It is now time to bring up articles of impeachment against Trump

[BWK]

Please let the House waste all their time on a baseless and wasteful impeachment over absolutely nothing. Then the GOP will take the House back and re-elect Trump on 2020

No they won't, because the rule of law and the truth are more powerful than those criminals in the WH. This election proved that.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No one needs to provide links when you provide links which defeat your own idiotic arguments.

It is not necessary to work to defeat you. You are so uneducated and dumb you defeat yourself.

So let's recap. The election as legal and every time you claim otherwise you are lying and that fact has been proven.

The tweets in question were not witness tampering and the links you provided clearly prove that fact which makes you more of a coward and liar.

You are a total brainwashed fool and everyone knows it.

So lets see some evidence boy you have failed to provide any so far and no one else need provide any evidence because the burden is on you and your weak ass has yet to shoulder the burden of proof.


Provide some evidence

Lol! You have not provided any statutes, or any legal publications for Trump, to the contrary. Telling me that links are not required, we'll, something needs to be produced, and your own personal rant isn't going to take you any where.

By doing what Trump does and attacking the law, or the messenger who is disseminating those laws via the activity by Trump and his associates without providing us with an intelligent rebuttal, other than your own failed attacks is worth teats on a bo hog. You aren't saying anything. Show us substance, not bs.

No kidding foolish one.

I do not need to provide any statutes YOU DO.

One needs to provide no statute to say one has NOT broken the law and he has not broken it as you claim he has. The burden is on YOU and strictly on you to cite the law he broke and you have failed to do so. You cited a law but his tweet did not violate the statute which you cited and that fact is proven.

Links are not required by me they are required by YOU as you are the only one making an accusation.

SHow some evidence and stop evading like the coward you are

Statutes were already provided to you, and the activity matches the violations to those statutes.

Wrong the activity in no way violates the statutes you provided.

The problem with your statement is the fact that you aren't saying anything

The tweet made no effort to suggest what stone should say the statute ABSOLUTELY requires it.

That is the beauty of the statute. It isn't requiring a specific strategy to get a message to the witness. The fact that the message from Trump to stone was cheer leading him on with what Stone said he was not going to do are the verbal actions taken by a co-conspirator who is the one being investigated. He involved himself verbally with that witness, which is witness tampering. The links I provided back me up.

Wrong dumbass the links you posted do not back you up

The links do not forbid witnesses to speak to each other but they do require someone to try and force or coere another on what to say which did not happen.

Your links prove you wrong

 

[EverCurious]

BWK You do realize that you're pinning your hopes on sources that are not exactly considered to be "legitimate" and "unbiased" right?

I mean the first link you provide as "backup" for your opinion is from a "media" source that wrote the book “How to Get Rid of a President: History’s Guide to Removing Unpopular, Unable, or Unfit Chief Executives”

All I have to add here is lol

 

[Soupnazi630]

The law is clear and the crime is clear, as are the opinions of law experts; Is Donald Trump's Tweet About Roger Stone Witness Tampering?

Trump hailed Roger Stone for standing up to Mueller. Some legal experts said that's tampering.

George Conway Suggests New Donald Trump Tweet May Break The Law | HuffPost

Is President Trump Tampering With Witnesses Through Twitter?

Trump's praise for Roger Stone could amount to witness tampering – experts

The unimportant people you cite mean nothing. Agreement is not evidence.

Unlike fools like you most of us do not need others to do our thinking for us. We can read and comprehend the law. The law you cited was not violated by trump and that is fact.

Now cough up some evidence boy or stop repeating debunked assertions

You once again are producing nothing and saying nothing. You are not able to challenge any statute or opinion. That's the bottom line. You are an idiot withy nothing to offer.

Once again you are a liar I am staying facts which prove you wrong and you are providing the evidence.

I do not have to challenge a statute the statute is absolute proof you are wrong.

It does not say what you are claiming proving that you are a very stupid liar.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Trump is totally unhinged and out of control because his team has zero defense for him;Trump goes after Mueller probe in Friday tweets

https://media1.s-

He needs no defense as you cannot show a crime her has commited

The laws match the activity. I've already shown that in my past posts.That is a fact, a reality, and it has been proven. The fact that you have zero understanding of how the law is interpreted is a testament to your failure to rebut the argument between the law and Trump's actions. You aren't able to accomplish that, because Trump's illegal activity align perfectly with violating that statute. If you had been able to discern those differences, you would have already done it. Telling me it is not illegal, is just telling me and the rest of us on this forum that you have failed to make that case. You've been telling us nothing the whole time. Produce something instead of saying nothing.

