What the fuck is wrong with them, Jow Forums? Do they still not get it? Even after Muller's investigation outright said that it found no evidence of collusion, they still call for his impeachment? How do people even trust the dems at this point?
>“I think we have very good reason to believe that there is an investigation that has been conducted which has produced evidence that tells us that this president and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice,” Harris said during that CNN event. “I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment.”
Personally I support impeachment because then America will break apart, for the good of the world.
Cooper Ross
If you are being investigated, you can commit obstruction even if you are not guilty of the crime being investigated. It's not a difficult concept. Interfering with an investigation is a crime - your guilt or innocence regarding the original crime literally makes no difference.
Justin Murphy
Well considering he didnt obstruct anything the first time sweaty why even have 100+ investigations against hin
Sebastian Perez
Can you rephrase that in the form of a complete and coherent sentence?
The report essentially said he would have been indicted on obstruction if he was a private citizen. The only reason Mueller didn't was because there aren't any rules in place for indicting a sitting president.
Nicholas Miller
Reading is hard. You can’t expect MIGApedes to read anything longer than the McDonald’s menu.
Tyler Gray
>try to stop the obvious frame job made to stall your administration for half of your term >get charged with obstruction supporting this kind of crooked politics only walks America that much closer to war.
Luke Taylor
We all should
Jason Young
1) Trump didn't need any help in stalling his administration. It's like the one thing he's good at. They had both chambers of congress for 2 years and essentially accomplished nothing besides one of the worst tax bills ever.
2) You have to actually have some evidence that it's a frame job. You can't just run in there like Wild Bill Hickok and burn the place down because you think it's unfair. The FBI didn't even indict him. Seems like a shitty frame job to me.
Anthony Brown
>the second part of the report All of which is hearsay and is therefore not primary evidence. Ergo it would not result in a successful prosecution. Read it again dumbass.
Ian Gonzalez
>evidence of FBI collusion doesn't exist must be nice to live in a fantasy land where your government is only corrupt when it's the guys you don't support.
Angel Johnson
Kamala is actually sad You can tell she’s a smoothbrain that has been trained to say what people tell her to say. She has no original ideas. Everything she says is just regurgitated blue checkmark progressives
Nicholas Thompson
>Even after Muller's investigation outright said that it found no evidence of collusion, they still call for his impeachment? I don't think they care what he did or didn't do. I think they just want him impeached.
Juan Lewis
>The report essentially said he would have been indicted on obstruction if he was a private citizen First of all, no it didn't. Second, all this does is prove that this whole thing was never about collusion, It was just about getting rid of Trump.
Liam Thompson
>Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
>if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state.
You gotta find some different news sources dude. It's pretty clear. If he was innocent, the FBI would have said so. They didn't indict because the FBI literally cannot indict the person they work for.
Attacking republicans makes me a democrat? Nice deflection. Maybe try refuting my points next time.
Gabriel Harris
>If he was innocent, the FBI would have said so. Not finding evidence sufficient to recommend an indictment is the same thing as finding innocence of a given crime. Because innocence is presumed, not determined.
Play your retarded semantics all you want on this topic, but it's legally accurate. Mueller was just being a weasel and you're equally desperate to assume guilt exists where the available evidence can't prove it.
Jayden Butler
>and he won't get a second one anyway.
I wish there was better than him, but there isn't.
You should read the full report not just the summary. Mueller points out that trump told witnesses to lie to investigators. That’s a crime, the only reason mueller didn’t charge him is that as president he can’t be charged by Mueller.
Aaron Ward
No collusion, no obstruction. Game over , fag. MAGA.
Jason Johnson
It's not semantics when I'm literally quoting the fucking report lol. It's not my fault that you don't want to actually read the thing and instead choose to get your interpretations from news sources that are friendly to Trump.
He left it up to congress to indict because, again, the FBI doesn't have the authority to indict the president.
As pointed out, the very act of directing someone to lie to investigators is a crime.
Grayson Wilson
>You should read the full report not just the summary. I did you stupid faggot. >Mueller points out that trump told witnesses to lie to investigators. You must have skipped every portion of those paragraphs where the accusation was followed by "according to another person/entity. Without a primary source for that allegation all you have hearsay. >That’s a crime Only if you have direct evidence. Such as a legally-obtained recording, verifiable written record, deposition, and so on. Someone giving a statement as to what someone else said isn't evidence. >the only reason mueller didn’t charge him is that as president he can’t be charged by Mueller. False. That line is a cop out. Also Mueller isn't in a position to charge the president himself anyways since he's not part of the DOJ. He's a prosecutorial investigator charged by Congress.
