Here’s the Dems’ best impeachment strategy...

[Deleted member 21794]

Who’s the drooling moron? Mueller or Trump? They would be the only two potential witnesses (Trump would refuse to testify, of course).

You're the drooling moron. Surely even you see this.

 

[trapdoor]

It’s hard to believe you’re dopey enough to buy the Trump/Barr spin based on that sentence fragment.


Mueller’s report clearly states that it would be appropriate and fair to exonerate Trump if there was not sufficient evidence of obstruction. He also said it would not be appropriate and fair to state that Trump was guilty of obstruction, since that is an issue to be decided through impeachment or post-presidency indictment.

I doubt you’re too dopey to understand this. I think your hackery is leading you to play dumb.

This report does not conclude the president committed a crime. It is on the Democrats to prove he committed one -- he's innocent until PROVEN guilty. Please do conduct your witch hunt.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

You're the drooling moron. Surely even you see this.

You said Congress would not listen to a drooling moron. Under my impeachment strategy, only Mueller and Trump would be called as witnesses.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

This report does not conclude the president committed a crime. It is on the Democrats to prove he committed one -- he's innocent until PROVEN guilty. Please do conduct your witch hunt.

Nope. It would not be up to “the Democrats” to prove Trump committed a crime. Mueller left that decision to Congress, which includes Republicans. Granted, most if not all, Republicans in Congress would vote to ignore Trump’s criminal conduct, but you should not just assume that in advance.

 

[Nostra]

You said Congress would not listen to a drooling moron. Under my impeachment strategy, only Mueller and Trump would be called as witnesses.

Nazi Pelosi has already shot down your strategy.

Move on to another fantasy.

Loser.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Nazi Pelosi has already shot down your strategy.

Move on to another fantasy.

Loser.

No one has shot it down yet, including the imaginary person in your post.

This is unfolding as we speak. Barr’s flim-flam increased the need for impeachment hearings.

 

[Nostra]

No one has shot it down yet, including the imaginary person in your post.

This is unfolding as we speak. Barr’s flim-flam increased the need for impeachment hearings.

Pelosi did, right here...

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it,” Pelosi told the Post.

Your moronic fishing expedition is not "compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan".

You lose again, loser.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Pelosi did, right here...

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it,” Pelosi told the Post.

Your moronic fishing expedition is not "compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan".

You lose again, loser.

As I just told you, Barr’s flim-flam, foisted upon the nation after that Pelosi comment, increased the need for impeachment proceedings.

Pay attention.

 

[Nostra]

As I just told you, Barr’s flim-flam, foisted upon the nation after that Pelosi comment, increased the need for impeachment proceedings.

Pay attention.

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it,” Pelosi toldthe Post.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it,” Pelosi toldthe Post.

You just can’t pay attention.

 

[Nostra]

You just can’t pay attention.

You need to pay attention to your leader....


“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it,” Pelosi toldthe Post.

 

[EatTheRich]

How is Republicans/Conservative/Libertarians filled with socialists? Oh wait! Don't tell us that your pea brain didn't know that Hitler was a socialist?kidding right. Now copy and paste phony rhetoric that says what you wish. Happy faking!

P.S. Antifa comes from 1930's Germany too!

Yup. Antifa were the folks fighting Hitler.

Hitler was a “socialist” in the same Orwellian sense that Libertarians are supporters of liberty.

 

[trapdoor]

Nope. It would not be up to “the Democrats” to prove Trump committed a crime. Mueller left that decision to Congress, which includes Republicans. Granted, most if not all, Republicans in Congress would vote to ignore Trump’s criminal conduct, but you should not just assume that in advance.

Sure it will. You have to prove him guilty, even if there is evidence in Mueller report, it't not trial, conviction, etc. He is innocent until proven guilty via impeachment or in a court of law. That means any impeachment will fall on House Democrats, in a failing effort as the GOP-controlled Senate will not convict, even if the Democrats are foolish enough to impeach. The smart move for Democrats is to say, very publicly, "We don't think this is the right fight to have right now," and attempt to run on issues for 2020. They aren't going to do that, which will pretty much insure trump is in the White House for the next 5 1/2 years.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

You said Congress would not listen to a drooling moron. Under my impeachment strategy, only Mueller and Trump would be called as witnesses.

Learn to read.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Sure it will. You have to prove him guilty, even if there is evidence in Mueller report, it't not trial, conviction, etc. He is innocent until proven guilty via impeachment or in a court of law. That means any impeachment will fall on House Democrats, in a failing effort as the GOP-controlled Senate will not convict, even if the Democrats are foolish enough to impeach. The smart move for Democrats is to say, very publicly, "We don't think this is the right fight to have right now," and attempt to run on issues for 2020. They aren't going to do that, which will pretty much insure trump is in the White House for the next 5 1/2 years.

Again, you simply assume that the Republicans in Congress will all ignore all of Trump’s criminal conduct. Granted, there is a high probability of that, but that is not a valid reason not to commence impeachment proceedings. Indeed, Republicans in “purple” districts who ignore Trump’s crimes do so at their political peril.

 

[Nostra]

Again, you simply assume that the Republicans in Congress will all ignore all of Trump’s criminal conduct. Granted, there is a high probability of that, but that is not a valid reason not to commence impeachment proceedings. Indeed, Republicans in “purple” districts who ignore Trump’s crimes do so at their political peril.

What criminal conduct?

Be specific.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

What criminal conduct?

Be specific.

Read the Mueller report. Especially Volume II. Just read the summary if you’re too lazy to read the whole thing.

 

[trapdoor]

Again, you simply assume that the Republicans in Congress will all ignore all of Trump’s criminal conduct. Granted, there is a high probability of that, but that is not a valid reason not to commence impeachment proceedings. Indeed, Republicans in “purple” districts who ignore Trump’s crimes do so at their political peril.

The GOP will vote in lockstep with no more than three dissenters, if a vote happens. If the Democratic Party is smart, they won't bring it to a vote.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

The GOP will vote in lockstep with no more than three dissenters, if a vote happens. If the Democratic Party is smart, they won't bring it to a vote.

Why would it be “smart” for the Dems to just ignore Trump’s criminal activity? Your premise seems to be that the GOP candidates would benefit if they ignored Trump’s crimes during impeachment. I think the opposite is true.

 

[Nostra]

Why would it be “smart” for the Dems to just ignore Trump’s criminal activity? Your premise seems to be that the GOP candidates would benefit if they ignored Trump’s crimes during impeachment. I think the opposite is true.

What crimes? Be specific.

*Edited*