• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller Left Open the Door to Charging Trump After He Leaves Office

poweRob said:
This is a lie.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Mueller did not establish a crime was committed.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,..."​


That behavior was then reviewed by Barr with the assistance of the AAG Rosenstein who then decided the behavior was not sufficient to establish a crime.
 
Excon said:
Not at all. Mueller did not establish a crime was committed.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,..."​


That behavior was then reviewed by Barr with the assistance of the AAG Rosenstein who then decided the behavior was not sufficient to establish a crime.
Click to expand...

Barr is a fat toadie, who decides nothing...Congress will do that
 
MTAtech said:
Barr is a shill who was hired to act as Trump's defense, not the defense of the nation. What he decides isn't law -- as opposed to what judges decide.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is nonsensical and irrelevant.
Barr was approved in a confirmation hearing. And he does determine what is or isn't sufficient to bring charges.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Your opinion is nonsensical and irrelevant.
Barr was was approved in a confirmation hearing. And he does determine what is or isn't sufficient to bring charges.
Click to expand...

Wrong....Congress will decide...Not that fat loser Barr...Watch and see
 
Excon said:
Your opinion is nonsensical and irrelevant.
Barr was was approved in a confirmation hearing. And he does determine what is or isn't sufficient to bring charges.
Click to expand...
What if Trump is indicted by the New York State Attorney General?
 
pamak said:
I take Madison (the father of the Constitution) over Barr any time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."

James Madison responded:
f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...63



Here is the same piece of information published in Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 32, Number 4974, 8 March 1867

Sacramento Daily Union 8 March 1867 — California Digital Newspaper Collection


In other words, even during the exercise of a legitimate power to pardon somebody (as a president can do even when such pardon stops an investigation involving a president and his associates ), Madison believed that a President could be be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." In other words, a president is not shielded from crime just because he does something within his powers.
Click to expand...


An impeachment is a political act.
Madison's point was that the House would respond in that manner to Mason's concern. But that doesn't address Masons argument.
 
Saladin4 said:
Barr is a fat toadie, who decides nothing...Congress will do that
Click to expand...

No. They have no say over what the AG finds as insufficient to bring criminal charges.
 
MTAtech said:
What if Trump is indicted by the New York State Attorney General?
Click to expand...
:doh Which would have nothing to do with the supposed obstruction we are currently discussing.
 
Excon said:
No. They have no say over what the AG finds as insufficient to bring criminal charges.
Click to expand...

They have a lot to say, Barr is going to get his fat ass hauled up before Congress soon.....Watch and see
 
Excon said:
Not at all. Mueller did not establish a crime was committed.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime,..."​


That behavior was then reviewed by Barr with the assistance of the AAG Rosenstein who then decided the behavior was not sufficient to establish a crime.
Click to expand...

Spam away spammer guy... but your boy clearly obstructed justice and congress can now pursue that and possible collusion charges as well.
 
Saladin4 said:
They have a lot to say, Barr is going to get his fat ass hauled up before Congress soon.....Watch and see
Click to expand...

Irrelevant nonsense.
They do not decide was is or isn't sufficient for the AG to bring charges. The AG does.
 
Saladin4 said:
They have a lot to say, Barr is going to get his fat ass hauled up before Congress soon.....Watch and see
Click to expand...

That boy should be jail bound like Nixon's AG John N. Mitchell.
 
Excon said:
Irrelevant nonsense.
They do not decide was is or isn't sufficient for the AG to bring charges. The AG does.
Click to expand...

Obstruction is a serious charge....Congress will decide to move forward on that...Watch and see
 
Excon said:
:doh Which would have nothing to do with the supposed obstruction we are currently discussing.
Click to expand...

It does because you previously asserted that Barr is the final arbiter of whether a president could be indicted, period. Not so if NYS indicts him.
 
poweRob said:
Spam away spammer guy...
Click to expand...
Says you, the guy spamming away with untruths.


poweRob said:
but your boy clearly obstructed justice ...
Click to expand...
As the AG with the assistance of the AAG decided the activity was not sufficient to establish a crime, you are clearly spamming untruths again.


poweRob said:
to and congress can now pursue that and possible collusion charges as well.
Click to expand...
iLOL The Congress can certainly entertain the political process of impeachment, but there will be no conviction by the Senate. So they can waste more of our time and lose the election. It will be hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
An impeachment is a political act.
Madison's point was that the House would respond in that manner to Mason's concern. But that doesn't address Masons argument.
Click to expand...

It is a political act which nevertheless punishes CRIMES

Constitution for the United States - We the People

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.

In any way you see it, Trump cannot use the excuse "I had the constitutional power to fire Comey" to argue that he has not committed a CRIME, according to Madison!
 
MTAtech said:
It does because you previously asserted that Barr is the final arbiter of whether a president could be indicted, period. Not so if NYS indicts him.
Click to expand...
:doh

In regards to the subject material at hand. Duh! NY State has not a damn thing to do with the nonsensical claims of obstruction of a federal investigation.
 
pamak said:
In any way you see it, Trump cannot use the excuse "I had the power to fire Comey" to argue that he has not committed a CRIME
Click to expand...
And yet his doing so was not a crime. Go figure.
All you are doing is grasping at nonsense.
 
pamak said:
It is a political act which nevertheless punishes CRIMES

Constitution for the United States - We the People

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.

In any way you see it, Trump cannot use the excuse "I had the power to fire Comey" to argue that he has not committed a CRIME
Click to expand...

Am impeachment doesn't punish crimes. The only result from a conviction for impeachment is removal from office. Such a person can subsequently be tried in a court of law for any crime committed.
 
Saladin4 said:
Obstruction is a serious charge....Congress will decide to move forward on that...Watch and see
Click to expand...
More irrelevant nonsense. Figures.
It was already established by the AG (who they approved) that there was no crime of obstruction.
So as I already said; "The Congress can certainly entertain the political process of impeachment, but there will be no conviction by the Senate. So they can waste more of our time and lose the election. It will be hilarious. "
 
Athanasius68 said:
Am impeachment doesn't punish crimes. The only result from a conviction for impeachment is removal from office. Such a person can subsequently be tried in a court of law for any crime committed.
Click to expand...

An impeachment charges people with crimes which are tried in the Senate! The removal from office comes as a result of somebody convicted for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. All the above are crimes and according to Madison such result can come even if a President uses his legal pardon powers!
 
Why did so many of POTUS's campaign and admin. lie about more than 100 Russian contacts? Why did his advisors, staff ignore his attempts to obstruct? Why did Sanders lie about Comey? Why did Mike Rogers lock his memorandum in a safe? Why did McGahn resign? Why were people sentenced or awaiting sentencing? Why did Barr say what he has when he KNEW what was going to be released?

Just some of my questions.
 
MTAtech said:
The crux of the current matter is obstruction of justice. There is also lots of evidence of collusion but may not be actually illegal -- just unpatriotic. Nobody should take solace in that fact.

We have a POTUS who ordered underlings to commit crimes and lie to investigators and the only reason it didn't happen is because they refused to carry out those orders. That shouldn't absolve him. Seems to me, that's a clear violation of his oath of office to uphold the laws and not obstruct investigations.

The only reason Nixon resigned is because there were tapes that had him discussing illegal matters. Without those, he would have served out his term. The current case has a sitting president discussing and directing illegal matters but no tapes, just witnesses. Should Trump get a gold star because his coverup was better than Nixon's?
Click to expand...

What crimes did Trump direct his subordinates to commit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom