Is impeachment the new political weapon? (1 Viewer)

[Speed_eRacer]

I posted this over on the conservative board but I think it is a good subject. Will this be a new political weapon of the future. Once a president is elected the other side spends its time trying to dig up anything they can that could be a possible impeachment act and force investigations?

 

[V Chip]

Because reasonable people can look at a circumstance differently. I get people where charged, but it was poppycock. Some of us look at the mueller investigation as a total fraud, dog and Pony show with a sole purposes of overturning the 2016 election. I’m not sure why you can’t understand that perspective.

Then I guess we really differ as to who can be described as "reasonable." Because defining the Mueller investigation as a total fraud when it found more wrongdoing than all of the Benghazi and "but her emails!" investigations did combined. I'm fairly certain that conservatives who describe themselves as "reasonable" didn't decry those investigations. Interestingly, those people who were subject to those fruitless investigations actually appeared before Congress and took part in the process and answered questions sometimes for hours on end.

And the sole purpose isn't overturning the 2016 elections. Again, there were numerous things that could have been acted upon by Congress that weren't before this current Ukraine investigation. If it's all about overturning the election, things would have happened long before this current investigation. I get that Trump supporters need something to try to assuage their feelings about the seediness of the current President, but like the Saints fans in my example, eventually you have to drop the suit against the NFL.

 

[samiam5211]

Because reasonable people can look at a circumstance differently. I get people where charged, but it was poppycock. Some of us look at the mueller investigation as a total fraud, dog and Pony show with a sole purposes of overturning the 2016 election. I’m not sure why you can’t understand that perspective.

I get what you are saying, I just don’t agree with it. I’m not saying the things above that are ACTUAL facts are wrong. I’m saying that they really are not a voter in why my position is what it is.

Because it's frustrating when people say things like the entire Mueller investigation was poppycock or a total fraud, when the facts show that to not be the case. Not even close.

I think most people who say that are smart enough to know it isn't really true.

It is hard to treat people seriously when they don't acknowledge basic reality. It is hard to have a discussion when the argument is over what the truth is. If someone denies the truth, it's kind of hard to have a debate over what to do about it.

 

[JimEverett]

On the central issue of Trump conspiring, or "colluding" - then yes, the Mueller investigation turned out to be a big nothing. And that is a perfectly reasonable statement.

 

[samiam5211]

On the central issue of Trump conspiring, or "colluding" - then yes, the Mueller investigation turned out to be a big nothing. And that is a perfectly reasonable statement.

It is not reasonable, because it focuses on what the report does not say and ignores what the Mueller report says.

 

[superchuck500]

On the central issue of Trump conspiring, or "colluding" - then yes, the Mueller investigation turned out to be a big nothing. And that is a perfectly reasonable statement.

I think this is true. But I also think it is true that in the context of the investigation's origin, it was necessary. We had clear evidence that Russian actors were engaging in a number of manners of mischief and there was evidence of some communication between individuals within the Trump campaign orbit and individuals with ostensible ties to the Russian government.

The initial posture of Trump and those individuals implicated was to resist - even to mislead. You had false or misleading statements by a handful of individuals including the Attorney General (Sessions) all of which were about Russian contacts.

In hindsight, perhaps full, candid disclosure might have blunted the push for an investigation of the campaign, and just leave it focused on the Russian mischief itself. Perhaps not - but we'll never know. It's neither the first nor the last time that Trump's first response (deny deny) brings heightened scrutiny when credible evidence casts doubt on those absolute denials.

 

[Lazybones]

Because it's frustrating when people say things like the entire Mueller investigation was poppycock or a total fraud, when the facts show that to not be the case. Not even close.

I think most people who say that are smart enough to know it isn't really true.

It is hard to treat people seriously when they don't acknowledge basic reality. It is hard to have a discussion when the argument is over what the truth is. If someone denies the truth, it's kind of hard to have a debate over what to do about it.

Well, I’m glad I don’t have to think to breath I guess. Unfortunately for your side, the impeachment will get the same results as the mueller investigation. And you will get 4 more years of utter misery.

At that point, you can blame people like me. And honestly the mere fact that the left can’t get their minds around the objectionstells you all you need to know. It’s as if they have their minds made up what we think and why we think it and just go all in.

I hope after the elections of 2020, I am able to come here and say I’m right. And I’m sure you will want to do the same. The difference is that I will accept it and move on just like I did with Obama.

 

[wardorican]

Well, I’m glad I don’t have to think to breath I guess. Unfortunately for your side, the impeachment will get the same results as the mueller investigation. And you will get 4 more years of utter misery.

At that point, you can blame people like me. And honestly the mere fact that the left can’t get their minds around the objectionstells you all you need to know. It’s as if they have their minds made up what we think and why we think it and just go all in.

I hope after the elections of 2020, I am able to come here and say I’m right. And I’m sure you will want to do the same. The difference is that I will accept it and move on just like I did with Obama.

I think a fundamental difference is that the public actually had a reaction to this Ukraine situation, where there wasn't a blip after the Mueller report.

 

[Lazybones]

I think a fundamental difference is that the public actually had a reaction to this Ukraine situation, where there wasn't a blip after the Mueller report.

Anytime the media starts screaming impeachment, of course the American people are concerned. As many of you have said the majority of the country only knows what they hear on CNN.

I’m curious as to what the next move will be when this doesn’t work. I really hope many in the left sir back and breath and not let their whole life revolve around the president and his twitter feed. He is playing them like a fine tuned Stradivarius.