No they do not natch the activity and you are lying.

If that were true, you could explain how. But you can't. Therefore, you are lying.

The fact and reality is that the links you posted to statues do not match the tweet.

Again, no explanation from you as to how they do not match.

I am not telling you it is not illegal the law you cited is telling you it is not illegal.

Lol! You are talking like a total ignoramus. The law and the actions match the crime. The law and the opinions of experts confirm it. Where are your expert opinions that explain it differently? Exactly, they don't exist.

No where in his tweet about stone did he suggest what stone should say.

Exactly! Stone said what Trunmp wanted to hear. And Trump cheer leaded for it. Now stone knows what Trump likes. Because he told Stone on twitter. that's communication. Any fool knows that.

The burden is not on anyone except you to make the case and you have failed to do so.

Negative! The burden has already been satisfied and you are helplessly lost to explain other wise.

You produce something to support your assertions as you have massively failed to do so

You mean the laws assertions right?

I did clearly explain how.

The law requires trump to attempt to make the other guy say something. The tweet made no such effort or suggestion therefore the tweet does not constitute witness tampering.

I did explain several times how they do not match liar

The statute does not forbid what trump tweeted. It does not forbid communication.

Liar you have not satisfied the burden.

Now try and post some evidence.

No I mean your assertions which the laws debunk

 

[Soupnazi630]

Trump is totally unhinged and out of control because his team has zero defense for him;Trump goes after Mueller probe in Friday tweets

https://media1.s-

He needs no defense as you cannot show a crime her has commited

You are right. I haven't. The law has.

No it has not.

You cited a law which trump did not break and are lying to claim he did and we all know it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

He needs no defense as you cannot show a crime her has commited

You are right. I haven't. The law has.

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

There is no witness tampering dumbass.

If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.

I already did and it made you into my *****.

You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.

Keep lying little boy

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Trump has become unhinged.

Soon we will have President Pelosi. Proving that the Republicans backed the wrong horse. They should have impeached Trump the first year. At least they would still have a Republican President. Now Pence has become mired & will follow Trump.

 

[EverCurious]

The problem with all these lefty legal claims is "assumption." Every single one of them requires a "leap of faith" assumption as to the intentions of someone else. They "assume" he was trying to obstruct, they "assume" he was tampering, blah blah blah. None of the shit I've seen yet would hold up in court with clearly and blatantly biased "assumptions" of someone else's thoughts and intentions. I mean half of it isn't even good enough to be "circumstantial evidence."

It's like, what ******* idiot attempting to influence a witness in this kind of high visibility case would do so in a globally public ******* tweet? Jesus...

 

[Soupnazi630]

Trump is totally unhinged and out of control because his team has zero defense for him;Trump goes after Mueller probe in Friday tweets

https://media1.s-

He needs no defense as you cannot show a crime her has commited

You are right. I haven't. The law has.

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

Under the law you cited he did not commit that crime you illiterate fool

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“It is now time to bring up articles of impeachment against Trump”

True.

Of course, that won’t happen.

Impeachment is a political – not legal – process; a president can be removed from office via that process absent any alleged criminal wrongdoing.

Trump’s incessant lying, contempt for the rule of law, and multiple conflicts of interest are all misdemeanors pursuant to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution – misdemeanors that warrant impeachment.

But again, impeachment is a political process, and as a political matter Democrats don’t want Pence to be president – he’d be as bad as Trump, if not worse; Democrats very much want to run against Trump in 2020.

Moreover, Democrats would never win a conviction in the Senate.

And Democrats won’t make the same mistake the GOP did when Republicans impeached Clinton – which ended up backfiring on Republicans.

 

[BWK]

Trump is totally unhinged and out of control because his team has zero defense for him;Trump goes after Mueller probe in Friday tweets

https://media1.s-

He needs no defense as you cannot show a crime her has commited

You are right. I haven't. The law has.

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

Under the law you cited he did not commit that crime you illiterate fool

Lol! Not only have you proven your own ignorance, you don't even know how to read.

 

[Soupnazi630]

He needs no defense as you cannot show a crime her has commited

You are right. I haven't. The law has.

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

Under the law you cited he did not commit that crime you illiterate fool

Lol! Not only have you proven your own ignorance, you don't even know how to read.

Sorry wrong
You failed big time try again.

 

[BWK]

You are right. I haven't. The law has.

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

There is no witness tampering dumbass.

If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.

I already did and it made you into my *****.

You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.

Keep lying little boy

Prove what? You never say anything. You're just an idiot who never makes an intelligent point. You just make claims. You never make a logical point. You are way out of your league, and you never debate anything.