You're just regurgitating lines from other places with no understanding of your own. YOU go back and read the report in more detail this time after taking your head out of your ass.
Angel Foster
You don’t need “direct evidence” and I think you know that faggot.
Ryder Phillips
>get your interpretations from news sources I didn't, I just read the report. God you faggots project incessantly. >He left it up to congress to indict Wrong, he left it up to Congress to impeach. Which they can do whenever for whatever. The DOJ makes the decision to indict (or not). But they've never done that with any politician above the rank of a Federal Judge, Congressman, or Senator. It's clear that both of you fuckwits don't understand legal terminology at all.
Gabriel Taylor
>Only if you have direct evidence. Such as a legally-obtained recording, verifiable written record, deposition, and so on. Someone giving a statement as to what someone else said isn't evidence.
Did you get your law degree from Trump University? This is so stupid it hurts. It would be hearsay if only one person flipped on Trump but it looks like many, many people flipped.
Easton Scott
You need more than what Mueller got, you dishonest spic.
Matthew Cruz
>It's not semantics when I'm literally quoting the fucking report lol. Mueller is the one engaging in weasely semantics. >It's not my fault that you don't want to actually read the thing Maybe you should read it again. Because you obviously lack reading comprehension >and instead choose to get your interpretations from news sources that are friendly to Trump It's called the Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty >while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime That's all that needed to be said but Mueller, just like you doesn't actually care about the law
Ryder Reyes
>What the fuck is wrong with them, Jow Forums? Do they still not get it?
>Which they can do whenever for whatever. No they can't, there are clear rules for what is impeachable.
Tyler Sanders
Nigger, “Trump told me to lie” is not hearsay
Gabriel Foster
>but it looks like many, many people flipped. The inadmissible evidence you have doesn't magically become credible or admissible beyond some imagined quantity. A single allegation has just as little legal weight to it as a hundred allegations do if no admissible evidence to support any of them exists.
Fuck you guys are stupid.
Juan Morgan
>What the fuck is wrong with them, Jow Forums? Do they still not get it?
You dont get it. They are dragging him to gather as much bs through the congressional investigation process as possible to make commercials and ads for the 2020 race. Think of it like what the Repubs did for two years of Benghazi investigations against HRC. Its just theatre, user.
Brayden Diaz
>It's called the Constitution. Innocent until proven guilty It's pretty clear I'm arguing that there's sufficient evidence of a crime. No shit, due process still exists. Thanks for the lesson, teach.
>That's all that needed to be said but Mueller, just like you doesn't actually care about the law Oh and where did you go to law school?
Henry Smith
>A single allegation has just as little legal weight to it as a hundred allegations do if no admissible evidence to support any of them exists. This is completely false. It's pretty clear your understanding of law comes from Judge Judy and Law and Order reruns. Compelling testimony can absolutely be considered evidence.
Kevin Wright
>It's pretty clear I'm arguing that there's sufficient evidence of a crime Then you didn't read the report here it is again >this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime
Eli Butler
Why? After all this why are people still yelling about impeachment like an investigation hasn't already been done? The guy's term is almost up anyway, are this people really THAT salty about Trump?
Aaron Butler
>there are clear rules for what is impeachable There is a Constitutional outline for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" but given that the process itself is started by only a vote for or against impeachment they have the opportunity and method to abuse their authority with impeachment should they choose to. Just as the President has the authority available to him to abuse to pardon himself of any crime. Either party undertaking either action is possible, but advantageous for clear reasons.
Jesus Christ. Read the definition of hearsay again. >the report of another person's words by a witness You just described hearsay. >Compelling testimony can absolutely be considered evidence. Okay, now point out some "compelling testimony" in the report. And last I checked "compelling testimony" tends to not be hearsay and is usually supported by material evidence. Not by news articles also written from hearsay.
Jacob Gutierrez
>Compelling testimony can absolutely be considered evidence. Sounds like an episode of law and order.
Austin Young
Who is the 56% zoomer?
Henry Cooper
>everyone in the government is fighting against each other instead of working towards a common goal Good, lets crash this house with no survivors.
>but not advantageous for clear reasons. Anyways, fuck both of you. You just parroting news outlets that poorly summarized the contents and chasing an assumption of guilt over something that doesn't have any evidence to support it. There's no substance to support an obstruction charge given that the investigation continued to its conclusion and no direct evidence was collected to support a conviction for that. Only second-hand intimations, allegations, and insinuations were recorded in the report.
