.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election . Section IV describes links between the government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

Section IV starts on page 66. Good luck (page 66 = page 74 in the PDF)

From Section IV:

1. Immediate Post-Election Activity As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President- Elect. As explained below , those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches-sanctioned at high levels of the Russian government-through business rather than political contacts.

From Section IV, Volume I:

1. Immediate Post-Election Activity As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President- Elect. As explained below , those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches-sanctioned at high levels of the Russian government-through business rather than political contacts.

That does not say "no collusion".

Keep looking.

Collusion is not a crime.... You fucking moron!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If you had actually read it you wouldn't have said "no collusion"

Please cite the Mueller Report that indicates collusion.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election . Section IV describes links between the government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

Section IV starts on page 66. Good luck (page 66 = page 74 in the PDF)

From Section IV:

1. Immediate Post-Election Activity As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President- Elect. As explained below , those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches-sanctioned at high levels of the Russian government-through business rather than political contacts.

From Section IV, Volume I:

1. Immediate Post-Election Activity As soon as news broke that Trump had been elected President, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new Administration. They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President- Elect. As explained below , those efforts entailed both official contact through the Russian Embassy in the United States and outreaches-sanctioned at high levels of the Russian government-through business rather than political contacts.

That does not say "no collusion".

Keep looking.

Collusion is not a crime.... You fucking moron!

Let's put him on ignore. He's acting like a child now.

Crepitus


Welcome to ignore.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Well it sure ain't gonna be you drooling idiots sitting behind your keyboards and stroking your penis substitute.

Conservatives don't endorse LGBTQ genital mutilation.

 

[candycorn]

Also I just wanna mention that you armchair revolutionaries crack me the fuck up.

Losers.

I've lost track; has every Trump supporter gone on record as being in favor of a civil war yet? It sure seems like it. If this is "winning" I can't wait to see what losing looks like.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't think it would. Everyone has their lazy dumb phones to play with and a grocery loaded with goodies. Aint nothing happening.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do it Dems.

I have no doubt that impeaching Trump for "obstruction" of a crime he did not commit would start a VERY HOT Civil War.

I'm looking forward to it.

Nothing but blood, prison and public executions of the losing side is going to settle this conflict. You've made that clear by doubling down on the Mueller Report.

Read the report son. This isn't a "non crime".

No collusion.

Goodbye.

I read all of Volume I.

Volume II had no citations of law or statues, just opinion.

If you had actually read it you wouldn't have said "no collusion"

I read it and there was absolutely NO COLLUSION... Reading impaired liberals...

You can't be serious.

Another one?

Has not one single one of.you actually read this damn thing?

Obviously you have not read it. They specifically looked for "Coordination" as Collusion is not a crime by statute. Had you actually read the document you would know this and would understand that Vol II was a nothing burger.