Pocohantes calls for impeachment hearings...

[row_33]

Facts are quite interchangeable, just ask 3 people on their views

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I will let the  good  Judge lay it out better than I can

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-did-president-trump-obstruct-justice

 

 

Do you need more? 

 

It is absurd to label "obstruction" Trump's frustrations at being investigated for charges he knew, and he knew the investigators knew, he did not commit.

 

If there was no underlying crime, what justice did he obstruct?

[DC Tom]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It is absurd to label "obstruction" Trump's frustrations at being investigated for charges he knew, and he knew the investigators knew, he did not commit.

 

If there was no underlying crime, what justice did he obstruct?

 

You can still investigate false charges.

 

It's a beautiful setup, really.  Like getting Clinton to lie about his sex life while investigating real estate deals.

[row_33]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It is absurd to label "obstruction" Trump's frustrations at being investigated for charges he knew, and he knew the investigators knew, he did not commit.

 

If there was no underlying crime, what justice did he obstruct?

 

He obstructed Hillary from the White House

 

every day we Celebrate Good Times, Come On!!!!!!

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

dude, do you dispute the facts he lays out that come directly from the Mueller report? Are you really at the point of 

 

Praise Trump and push conspiracy theorty= Good Source

 

Criticise Trump with Facts= fake news?

 

It's not that simple. Judge Nap is offering his opinion on the matter, and his opinion is not objective. He's a paid disinformation asset, not a journalist or an objective observer. If that's not enough, he's been wrong on every opinion he's floated on this issue since day one. Every time, he's been wrong. 

 

There are a lot of bad actors in the media who have been lying to the public for two years for their own reasons and benefits. Judge Nap is one of them. 

 

You need better sources, or better arguments. Because the bottom line on obstruction is it's over. Mueller punted, the 11 pieces of evidence are uncontested hearsay, not infallible -- which is something important to remember yet Nap overlooks it (because it makes the rest of his summary moot). Barr ruled on obstruction. It's over. Congress cannot indict or press charges. They can only impeach which is purely political and now, thanks to the Mueller report, without a proper foundation.  

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

You can still investigate false charges.

 

It's a beautiful setup, really.  Like getting Clinton to lie about his sex life while investigating real estate deals.

 

Correct -- though in order to push obstruction now for impeachment, they will have to prove a corrupt intent, which is very difficult thanks to the rest of what's laid out in the Mueller report. 

 

 

[LB3]

13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's not that simple. Judge Nap is offering his opinion on the matter, and his opinion is not objective. He's a paid disinformation asset, not a journalist or an objective observer. If that's not enough, he's been wrong on every opinion he's floated on this issue since day one. Every time, he's been wrong. 

 

There are a lot of bad actors in the media who have been lying to the public for two years for their own reasons and benefits. Judge Nap is one of them. 

 

You need better sources, or better arguments. Because the bottom line on obstruction is it's over. Mueller punted, the 11 pieces of evidence are uncontested hearsay, not infallible -- which is something important to remember yet Nap overlooks it (because it makes the rest of his summary moot). Barr ruled on obstruction. It's over. Congress cannot indict or press charges. They can only impeach which is purely political and now, thanks to the Mueller report, without a proper foundation.  

 

I compliment your patience. His TDS is just too strong. His hyperbole is just too much. Remember, he honestly believes that everything Trump says is a lie. Everything.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

I compliment your patience. His TDS is just too strong. His hyperbole is just too much. Remember, he honestly believes that everything Trump says is a lie. Everything.

 

I really enjoy @plenzmd1 even if we rarely agree on this topic/subject, so I'm happy to do it -- and I'm sure he's happy to smack it down later  

[LB3]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I really enjoy @plenzmd1 even if we rarely agree on this topic/subject, so I'm happy to do it -- and I'm sure he's happy to smack it down later  

I think he's a good dude. Trump just knocked some crazy into him.

[plenzmd1]

So is all this wrong from the Mueller report? I mean if yall just absolutely refuse to acknowledge there are potential obstruction issues based on the Mueller report, I think you are refusing to entertain any ideas that might not be beneficial to Trump and adhere to your preconceived notions..which you always accuse the other side of doing.

 

One can say the probe was illegally started, but that is not the question here. The question is does Congress want to pursue(which i think is a mistake). The question that only Congress can answer is do these acts, if proven,  rise to impeachable levels. 