 

[Soupnazi630]

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

There is no witness tampering dumbass.

If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.

I already did and it made you into my *****.

You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.

Keep lying little boy

Prove what? You never say anything. You're just an idiot who never makes an intelligent point. You just make claims. You never make a logical point. You are way out of your league, and you never debate anything.

Yes I proved you work and you provided the evidence.

It was too easy.

The actions you call criminal do not violated the law you cited.
We all know this and youndo too.

 

[Soupnazi630]

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

There is no witness tampering dumbass.

If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.

I already did and it made you into my *****.

You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.

Keep lying little boy

Prove what? You never say anything. You're just an idiot who never makes an intelligent point. You just make claims. You never make a logical point. You are way out of your league, and you never debate anything.

It is a perfectly logical point to say you are wrong based on the failed attempt at evidence which you posted.

 

[BWK]

You are right. I haven't. The law has.

And what crime is that?

Witness tampering dumb ass!

Under the law you cited he did not commit that crime you illiterate fool

Lol! Not only have you proven your own ignorance, you don't even know how to read.

Sorry wrong
You failed big time try again.

Try what? You never say anything that anyone can debate. No one knows what you are talking about because you only make claims about things you never back up. You pedal in total nonsense. You've been doing this for two days now. You're just a troll who says nothing.

 

[BWK]

Witness tampering dumb ass!

There is no witness tampering dumbass.

If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.

I already did and it made you into my *****.

You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.

Keep lying little boy

Prove what? You never say anything. You're just an idiot who never makes an intelligent point. You just make claims. You never make a logical point. You are way out of your league, and you never debate anything.

It is a perfectly logical point to say you are wrong based on the failed attempt at evidence which you posted.

If you can prove the evidence is inaccurate. Which you never did. To say it isn't so isn't worth squat. You can't even play a decent game with semantics because you never say anything.

 

[Soupnazi630]

There is no witness tampering dumbass.

If that were true, you would have presented us with an intelligent/informative rebuttal to the truth of what the law presents to us. Since you did not, you're just another idiot who tells us nothing.

I already did and it made you into my *****.

You lied about what the law says a I proved that fact.

Keep lying little boy

Prove what? You never say anything. You're just an idiot who never makes an intelligent point. You just make claims. You never make a logical point. You are way out of your league, and you never debate anything.

It is a perfectly logical point to say you are wrong based on the failed attempt at evidence which you posted.

If you can prove the evidence is inaccurate. Which you never did. To say it isn't so isn't worth squat. You can't even play a decent game with semantics because you never say anything.

Yes I did prove it.

He made no effort to tell others what to say in their testimony which is what the law forbids.

 

[EverCurious]

Related from the former newspaper The New York Times a long while back: (Why Obstruction of Justice Is a Hard Crime to Prove)

"Any inquiry into possible obstruction will confront Supreme Court decisions that have been notably hostile to obstruction cases that push the limits of the law. There is plenty of wiggle room in the statutes that make it difficult to prove the necessary intent to obstruct justice, so gathering credible evidence to show what was in the mind of anyone who might try to impede the investigation will be paramount."

[...]

A second provision frequently used is 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which makes it a crime for any person who corruptly “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” Congress added this subsection in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to broaden the reach of the obstruction of justice provision to more clearly include conduct like that involving the accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s shredding of documents related to its audit of Enron.

The firm was convicted in 2002 even without this change in the law, but the Supreme Court subsequently reversed the jury verdict in Arthur Andersen v. United States because the trial judge gave a flawed instruction on what constituted “corruptly.” The court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist writing the unanimous opinion, explained that corrupt conduct was “normally associated with wrongful, immoral, depraved or evil” actions, which requires a consciousness of wrongdoing rather than just a questionable result.

There have been comparisons of Mr. Trump’s statements to the Watergate cover-up that toppled President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. The “smoking gun” recording in that case, however, was much more incriminating as Mr. Nixon told H. R. Halderman, his chief of staff, six days after the break-in that the C.I.A. needed to tell the F.B.I. “don’t go any further into this case.”

Whether Mr. Trump could be found to have the requisite intent is not clear from the memorandum Mr. Comey is reported to have written about their conversation in February. Asking the F.B.I. director to “let this go” regarding Mr. Flynn is the type of ambiguous comment that might not be interpreted as directly interfering in the investigation, and therefore insufficient to establish a corrupt intent.

United States v. Ermoian that interference in an F.B.I. investigation was not the type of proceeding the statute was meant to cover.