I finally understand why the Democrats have a drunk donkey as their mascot.
Posted on 08/02/2019 12:01:10 PM PDT by Innovative
By CBS's standard, anybody who pleads "not guilty" is by definition obstructing justice. Declaring one's innocence, questioning the motives of those who declare one guilty, and making it difficult for them to prove their case is not obstructing justice, it's routine for the adversarial process.
-PJ
Majority of House Democrats now say they support starting an impeachment inquiry (upd. 2:43 pm EST)They and their donors are scared shitless. Their donors are demanding it.
They're all Koch heads...hooked on Koch.
House Democrats have always been in favor of an impeachment inquiry, which would be nothing new - nothing but a continuation of the dishonest and toothless grandstanding that has persisted ad nauseam since the 2016 election.
Whether or not they will ever call a formal vote to impeach - that is what is in doubt. Doing so would be risky - the vote could well fail in the House - and even if it passed - it would force the Senate to vote on whether or not to remove - a vote the Democrats would lose badly.
When the Senate responds to a House impeachment vote, and decides not to remove - it is seen by the public as a repudiation of the House’s impeachment decision - similar to the Supreme Court overturning a lower court’s ruling.
It is very bad politics - a humiliation that any smart Democrats want to avoid.
They will continue talking about impeachment, threatening impeachment, considering impeachment, inquiring into impeachment, talking about threatening to consider inquiring into impeachment. But I doubt they will ever call a formal vote.
“A majority of House Democrats are now on record publicly supporting an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, according to a CNN count.”
And a majority of Americans are in favor of American-style Nuremberg trials against the Nazi propaganda press.
When the dems actually get “concrete” offensives for impeachment, then the rules and boundaries are set. Then all of the Hillary docs can be released within this framework and then she can reasonably be prosecuted upon the stage the dems have said is absolutely true. No wiggle room. The definitions are set and they will ensnare her fat a$$.
You can smell the desperation and fear rolling off them as they realize that this is probably their best hat trick and it is doomed except to get the LSM to air a bunch more of their lies and rhetoric that nobody believes anyway...
I finally understand why the Democrats have a drunk donkey as their mascot.
Panic
Who are you, and what have you done with the real nwrep?
Buh-bye, Peloousy. Thanks Innovative.
CNN wants impeachment to save their ratings.
How hard is it to believe that Trump fought tooth and nail to block the Deep state from prying information out of his administration? Well, fighting the deep state tooth and nail during the conduct of this investigation is obstruction of justice, at least according to the way the investigators characterize it, whether we like it or not.
Suppose I wanted to convince the world that you are guilty of fraud (I do not believe you are guilty). I see that "misrepresentation" is a synonym. I find something you posted somewhere that contained an error. I wrongly accuse you of fraud. Since you have posted on a conservative forum, the media and Twitter universe repeat my claim.
You may honestly believe that Trump is guilty of "obstruction of justice," but if so, why would you try to convince FR readers? You might have more success elsewhere. But even some relatively sane "progressives" realize that, unless real evidence appears, that that charge is nonsense.
I am not convinced he is guilty of OOJ. I agree with the stance taken by Mate and Dore. I am simply pointing out the allegations. Mueller’s statements are contradictory. He says what you indicated below, but he also says there were instances of non-cooperation and obstruction. He is not willing to say “there was no OOJ”, just that it was decided that a charge to that effect will not be pursued. I think we ought to appreciate the maddening nuances of the report and acknowledge them.
I partly agree, but “not exonerated” is not a legal term, and really not in Mueller’s “purview.” Somebody made that up and somebody put it in his report. It’s really a political smear and not necessary to emphasize it and repeat it incessantly.
EDT
Why are time zones so hard?
Feel free to use my new term above for democratic socialist. DEM-SOCS or DIM-SOCS or ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.