 

Conduct regarding the Flynn investigation

 

Hmm, cant post text without a strike through...

 

good article here

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by plenzmd1

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

So is all this wrong from the Mueller report?

 

It's all unchallenged, so it may be wrong -- which even Mueller concedes. 

 

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I mean if yall just absolutely refuse to acknowledge there are potential obstruction issues based on the Mueller report, I think you are refusing to entertain any ideas that might not be beneficial to Trump and adhere to your preconceived notions..which you always accuse the other side of doing.

 

What people are reacting to is the sudden shifting of the goal posts. For two years this has NOT been about obstruction. For two years the accusations have been he committed seditious treason with an enemy state. Beyond accusations, many people in positions of power claimed to have evidence this happened, and those who objected to it were painted as being traitors or Putin loyalists. 

 

The report is clear in Volume One that that entire narrative was fiction. From the start, pure fiction. There was no collusion or conspiracy. There was no plot to help hack the emails and distribute them to the people in order to sway the election. There was nothing criminal or treasonous at all. 

 

Yet -- for every day, 24 hours a day, the media accused Trump of being a traitor. That's a capital offense, punishable by death. 

 

What do those (unchallenged) excerpts on obstruction show? They show a narcissistic man who KNOWS he's innocent of what he's being accused of, and lashing out in various ways. He's venting. He's ranting. He's raving... but in the end he did nothing to obstruct the probe. 

 

Mueller was not fired. 

RR was not fired. 

No investigators or prosecutors on the SCO were fired. 

He didn't short their budget.

He provided more transparency than expected, millions of files and emails and waived executive privilege. 

 

That's what he actually did. That's not obstruction. That's cooperation. 

 

Which makes the sudden focus on obstruction -- while ignoring the past two years of "BUT RUSSIA!" hysteria/propaganda -- painfully disingenuous. From a legal standpoint, even Mueller agrees obstruction is likely not a case a prosecutor could make. 

 

Those who are trying to get you to focus on these 11 points, which again are unchallenged, are likely the same ones who have been screaming about treasonous collusion for two years. They're trying to shift the argument to hide their own sins. 

 

***** that. 

 

10 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

One can say the probe was illegally started, but that is not the question here.

 

If the probe was illegally started, and it was (this is all but proven and will be solidly proven within weeks), then the case for obstruction looks even weaker. Not stronger. Because Trump has known (and told us) for two years that the entire premise of the probe was improper. A witch hunt. 

 

And that's what it was. It's been said by me and others over the past few months but it's REALLY important to understand this point: 

 

* They had Trump under the most intense and invasive surveillance for over a full calendar year, they were able to go through every moment of his life from birth until now and the lives of every one of his immediate contacts. This is what they strove to achieve with the Page FISA, they needed to get the warrant because they were certain that if they could only get the legal cover to dig into his life, they'd find a crime. They'd have to find a crime, he's Trump and he's GOT to be as dirty as everyone else in DC. Yet despite this surveillance, they found nothing criminal. That's STUNNING. 

 

He's an innocent man who had the full might of the CIA, FBI, and several foreign intelligence services bearing down on him for two years -- and the best they can offer is a flimsy obstruction charge that's entirely political in nature and in no way criminal. 

 

You have to wrap your head around that point, seriously. This is as dirty as it gets, letting them off the hook because "Trump bad" is not only lazy and unprincipled, it's dangerous. 

 

16 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

The question is does Congress want to pursue(which i think is a mistake). The question that only Congress can answer is do these acts, if proven,  rise to impeachable levels. 

 

Only to the partisans or TDS sufferers does anything in the Mueller report rise to an impeachable level. 

 

Which is the point I'm trying to hammer home. There's nothing real there, and considering where they thought this investigation would lead when they started it -- the fact they could only stick him with a flimsy charge of protesting his innocence should cause even the most ardent Never Trumpers to reconsider the past two years. 

 

It was always a coup. 

 

And the blowback is going to be bad for a lot of the people who today are pushing this nonsense. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Posting this here too, it's relevant to the above post: https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-trump-mueller-report-no-collusion/

The long-awaited completion of Mueller’s probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative—and the expectations it fueled—to be unfounded. No American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller’s report does lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation, but he declined to issue a verdict on obstruction. By contrast, the report shows no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government’s alleged effort to defeat Hillary Clinton, and renders this conclusion: “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” As a result, Mueller’s report provides the reverse of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.

