Menu
New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

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

middleview

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Bugsy McGurk said:
Base it solely on the Mueller report with one exception...

Subpoena Trump to testify before the House Committee as to his many instances of obstruction, as outlined in the Mueller report. Announce that they want to give Trump a chance to explain himself under oath.

Trump will refuse to testify, of course - the last thing that swine will ever do is answer questions under oath.

Then, when he refuses, impeach his fat ass and send it to the Senate. Force all the GOP senators to take a stand on Trump’s crimes.

Great strategy, right? It would highlight Trump’s crimes despite Barr’s flim-flam, tar Trump before the 2020 election, and wrap Trump’s crimes around the GOP senators’ necks.

Awesome.

;-)
Click to expand...
President Pence? Nah. The dems best strategy is to win in 2020. Candidates on the far far left should be ignored. Focus on those who appeal to the 60% in the middle. Work on uniting us, not appealing to the radical left and hope that the middle simply votes against Trump.
 
Bugsy McGurk

Bugsy McGurk

President
middleview said:
President Pence? Nah. The dems best strategy is to win in 2020. Candidates on the far far left should be ignored. Focus on those who appeal to the 60% in the middle. Work on uniting us, not appealing to the radical left and hope that the middle simply votes against Trump.
Click to expand...
We would not get President Pence. Most GOP senators would vote “no” on impeachment no matter what Trump did. Indeed, highlighting that would be a central purpose of impeachment, helping the Dems take control of the Senate in 2020.
 
T

trapdoor

Governor
Bugsy McGurk said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because there is no solid proof of criminal activity. They hanged the last two years on the notion that Mueller would find collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice -- he didn't find one of them at all, and may not have enough evidence to prove the other. And pursuing what is obviously a weak case, at best, will make them look bad. It's why Pelosi is backing away from impeachment talk.
 
Bugsy McGurk

Bugsy McGurk

President
trapdoor said:
Because there is no solid proof of criminal activity. They hanged the last two years on the notion that Mueller would find collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice -- he didn't find one of them at all, and may not have enough evidence to prove the other. And pursuing what is obviously a weak case, at best, will make them look bad. It's why Pelosi is backing away from impeachment talk.
Click to expand...
Nope. Mueller did not analyze “collusion” at all, much less did he opine on that. He did decline to bring new conspiracy charges. And he laid out the evidence of obstruction and left it to Congress to decide that question.

This really isn’t complicated.
 
middleview

middleview

President
Supporting Member
trapdoor said:
Because there is no solid proof of criminal activity. They hanged the last two years on the notion that Mueller would find collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice -- he didn't find one of them at all, and may not have enough evidence to prove the other. And pursuing what is obviously a weak case, at best, will make them look bad. It's why Pelosi is backing away from impeachment talk.
Click to expand...
As I've stated before...you have to prove intent to convict anyone of conspiracy. That is why nobody was convicted of conspiracy in revealing Plame's identity. Fitzgerald tried to get Libby to flip by convicting him of lying. They tried to do the same with Flynn, Manafort and Cohen.

The number of contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials or people with known links to the Russian government, Putin or Russian intelligence agencies does seem to phase you guys. Read the Mueller report.
 
Nostra

Nostra

Governor
Bugsy McGurk said:
Nope. Mueller did not analyze “collusion” at all, much less did he opine on that. He did decline to bring new conspiracy charges. And he laid out the evidence of obstruction and left it to Congress to decide that question.

This really isn’t complicated.
Click to expand...

Bugsy McGurkPresident
Joined:
Nov 8, 2011
Messages:
81,757
Likes Received:
6,474
You betcha.

As more and more evidence of Team Trump/Kremlin collusion comes in and can no longer be rationally denied, Trump and his toadies will be left with their last-ditch argument - that collusion is not a crime.

But the collusion in question is, indeed, a crime.

