Election Day Thread - Nov. 3, 2020

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

So they had enough to remove him for collusion? But decided, nah, we won't go for that, we'll go for a way lesser charge of obstruction?



Lol is what I think of the investigation. You guys just hate Trump, so no matter what the investigation actually concluded, he colluded anyways. He was guilty before the investigation began. I hope you guys never serve on juries. We don't like him = guilty.

SD do the words “you can’t indict a sitting president “ mean anything to you? How about if they come from the top law enforcement officer in the land? A Trump appointee. How about the GOP controlled senate that along with the help of AG Barr basically threw the report in the garbage? Come on man. He was fully insulated from prosecution. Yet you go with the “witch hunt” theory. Its your brain man do what ya want with it. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by punch it in

SD do the words “you can’t indict a sitting president “ mean anything to you? How about if they come from the top law enforcement officer in the land? A Trump appointee. How about the GOP controlled senate that along with the help of AG Barr basically threw the report in the garbage? Come on man. He was fully insulated from prosecution. Yet you go with the “witch hunt” theory. Its your brain man do what ya want with it. Lol.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The house impeached him for obstruction, so if there was enough evidence, why couldn't they have impeached him for collusion, as the original investigation was for?

Maybe I'm actually wrong and there is a difference. If you can't indict him for collusion doesn't seem like you could indict him for obstruction either. But they still impeached him for the latter knowing the same thing.

Why can't the answer just be there wasn't enough evidence to prove collusion so they moved the goal post to obstruction?

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

The house impeached him for obstruction, so if there was enough evidence, why couldn't they have impeached him for collusion, as the original investigation was for?



Maybe I'm actually wrong and there is a difference. If you can't indict him for collusion doesn't seem like you could indict him for obstruction either. But they still impeached him for the latter knowing the same thing.



Why can't the answer just be there wasn't enough evidence to prove collusion so they moved the goal post to obstruction?

They could have impeached him for either or both. It was explained why they didnt. There is an actual legal term for it but I cannot remember. Basically it would have been over kill to impeach him for both though. As far as indictments that was Barrs call. Not the house. Barr believes you cannot indict a sitting president. It is not part of the constitution it was his determination of the law. That is all. Bottom line is Trump was completely insulated. The house knew it wouldn’t go anywhere but they did what they thought was proper anyway. There was a slim hope that a few GOP senators would put country over party. No chance in the end.
The report did not exonerate him of either charge btw. Those were also Barrs determinations. Mueller actually said his report did not in any way exonerate Trump. Life long Republican Mueller that is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Giantone]

1)

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

The house impeached him for obstruction, so if there was enough evidence, why couldn't they have impeached him for collusion, as the original investigation was for?



2)Why can't the answer just be there wasn't enough evidence to prove collusion

1) The Senate wouldn't do what is right and they knew it and the house showed it to the Country.


2) With trump evidence doesn't matter when you threaten the Senate.


You need to read the report.