What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

The Sicatoka said:
What would be the charges, the high crimes and misdemeanors, in the articles of impeachment?
As someone said, best be right on when going after the king.
Click to expand...

The charge can be anything. They can convict him of wearing a stupid tie. You know this. The impeachment is not a legal proceeding.

But if you wonder what charge we could have that would pass a legal test, as for example when after impeachment we haul his fat as-s to jail, let's begin with obstruction of justice and move on from there.
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

Kepler said:
My scenario is he already has more than enough but there's yet even more and he's being thorough.
Click to expand...

To clarify, enough for what? A indictment of a private citizen? Proof of "high crimes" and the impeachable?

If Mueller has "more than enough" to prove "high crimes" Mueller is failing as someone guilty of such should be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate.
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

Kepler said:
"Your honor, we contend that although my client was discovered with a bloody ax standing astride the body of the victim who had been axed to death, a non-zero amount of time has elapsed between that discovery and this trial, therefore we move for an immediate mistrial, evacuation of all charges against my client, and indeed we charge you with conspiracy to hide the clear evidence that my client is the murderer!

For shame, your honor! For shame!"
Click to expand...

If Robert Mueller has proof of a "high crime" should Mueller be expected to immediately present it to the US House for commencement of the impeachment and trial process of a President?


Imagine if Mueller's has had the goods (my posited "manila envelope") for six months and let this fiasco (shutdown, gridlock) continue. How would that play with the public, or Dr Mrs.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

The senate would never try a republican. I think that’s been made clear
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

I'm not sure I get the point from our resident Trump Humper Sic here unless he forgot to log off as Sic and log on as pokechecker! :D

But, I would guess that Mueller knows what the crime is and how it was committed. What he's probably still investigating is who knew about it and when did they find out. Unraveling that part might take some time, as more and more people get indicted and/or convicted they're going to be more willing to roll on the higher-ups. No need to rush the man. Let's step aside and let him do his work.
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

The Sicatoka said:
If Robert Mueller has proof of a "high crime" should Mueller be expected to immediately present it to the US House for commencement of the impeachment and trial process of a President?


Imagine if Mueller's has had the goods (my posited "manila envelope") for six months and let this fiasco (shutdown, gridlock) continue. How would that play with the public, or Dr Mrs.
Click to expand...

Repeating this again and again isn't making it any stronger, Sic. I don't buy your framing and I don't think anybody else does, either.

I will give you credit for originality, though. By your logic nobody can ever have evidence of a crime because if they do then in the interval prior to them making a charge they become the criminal.

Not bad. That's way better than Rudy and into Tucker Carlson territory.
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

The Sicatoka said:
You're claiming Robert Mueller's been sitting on proof of an impeachable offense. To what end?
Click to expand...

You do realize that impeachment is 100% political, do you not? Which means even if Mueller has proof of an impeachable offense, the proof has to be enough to sway close to 20 Senators. Even if a court of law would prosecute, do you really think it's reasonable to expect 20 R Senators to actually flip after two years of saying this was nothing?

Let alone the concept of finding 55 R Reps who would do the same, after two years of them either totally ignoring this or going out of their way to say nothing happened.
The far more likely reason this is taking so long is that he's working to find a path to indict a sitting president.

Once that happens, and there's no way to avoid it, then congress will have no choice but to impeach.

Again, the current R's in congress are also totally overlooking the really obvious emoluments clause issues, too. So putting real evidence in front of their face will likely do nothing, unless it was found that dumpy passed on real state secretes to vlady.
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

Rover said:
I'm not sure I get the point from our resident Trump Humper Sic here unless he forgot to log off as Sic and log on as pokechecker! :D

But, I would guess that Mueller knows what the crime is and how it was committed. What he's probably still investigating is who knew about it and when did they find out. Unraveling that part might take some time, as more and more people get indicted and/or convicted they're going to be more willing to roll on the higher-ups. No need to rush the man. Let's step aside and let him do his work.
Click to expand...

You're saying it's OK if Mueller has the "smoking gun" and yet doesn't bring the impeachable offense to the House.
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

Kepler said:
Repeating this again and again isn't making it any stronger, Sic. I don't buy your framing and I don't think anybody else does, either.

I will give you credit for originality, though. By your logic nobody can ever have evidence of a crime because if they do then in the interval prior to them making a charge they become the criminal.

Not bad. That's way better than Rudy and into Tucker Carlson territory.
Click to expand...

If he was around during Watergate only the 5 burglars would have been prosecuted for breaking and entering and Nixon would have emerged unscathed!
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

alfablue said:
You do realize that impeachment is 100% political, do you not? Which means even if Mueller has proof of an impeachable offense, the proof has to be enough to sway close to 20 Senators. Even if a court of law would prosecute, do you really think it's reasonable to expect 20 R Senators to actually flip after two years of saying this was nothing?

Let alone the concept of finding 55 R Reps who would do the same, after two years of them either totally ignoring this or going out of their way to say nothing happened.
The far more likely reason this is taking so long is that he's working to find a path to indict a sitting president.

Once that happens, and there's no way to avoid it, then congress will have no choice but to impeach.

Again, the current R's in congress are also totally overlooking the really obvious emoluments clause issues, too. So putting real evidence in front of their face will likely do nothing, unless it was found that dumpy passed on real state secretes to vlady.
Click to expand...


If the proof is there, overtly laid out, maybe my altruism is at work here, but I can see a President who has committed an impeachable "high crime" being removed regardless of party.
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

The Sicatoka said:
You're saying it's OK if Mueller has the "smoking gun" and yet doesn't bring the impeachable offense to the House.
Click to expand...

I am. If he doesn't know all the people who were in on it yet, he absolutely needs to hold off until he has the whole puzzle. No doubt about it. We know about treasonous collusion between the GOP and Russia. I'm not satisfied with indicting the GOP as a legal entity or the Russian security services. I want actual people to serve the time. There's a better chance of that happening when all the ducks are in a row.
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

alfablue said:
Again, the current R's in congress are also totally overlooking the really obvious emoluments clause issues, too. So putting real evidence in front of their face will likely do nothing, unless it was found that dumpy passed on real state secretes to vlady.
Click to expand...

That won't matter to them either. And it won't matter to Sic. We will either hear "the case hasn't been proven to my satisfaction," or, as a final stand, "every president does that. Prove they don't!"

I don't think Sic* is actively lying. I think this is a cautionary example of how bias scrambles an otherwise good brain. Look on its works ye mighty and despair.

* The GOP Members are, though. They know what's going on. They just don't give a f-ck because there's wealth to be looted.
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

The Sicatoka said:
To clarify, enough for what? A indictment of a private citizen? Proof of "high crimes" and the impeachable?

If Mueller has "more than enough" to prove "high crimes" Mueller is failing as someone guilty of such should be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate.
Click to expand...

Dam, sic, with as much pushing and pulling as you're doing with that wreck of an argument you're driving, it's starting to look like you must be empty. :D
 
Re: POTUS 45:47: I Never Said There Was No Collusion!

The Sicatoka said:
If the proof is there, overtly laid out, maybe my altruism is at work here, but I can see a President who has committed an impeachable "high crime" being removed regardless of party.
Click to expand...

LOL, good luck with that. If they actually would do that, then congress would have REALLY looked into it over the last two year, as is their responsibility. I don't see that happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top