Connor Richardson
remember the NPC meme? it wasn't a meme
Eli Phillips
Hearsay is not “I heard X say”. Hearsay is “I heard X say he saw Y”. In other words testifying about something you didn’t personally experience.
If you say “Trump told me to lie” or “I saw Trump tell him to lie” it’s not hearsay because you personally witnessed it happen.
Owen Phillips
You’re a tard a huge reject just fuck off signed 3/4 of real America
Caleb Diaz
No it’s not you libshits
Jason Rivera
can you faggots pleade vote for independence so I don't have to associate with you
Mueller told Barr 3 times that the precedent was NOT a factor in the decision to not recommend indictment. Sorry about your feelings.
Jeremiah Cooper
Good luck finding a legal definition anywhere that matches your version. Any Hearsay Exceptions require very specific circumstance for them to be admissible.
Anthony Jenkins
do you know what the j in Donald j trump stands for? jew
Kevin Foster
They never cared if he was guilty, they were programmed to never stop.
Leo Collins
Okay burger so by your definition of hearsay, if Trump yelled out nigger in a room full of 20 people and those 20 people all testified they say Trump yell nigger, none of it would be admissible in court because it’s hearsay.
Well there’s a pretty serious case for obstruction. You may not agree, but impeachment is a trial, not a sentence.
Levi Rodriguez
BTW, by your definition I can simply "quote" you in a deposition as having admitted to a crime and in your fantasy would constitute primary evidence.
So Last Thursday I heard Puerto Rican user +Yw19Ld/ say that he "sure does love to molest children, and I've done it on more than one occasion". And that statement was never followed up with any indications of irony or satire. And I have no witnesses to corroborate my store nor any other form of primary evidence to support my claim. But you better launch charges against him tomorrow based on my vague and baseless accusations.
I'll be over here convincing a bunch of other people to make similar unsubstantiated claims against you without other forms of evidence to support them, and in your fantasy world that will make my initial claim more credible.
>it’s not hearsay because you personally witnessed it happen. This is how dumb you are.
Lincoln Stewart
>Senator, do you have any comments about allegations that Jussie Smollett faked his lynching?
It’s less about justice or law and more about what they want. Trump has done mountains of skeevy to illegal shit that we know about. However they like him, and will defend their messiah with everything they have. Until it requires them to put down the big glug soda. It’s like trying to convince anyone their fandom is trash. Good luck. We just outvote them.
Dylan Gonzalez
>Who Davvy Chappy-- a clean-Wehrmacht apologist and white defendant who uses D&D as a guise to promote the truth about racial IQs.
The fbi had the authority to exonerate hildawg of any crimes and if it was up to congress in the first place to investigate his crimes then what the fuck was mueller appointed for? You faggot brained lefty progs are going to get your skulls caved in if you keep playing these word games.
Ryan Allen
and mueller did not conclude that he was guilty, which was his entire purpose.
If the investigation reached its conclusion then in what sense did trump obstruct it?
Jace Bailey
we were all present for the republicans in the house and senate to be just as obstructing as the democrats. John mccain is why obama care wasn't repealed.
Brandon Phillips
The statute Mueller said Trump may have violated requires "corrupt intent" to be considered a crime. Not only could Mueller not show said intent, his report is littered with evidence of the opposite: Trump wanted to end the investigation because it was preventing him from performing his constitutional duties in the manner he was voted in to do. Ironically, one of the key proofs of this is in that "I'm fucked" quote that brainless idiots like to use as proof of guilt without reading the full context.
Adam Foster
If you don't enjoy being investigated then you must be guilty. Show me the man and I'll find you the crime. Pravda means truth after all does it not?
Jaxson Collins
Despite Zion Don, how do you obstruct an investigation that has no crimes as its premise? Are we just gonna ignore the fact that Nosenstein confirmed it was a fishing expedition and then rewrote DOJ rules in the middle of the night to allow this charade? Mueller said he didn't exonerate the President for Obstruction but couldn't find any meaningful evidence to indict. Which is the same thing as saying he's exonerated. It's not up to Blumpf to prove he's innocent, Mueller decided that they could charge him with obstruction even though there was no good evidence to do so. What else do you call that other than exoneration? and this is ignoring that obstruction is well defined and any person reading it would immediately recognize that Blumpf didn't come close to breaking any of the major pillars of obstruction, only through a bizarre, ambiguous omnibus statute that is basically anything that anyone wants it to mean. but outside of clown world Blumpf would have had to intimidate, extort, threaten, conceal documents or bribe people to obstruct Mueller's investigation, none of which he ever did, in fact he did the opposite by allowing all records to be given to the special counsel. It's just a parting shot from a corrupt prosecutor.