[plenzmd1]

 

 

1

29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Posting this here too, it's relevant to the above post: https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-trump-mueller-report-no-collusion/

The long-awaited completion of Mueller’s probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative—and the expectations it fueled—to be unfounded. No American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller’s report does lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation, but he declined to issue a verdict on obstruction. By contrast, the report shows no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government’s alleged effort to defeat Hillary Clinton, and renders this conclusion: “Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” As a result, Mueller’s report provides the reverse of what Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.

As  you may have noticed, not once, not even once, have I ever claimed on here once Mueller thing started Trump conspired with the Russians( no such thing as collusion in this context). So I am not coming from the angle of "need to prove i was right" I challenge anyone to find a post where I claimed differently. Now the Trump Tower meeting was/is very troubling to me, don't think it is a good thing for our country, but that's another story.

 

Now, you may believe, and it may be proven correct or not, that the probe was illegal, etc. That does not change the fact that while it was proceeding and deemed legal, Trump tried (allegedly, I will grant your "unchallenged ") to obstruct the investigation. The report passes it off to Congress to decide if his actions rise to impeachable offenses ( i do not), but to suggest there is "no there,there" as @TakeYouToTasker implied is just not reading the report..there is some there ..there. 

 

 

BTW, why do I keep getting this huge empty box above my replies??? Any help appreciated

[Deranged Rhino]

14 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

As  you may have noticed, not once, not even once, have I ever claimed on here once Mueller thing started Trump conspired with the Russians( no such thing as collusion in this context). So I am not coming from the angle of "need to prove i was right" I challenge anyone to find a post where I claimed differently.

 

I know you haven't, and did not mean to imply you had. Judge Nap has, and many others in the media/talking head sect -- and now most of those are ignoring their previous statements and focusing solely on obstruction. That's who I was referring to.  

 

15 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Now the Trump Tower meeting was/is very troubling to me, don't think it is a good thing for our country, but that's another story.

 

Even in the Mueller report, which does not go into the frame-up elements of that meeting, there was nothing illicit or illegal which transpired in that meeting or around its set up. I get it "looks" bad when thrown into the blender of "BUT RUSSIA!" hysteria which has been ginned up by the IC and their media lackeys, but it's pretty mild. 

 

Especially when you compare it to what actually transpired in that meeting: a set up of a political opponent in order to rig a FISA warrant on the campaign. THAT'S not only criminal, it's downright seditious. And there's much more evidence to prove that's what happened in June of 2016 than anything nefarious between Don Jr and NV. 

 

17 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Now, you may believe, and it may be proven correct or not, that the probe was illegal, etc. That does not change the fact that while it was proceeding and deemed legal, Trump tried (allegedly, I will grant your "unchallenged ") to obstruct the investigation.

 

 

He "tried" -- but ultimately did nothing. 

 

Strip everything else away, and that's the argument you're left with. Surely you can see how that's a FAR cry from where this whole (national) conversation began? 

 

The evidence shows Trump was innocent of what he was being accused of vociferously for nearly three years. Despite knowing that he was innocent, despite knowing the probe was illegal in its foundation, Trump still did not do anything to obstruct the probe. Venting to advisers, ranting and raving, is not actually doing anything. And when you look at it in the full context of his public comments on the matter, it's just Trump being Trump. 

 

Looks bad. Bad optics. But ultimately there's nothing more to it than that.

 

22 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

The report passes it off to Congress to decide if his actions rise to impeachable offenses ( i do not), but to suggest there is "no there,there" as @TakeYouToTasker implied is just not reading the report..there is some there ..there. 

 

Mueller passed it off to Barr to decide -- and Barr did. He left it open for Congress to pursue impeachment if they wished, but that's a political move and not a prosecutorial one. I'm not arguing, nor is Tasker, that Mueller didn't lay out instances which could be obstruction -- he clearly did. What I dispute is that those instances detail actual obstruction of the probe or investigation. Not even Mueller agrees they do. 

 

Obstruction is bait. Trump is hoping Congress does try to take up the impeachment gambit, because if they do millions of Americans will come to realize what I laid out above: that venting about obstruction is not obstructing. That's a losing position for the left, and they know it. Which is why Pelosi is trying so hard to stop it in its tracks. 

 

26 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

BTW, why do I keep getting this huge empty box above my replies??? Any help appreciated

 

I've been trying to figure that out as well. I'm not sure, but I do know I can't hit "quote" on your posts when that happens. I have to use the multi-quote function. 