Here’s the explanation...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/opinions/collusion-is-a-crime-waxman/index.html?no-st=1544834955
 
middleview

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Bugsy McGurk said:
Nope. Mueller did not analyze “collusion” at all, much less did he opine on that. He did decline to bring new conspiracy charges. And he laid out the evidence of obstruction and left it to Congress to decide that question.

This really isn’t complicated.
Click to expand...
The Mueller report documents a ton of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials and pals of Putin. It clearly states the campaign had much to gain from a Russian effort to provide anti-Clinton emails and internet activities and that the Russians recognized the value of a Trump presidency. Finding anyone willing to testify to a quid pro quo arrangement was the problem. Trump suggesting the Russians go looking for Clinton email was not specific enough. Trump campaign people suggesting more pro-Moscow policies if they were to win was also not a smoking gun.

In politics all we need to do is use logic to evaluate events. In a court of law hard evidence is required.

The right wingers have already convicted Hillary and Obama...but you will never see a trial because there is no evidence, only rumor and innuendo.
 
middleview

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Nostra said:

Bugsy McGurkPresident
Joined:
Nov 8, 2011
Messages:
81,757
Likes Received:
6,474
You betcha.

As more and more evidence of Team Trump/Kremlin collusion comes in and can no longer be rationally denied, Trump and his toadies will be left with their last-ditch argument - that collusion is not a crime.

But the collusion in question is, indeed, a crime.

Here’s the explanation...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/opinions/collusion-is-a-crime-waxman/index.html?no-st=1544834955
Click to expand...

Reread the law. It specifically refers to public officials. Trump was a candidate.
 
Bugsy McGurk

Bugsy McGurk

President
Nostra said:

Bugsy McGurkPresident
Joined:
Nov 8, 2011
Messages:
81,757
Likes Received:
6,474
You betcha.

As more and more evidence of Team Trump/Kremlin collusion comes in and can no longer be rationally denied, Trump and his toadies will be left with their last-ditch argument - that collusion is not a crime.

But the collusion in question is, indeed, a crime.

Here’s the explanation...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/opinions/collusion-is-a-crime-waxman/index.html?no-st=1544834955
Click to expand...
You disagree with the proposition that collusion to violate our laws, i.e., conspiracy, is a crime?
 
marvin martian

marvin martian

Emperor
Bugsy McGurk said:
There was nothing wishy-washy about his statement.

In the rare event that you really want the truth, read the excerpts here from Mueller’s report...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/why-mueller-didnt-charge-trump-with-obstruction-of-justice-2019-4

To be fair to Trump, he said he was not expressly stating that Trump was guilty of obstruction. However, he could not have been clearer - he was leaving adjudication of obstruction to either Congress or post-presidency indictment.
Click to expand...
It's ok, that retarded walrus Jerry Nadler is on the case. I'm sure he'll nail Trump where Mueller failed. Your walled compound in Trumplandia is safe.
 
reason10

reason10

Governor
Bugsy McGurk said:
Base it solely on the Mueller report with one exception...

Subpoena Trump to testify before the House Committee as to his many instances of obstruction, as outlined in the Mueller report. Announce that they want to give Trump a chance to explain himself under oath.

Trump will refuse to testify, of course - the last thing that swine will ever do is answer questions under oath.

Then, when he refuses, impeach his fat ass and send it to the Senate. Force all the GOP senators to take a stand on Trump’s crimes.

Great strategy, right? It would highlight Trump’s crimes despite Barr’s flim-flam, tar Trump before the 2020 election, and wrap Trump’s crimes around the GOP senators’ necks.

Awesome.

;-)
Click to expand...
He's not getting impeached, bitch. He has done nothing wrong and he hasn't broken any law.
AND HILLARY IS NOT GOING TO BE PRESIDENT.
 
Nostra

Nostra

Governor
Bugsy McGurk said:
Only Congress can bring such charges against a president.

You didn’t know that?
Click to expand...
Where are the charges?


“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 must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top