The Mueller report

If that's all it takes to get rid all the dam liberals I am all in favor of impeaching Trump. Trump gets impeached and Liberals drop dead. America is great again, Trump's legacy a total success, lol.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

J666 -You and your supporters need to come to a consensus about what, why, and where a present president can be impeached. You blah, blah about the only way trump can be impeached and others claiming it’s all political and a president can be impeached anytime for anything.
With that said, you might want to rake your own shit into at least one pile.

I count no supporters - only my Opinion.

As to Impeachment - please read the Constitution of this United States.

Here - made easy for One.

Constitutional provisions

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

—Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

—Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

[The President} … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

—Article II, Section 2

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

—Article II, Section 4Your "Consensus" is o











That said - I see the usual devolvement into scatalogic terms when intellectual debate escapes ( or incapable of) the DPST's. a usual response to what ever violates their laws of blasphemy of the Political religion of the DPST's. Originally Posted by oeb11

Try reading post 625 again. You weren’t mentioned but like the rest of the pack you were ready to pounce.
In the immortal words of the self proclaimed stable genius “ we’ll see what happens “

Forgot the Scatology, J666

I see Hannity has the hostiles off chasing Hillary’s E mails again. Handjob has been sniveling about Clinton for five years while calling the Dems fanatics and praising the trump crime family who couldn’t qualify for security clearances but received them the old fashioned way...Nepotism. :



Interactions and Contacts with the Trump Campaign

The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and .members of the Trump Campaign. [B]The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and the Clinton Campaign. /B] First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted-typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States.

I see Hannity has the hostiles off chasing Hillary’s E mails again. Handjob has been sniveling about Clinton for five years while calling the Dems fanatics and praising the trump crime family who couldn’t qualify for security clearances but received them the old fashioned way...Nepotism. :



Interactions and Contacts with the Trump Campaign

The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and .members of the Trump Campaign. [B]The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and the Clinton Campaign. /B] First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted-typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Fascinating how you remain so confused about facts.

The FBI made the dump about hildebeest's emails last Friday, and, on Monday, the State Department made the press release regarding how fifteen individuals are being held accountable for more than 30 violations of security protocols during the period hildebeest was Secretary of State because hildebeest was using an illegal server. Hannity didn't have a damn thing to do with either release.

You also continue to ignore that Mueller misrepresented Dowd's conversation with Flynn and misrepresented who Kilimnik was working for.

Plus, Comey already admitted that he served at the prerogative of the president, but you chose to ignore that as well.

You'd do well to look at the impeachment of Andrew Johnson stemming from his firing of the Secretary of War. Ultimately, Johnson was not removed from office, and it was later determined that he had the legal authority to fire an employee serving in the executive branch regardless of what the fuck Congress might think about the sacking.

The renewed effort by Senate Democrats to pass election security legislation comes after special counsel Robert Mueller's report detailing Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

"He's not guilty of being a horse thief...he's only guilty of trying not to be hung for it. "

Democrats detail new strategy to pressure McConnell on election security bills



https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ll-on-election

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

So ... how many "new" strategies for the Democrats is this? I lost count.


BAHHAHAAAAAAA

I guess it's currently a matter of ethics, as opposed to law. I'm amazed that pressure has to be placed on the Majority leader to get legislation passed.

McConnell didn't rule out taking up legislation during a Fox News interview last week, but warned that he won't support legislation that took away control of elections from state and local governments.

Hope Hicks and the Mueller Report

Hicks gave testimony about three incidents involving trump’s campaign of obstruction. She was witness to Comey’s firing, Sessions refusal to interfere in the Mueller investigations and two of the three times trump asked underlings to sabotage the investigation by ousting Mueller. She will make a good fact witness if the regimes attorney will allow her to answer any questions.

If the over and under bet on...the number of times the Freedom caucus makes speeches about Hillary’s email is 10.... I’m betting over

Hope Hicks and the Mueller Report

Hicks gave testimony about three incidents involving trump’s campaign of obstruction. She was witness to Comey’s firing, Sessions refusal to interfere in the Mueller investigations and two of the three times trump asked underlings to sabotage the investigation by ousting Mueller. She will make a good fact witness if the regimes attorney will allow her to answer any questions.

