Pelosi officially announces impeachment inquiry

[Methais]

Trump is holding a press conference at 4 eastern.

What do you think he will say? He might announce his retirement and welcome our new President Pence. Or he might blame the whole Ukraine thing on Rudy Giuliani, whom he barely knows. Or he might attack the anonymous whistleblower and say the whistleblower's spouse is ugly. Or he might say that he did exactly the right thing and then get Attorney General Barr, who I'm pretty sure is a close relative of Roseanne, to announce the appointment of a special counsel to investigate corruption by the Bidens.

He's probably going to say you're a huge retard.

He's going to stand up and complain that ClydeR is too huge of a retard.

This is correct.

[BriarFox]

Let's play a game. Quote the exact part of Mueller's report where it spells out that the only reason he didn't recommend prosecuting Trump was because he wasn't legally allowed to.

Shit Mueller even testified under oath before Congress that it was not true that he didn't recommend prosecuting the president only because he was not legally allowed to. But you know, Briarfox of the PC knows more than Mueller himself.

You mean these reasons?

Mueller's report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn't indict Trump or suggest he should be charged:

They adhered to the OLC's 1973 decision that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
They believed that if their report suggested Trump could face federal charges without actually bringing them, it would not be fair because there would be no trial, and he wouldn't have an opportunity to clear himself.
Mueller did not consider filing a sealed indictment against Trump out of fear that it would be leaked and significantly impede his ability to govern.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...o-his-report-5

[Tgo01]

You mean these reasons?

You literally just quoted a news article, because we all know how accurate those have been lately!

Good job.

[BriarFox]

You literally just quoted a news article, because we all know how accurate those have been lately!

Good job.

:LOL: Ok, Business Week is a completely unreliable news source. I should have gone to Breitbart!

[Methais]

I think you should probably go read the Mueller report in more detail. The only reason Mueller didn't recommend Trump be prosecuted was because being butthurt over losing an election isn't a reason to impeach.

This is correct.

[Tgo01]

:LOL: Ok, Business Week is a completely unreliable news source. I should have gone to Breitbart!

Remember how the news has been reporting the past 48 hours that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine to go after his political opponent? Remember how now the story has morphed to "Well...pressured..."

Just quote the Mueller report itself. You DID read it and didn't just rely on Rachel Maddow to tell you what it said right?

[ClydeR]

This is awkward. Trump is more than 15 minutes late. There must be some last minute second thoughts about what he will say. They may be waiting on Justice Roberts to arrive with the Bible to swear in Pence.

[BriarFox]

Remember how the news has been reporting the past 48 hours that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine to go after his political opponent? Remember how now the story has morphed to "Well...pressured..."

Just quote the Mueller report itself. You DID read it and didn't just rely on Rachel Maddow to tell you what it said right?

Here's the exact section from the report:

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the
constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct
“constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term,
OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an
indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to
govern.”6 Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining “that the
person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

I expect you're too busy screaming to read any of that, of course. You get more unhinged daily.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I expect you're too busy screaming to read any of that, of course. You get more unhinged daily.

LOL, I laughed

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I didn't think the NY Post was that far right leaning, but I guess so. Nice opinion piece.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/25/ukrain...n-controversy/