 

[samiam5211]

Well, I’m glad I don’t have to think to breath I guess. Unfortunately for your side, the impeachment will get the same results as the mueller investigation. And you will get 4 more years of utter misery.

At that point, you can blame people like me. And honestly the mere fact that the left can’t get their minds around the objectionstells you all you need to know. It’s as if they have their minds made up what we think and why we think it and just go all in.

I hope after the elections of 2020, I am able to come here and say I’m right. And I’m sure you will want to do the same. The difference is that I will accept it and move on just like I did with Obama.

Its not about what I think the result will be. It’s not about winning because it isn’t a game. It is about what the facts show. To me the facts show that this is the perfect example of why the founders put impeachment in the Constitution as a remedy. That is my opinion based on the facts. We can’t discuss our opinions though, because we don’t even agree to what the facts are.

Im not exactly sure what you mean by “people like me”. You seem to be generalizing something, but I’m not sure what.

I hope after the elections in 2020 that I am right, but I don’t care about saying itoldyluso.

We agree on one thing for sure... If I am wrong I won’t move on and accept it because it would be unacceptable.

 

[Ayo]

I think a fundamental difference is that the public actually had a reaction to this Ukraine situation, where there wasn't a blip after the Mueller report.

I know the graph you got that from, but the top is cut off and it might help to demarcate where the Ukraine investigation happens on that timeline. Of course, perhaps we can guess - the difference is pretty stark

 

[Ayo]

As many of you have said the majority of the country only knows what they hear on CNN.

and even more FOX, as FOX viewers are routinely wont to point out

and, so, here we are

 

[V Chip]

On the central issue of Trump conspiring, or "colluding" - then yes, the Mueller investigation turned out to be a big nothing. And that is a perfectly reasonable statement.

I'm not sure that is was a big nothing. Yes, nothing could be prosecuted. But the report didn't find no evidence -- just a lack of sufficient evidence to charge. Mueller even agreed something along the lines of the obstruction could have prevented evidence that would have been sufficient, but they could not charge obstruction while he is in office. That's why I don't find that it was a big nothing -- it showed definitively that the Trump Administration obstructed the investigation into Criminal Conspiracy. If an investigation is obstructed, IMO you cannot ever say it produced nothing because it couldn't be completed.

 

[JRad]

and even more FOX, as FOX viewers are routinely wont to point out

and, so, here we are

Especially considering their respective market shares. A larger percentage of the country hears the Fox message than the CNN message.

 

[JimEverett]

I'm not sure that is was a big nothing. Yes, nothing could be prosecuted. But the report didn't find no evidence -- just a lack of sufficient evidence to charge. Mueller even agreed something along the lines of the obstruction could have prevented evidence that would have been sufficient, but they could not charge obstruction while he is in office. That's why I don't find that it was a big nothing -- it showed definitively that the Trump Administration obstructed the investigation into Criminal Conspiracy. If an investigation is obstructed, IMO you cannot ever say it produced nothing because it couldn't be completed.

I think the Mueller Report was emphatic is dismissing the specific claims of collusion that had been discussed by media outlets. I may be wrong, but it did not seem like it left much room for "perhaps there was collusion but for possible obstruction."
In fact, one of the factors that went into his analysis of not charging obstruction or determining that Trump did obstruct was that there was no evidence at all of an underlying crime.

 

[V Chip]

I think the Mueller Report was emphatic is dismissing the specific claims of collusion that had been discussed by media outlets. I may be wrong, but it did not seem like it left much room for "perhaps there was collusion but for possible obstruction."
In fact, one of the factors that went into his analysis of not charging obstruction or determining that Trump did obstruct was that there was no evidence at all of an underlying crime.

He never investigated collusion and stated as such -- perhaps you mean Criminal Conspiracy?

I haven't seen where he claims there was zero evidence of a crime. Do you have something that states as such? The report says "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" which again is not saying there was zero evidence of a crime. In his press conference, Mueller said "If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime." That seems to contradict what you just claimed.

 

[JimEverett]

He never investigated collusion and stated as such -- perhaps you mean Criminal Conspiracy?

I haven't seen where he claims there was zero evidence of a crime. Do you have something that states as such? The report says "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" which again is not saying there was zero evidence of a crime. In his press conference, Mueller said "If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime." That seems to contradict what you just claimed.

"Collusion" has been the standard term used by people claiming that they were certain Trump acted in tandem with Russia to influence the 2016 election. I have stated many times that collusion is not a crime, but it was still widely used so its the term I have always used since - even though it is clearly not a legal term.

On page 157, second paragraph when discussiong obstruction:

In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.

 

[V Chip]

"Collusion" has been the standard term used by people claiming that they were certain Trump acted in tandem with Russia to influence the 2016 election. I have stated many times that collusion is not a crime, but it was still widely used so its the term I have always used since - even though it is clearly not a legal term.

On page 157, second paragraph when discussiong obstruction:

That is definitely not "there was no evidence at all of an underlying crime."

 

[samiam5211]

I think the Mueller Report was emphatic is dismissing the specific claims of collusion that had been discussed by media outlets. I may be wrong, but it did not seem like it left much room for "perhaps there was collusion but for possible obstruction."
In fact, one of the factors that went into his analysis of not charging obstruction or determining that Trump did obstruct was that there was no evidence at all of an underlying crime.

Did Mueller ever say that his thinking included an assumption that there was no underlying crime?

I only recall hearing that defense from the Presidents defenders, but it is very possible it was in the report and I missed it.