If the over and under bet on...the number of times the Freedom caucus makes speeches about Hillary’s email is 10.... I’m betting over Originally Posted by Jaxson66

What part of "the Supreme Court has already ruled" do you not understand?

Myers v. United States : October 25, 1926 -- "This case presents the question whether, under the Constitution, the President has the exclusive power of removing executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Myers ... was, on July 21, 1917, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to be a postmaster of the first class at Portland, Oregon, for a term of four years. On January 20, 1920, Myers' resignation was demanded. He refused the demand. On February 2, 1920, he was removed from office by order of the Postmaster General, acting by direction of the President.

The Senate did not consent to the President's removal of Myers during his term.

... under Article II of the Constitution the President's power of removal of executive officers appointed by him with the advice and consent of the Senate is full and complete without consent of the Senate. If this view is sound, the removal of Myers by the President without the Senate's consent was legal, and the judgment of the Court of Claims against the appellant was correct, and must be affirmed, though for a different reason from that given by that court. We are therefore confronted by the constitutional question, and cannot avoid it.

The relevant parts of Article II of the Constitution are as follows:

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur, and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established [p109] by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Section 1 of Article III, provides:

The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior. . . .

We are now asked to set aside this construction, thus buttressed, and adopt an adverse view because the Congress of the United States did so during a heated political difference of opinion between the then President and the majority leaders of Congress over the reconstruction measures adopted as a means of restoring to their proper status the States which attempted to withdraw from the Union at the time of the Civil War. The extremes to which the majority in both Houses carried legislative measures in that matter are now recognized by all who calmly review the history of that episode in our Government, leading to articles of impeachment against President Johnson, and his acquittal. Without animadverting on the character of the measures taken, we are certainly justified in saying that they should not be given the weight affecting proper constitutional construction to be accorded to that reached by the First Congress of the United States during a political calm and acquiesced in by the whole Government for three-quarters of a century, especially when the new construction contended for has never been acquiesced in by either the executive or the judicial departments. While this Court has studiously avoided deciding the issue until it was presented in such a way that it could not be avoided, in the references it has made to the history of the question, and in the presumptions it has indulged in favor of a statutory construction not inconsistent with the legislative decision of 1789, it has indicated a trend of view that we should not and cannot ignore. When, on the merits, we find our conclusion strongly favoring the view which prevailed in the First Congress, we have no hesitation in holding that conclusion to be correct, and it therefore follows that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, insofar as it attempted to prevent the President from removing executive officer who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was invalid, and that subsequent legislation of the same effect was equally so."

Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice

The May 17, 2017 Appointment Order and the Special Counsel regulations provide this Office with jurisdiction to investigate "federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses." 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). Because of that description ofourjurisdiction, we sought evidence for our obstruction-of-justice investigation with the elements of obstruction offenses in mind. Our evidentiary analysis is similarly focused on the elements of such offenses, although we do not draw conclusions on the ultimate questions that govern a prosecutorial decision under the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See Justice Manual §9-27.000 etseq. (2018).

Here, we summarize the law interpreting the elements of potentially relevant obstruction statutes in an ordinary case. This discussion does not address the unique constitutional issues that arise in an inquiry into official acts by the President. Those issues are discussed in a later section o f this report addressing constitutional defenses that the President' s counsel have raised . See Volume II, Section III.B, infra.

Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes: (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2). We describe those elements as they have been interpreted by the courts. We then discuss a more specific statute aimed at witness tampering, see 18 U.S.C. § I512(b), and describe the requirements for attempted offenses and endeavors to obstructjustice, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512(c)(2).

Obstructive act. Obstruction-of-justice law "reaches all corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered, regardless of the means employed." United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1393 (11th Cir. 1984) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1503). An "effort to influence" a proceeding can qualify as an endeavor to obstruct justice even if the effort was "subtle or circuitous" and "however cleverly or with whatever cloaking of purpose" it was made. United States v. Roe, 529 F.2d 629, 632 (4th Cir. 1975); see also UnitedStates v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153, 173 (2d Cir. 2006). The verbs "'obstruct or impede' are broad" and "can refer to anything that blocks, makes difficult, or hinders." Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101, 1106 (2018) (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1061562998][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Black"]What part of "the Supreme Court has already ruled" do you not understand?

What fucking part of obstruction do you not understand