 

Not sure what the deal is. 

 

 

[row_33]

18 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Obstruction?

 

Walk this out with me:

 

It has been demonstrated, and you will see prosecution, that the President was set up by individuals who knowingly perpetrated a fraud, inventing “evidence of a crime” from whole cloth, in order to initiate a Special Counsel to go digging for crimes in the hopes of destroying the President and forcing him out of office.

 

What you are calling obstruction is him defending himself from fraudulent charges both he and his accusers knew to be false, as well as criminal; which now we all know to be 100% baseless, while acting within the legal purview of his delegated powers.

 

Explain the obstruction.

 

You are correct:

 

 

To those who never see the inner workings of top business or politically elected work or lawyers around a table discussing the "finer points"

 

good...

 

 

 

[plenzmd1]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I know you haven't, and did not mean to imply you had. Judge Nap has, and many others in the media/talking head sect -- and now most of those are ignoring their previous statements and focusing solely on obstruction. That's who I was referring to.  

 

 

Even in the Mueller report, which does not go into the frame-up elements of that meeting, there was nothing illicit or illegal which transpired in that meeting or around its set up. I get it "looks" bad when thrown into the blender of "BUT RUSSIA!" hysteria which has been ginned up by the IC and their media lackeys, but it's pretty mild. 

 

Especially when you compare it to what actually transpired in that meeting: a set up of a political opponent in order to rig a FISA warrant on the campaign. THAT'S not only criminal, it's downright seditious. And there's much more evidence to prove that's what happened in June of 2016 than anything nefarious between Don Jr and NV. 

 

 

 

He "tried" -- but ultimately did nothing. 

 

Strip everything else away, and that's the argument you're left with. Surely you can see how that's a FAR cry from where this whole (national) conversation began? 

 

The evidence shows Trump was innocent of what he was being accused of vociferously for nearly three years. Despite knowing that he was innocent, despite knowing the probe was illegal in its foundation, Trump still did not do anything to obstruct the probe. Venting to advisers, ranting and raving, is not actually doing anything. And when you look at it in the full context of his public comments on the matter, it's just Trump being Trump. 

 

Looks bad. Bad optics. But ultimately there's nothing more to it than that.

 

 

Mueller passed it off to Barr to decide -- and Barr did. He left it open for Congress to pursue impeachment if they wished, but that's a political move and not a prosecutorial one. I'm not arguing, nor is Tasker, that Mueller didn't lay out instances which could be obstruction -- he clearly did. What I dispute is that those instances detail actual obstruction of the probe or investigation. Not even Mueller agrees they do. 

 

Obstruction is bait. Trump is hoping Congress does try to take up the impeachment gambit, because if they do millions of Americans will come to realize what I laid out above: that venting about obstruction is not obstructing. That's a losing position for the left, and they know it. Which is why Pelosi is trying so hard to stop it in its tracks. 

 

 

I've been trying to figure that out as well. I'm not sure, but I do know I can't hit "quote" on your posts when that happens. I have to use the multi-quote function. 

 

Not sure what the deal is. 

 

 

Lets see if this is better.

 

I agree impeachment is a losing cause for the Dems..I want them to focus on his record..they will win based on that. 

 

I do not agree however that there was no obstruction just cause it did not work. But that will be a circular argument, as we can see?

 

Now in terms what you and your ilk (hopefully you get the PTI reference sarcasm) claim to be the ultimate comeuppance coming , I got no problem with a little wager saying I see nothing happening on that front of consequence before the home opener...if you are coming maybe a little wager of a six of winners choice at the tailgate!!!

[row_33]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

Lets see if this is better.

 

I agree impeachment is a losing cause for the Dems..I want them to focus on his record..they will win based on that. 

 

I do not agree however that there was no obstruction just cause it did not work. But that will be a circular argument, as we can see?

 

Now in terms what you and your ilk (hopefully you get the PTI reference sarcasm) claim to be the ultimate comeuppance coming , I got no problem with a little wager saying I see nothing happening on that front of consequence before the home opener...if you are coming maybe a little wager of a six of winners choice at the tailgate!!!

 

the real record or the lying fantasy record dreamed up by the drive-by media?

 

the economy is going fantastic, these are levels not even dreamed of for the past 50 years in the US, a sitting President with a strong economy is 98% of the way to a landslide re-election

 

 

nothing will happen to Obama

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

Lets see if this is better.

 

I agree impeachment is a losing cause for the Dems..I want them to focus on his record..they will win based on that. 

 

I do not agree however that there was no obstruction just cause it did not work. But that will be a circular argument, as we can see?

 

Now in terms what you and your ilk (hopefully you get the PTI reference sarcasm) claim to be the ultimate comeuppance coming , I got no problem with a little wager saying I see nothing happening on that front of consequence before the home opener...if you are coming maybe a little wager of a six of winners choice at the tailgate!!!

This is interesting. You want them to focus on his record as a winning strategy for them, or for Trump? 

 

What part of his record is he failing on? 

 

Revealing dems as the open border wild wild west crowd (the argument is going to be they are all for open borders and lax security so long as the thousands of victims of violent crimes committed by people here illegally are not THEIR kids)?

 

Revisiting the Obama/dem legacy of non-existant growth, unemployment, surging numbers of citizens on da welfare?  

 

Revisiting the obama/dem ACA and the foundation of sand it was built on, skyrocketing costs, and fuzzy math that went into it?  

 

Revisiting the corruption associated with the Russian collusion narrative, the fingerprints of dems, Obama and Biden all over it?  Reminding centrist Americans that votes matter, and that this was an attempt to steal the election, with pictures of key Obamans &  key DOJ operatives as coup plotters? 

 

The r tax plan. More money for more people is a bad thing?  Tax revenue increased to most states (45 I believe) is a bad thing? 

 

Revisiting the gutter trash attempted assassination of Bret K by "leaders" of the dem party like Biden, Harris, Booker, Pelosi et al....and how quickly they moved on when they failed?

 

NATO.

 

I guess I can understand your hatred, but what record are you referring to? Don't dems want jobs? 

 

 

[row_33]

50 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

 

What part of his record is he failing on? 

 

 

 

His record is fantastic any way you honestly slice it

 

but his haters are so bloody deranged they can't see anything but evil and misery

 

it's like a movie about someone growing up in Ireland.

 

 

[plenzmd1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

16 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This is interesting. You want them to focus on his record as a winning strategy for them, or for Trump? 

 

What part of his record is he failing on? 

 

Revealing dems as the open border wild wild west crowd (the argument is going to be they are all for open borders and lax security so long as the thousands of victims of violent crimes committed by people here illegally are not THEIR kids)?

 

Revisiting the Obama/dem legacy of non-existant growth, unemployment, surging numbers of citizens on da welfare?  

 

Revisiting the obama/dem ACA and the foundation of sand it was built on, skyrocketing costs, and fuzzy math that went into it?  

 

Revisiting the corruption associated with the Russian collusion narrative, the fingerprints of dems, Obama and Biden all over it?  Reminding centrist Americans that votes matter, and that this was an attempt to steal the election, with pictures of key Obamans &  key DOJ operatives as coup plotters? 

 

The r tax plan. More money for more people is a bad thing?  Tax revenue increased to most states (45 I believe) is a bad thing? 

 

Revisiting the gutter trash attempted assassination of Bret K by "leaders" of the dem party like Biden, Harris, Booker, Pelosi et al....and how quickly they moved on when they failed?

 

NATO.

 

I guess I can understand your hatred, but what record are you referring to? Don't dems want jobs? 

 

 

If i am running the campaign...saying these are things I would run...and i think can appeal to people like me..these will not make his base move..

 

1) Good people on both sides

2) Hate crimes up

3) pictures of everyone associated with him that plead guilty to crimes

3) deficits soaring..millionaires getting richer.

4) Wants to take your healthcare away..with footage of him saying will take of after the election

5) Kim playing him like a fiddle..showing the "NK Nukes are gone" clip over and over and Kim meeting with Putin

6) Trade deficits at 10-year highs under trump

7) Myriad ways Trump Admin is hurting the environment

? Trump had a  majority for 2 years,his own party thought his ideas on immigration sucked,  immigration is a mess and much worse under Trump, families separated, Trump is so simple-minded he believes we only need a wall

9) Clip after clip after clip of obvious lies by Trump...including where his dad was born, nature of the Trump Tower meeting, just pick which one ya want

10) In the age of metoo...the access, hollywood tape played over and over and over again

 

just a start

 

Just a sampling

 

 

 

[row_33]

Economy is going great

 

end of campaign requirements

 

99% of voters don’t care about politics, if they have a job and optimism it’s game over for a challenger