sturg33
I
[Tw]1120005043204370432[/tw]
I was hoping you leave hiatus here was a genuine reflection of how you got so duped the first time but here we are in round two
Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
[Tw]1120005043204370432[/tw]
I was hoping you leave hiatus here was a genuine reflection of how you got so duped the first time but here we are in round two
57Brave
Well-known member
Robert Mueller’s report effectively accused Donald Trump of obstructing justice by witness tampering, one of the offences that led Republicans to impeach Bill Clinton 20 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ion-bill-clinton-republicans?CMP=share_btn_tw
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Following his deposition, the president had to decide what to do with his loyal secretary, Ms Betty Currie. And, again, the undisputed evidence shows that the president took the path of lies and deceit.
Contrary to federal obstruction of justice laws and contrary to judge Wright’s protective order … President Clinton left the deposition, went back to the White House and called Ms Currie at home to ask her to come to the White House the next day, which, I might add, was a Sunday.
… I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.
Senate floor, 12 February 1999
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
It is clear to me that the president committed serious crimes when he coached his secretary, Betty Currie, and when he misled his aides Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta … These actions weren’t just outrageous and morally wrong. They were also illegal. They were a direct assault on the integrity of the judicial process.
Statement, 12 February 1999
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
The question I have that needs to desperately be answered by somebody is – when he approached Ms Currie to coach her in the fashion he did, is that a crime? Because I don’t want people at home to be confused that they can do these things, because if they do what the president did, in my opinion, they will wind up in jail.
Interview with CNN, 27 January 1999
[N]obody because of their position in society has the right to cheat and to get somebody to lie for them, even as the president. That means we’re not a nation of men or kings. We’re a nation of laws, and that’s what this case has always been about to me … He turned the judicial system upside down, every way but loose. He sent his friends to lie for him. He lied for himself.
Speaking on the Senate floor while a House impeachment manager, 8 February 1999
Senate Select Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., during a news conference releasing the committee’s report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq. The report says that the justification for going to war with Iraq was based on inaccurate intelligence and
Pat Roberts, Kansas
We in Kansas know that you don’t call witnesses in the middle of the night unless you want to sway them. The president did so. We in Kansas know that you don’t urge hiding legal evidence under the bed unless you want to affect the outcome of a legal proceeding. The president did so.
… Do these actions rise to the level envisioned by our founding fathers in the constitution as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ so warranting removal from office? Our constitution requires that the threshold for that judgment must be set by each senator sitting as a juror.
I believe an open-minded individual applying Kansas common sense would reach the conclusion that I reached.
Statement, 12 February 1999
Mike Crapo, Idaho
While most of the national attention has focused on the tawdriness of this matter, this intense fixation on sensationalism diverts attention from the true issues – the true issues related to abuse of the power of the presidency, perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
Statement, 20 December 1998
Tampering with the truth-seeking functions of the law undermines our justice system and the foundations on which our freedoms lie. All Americans must abide by the rule of law, including the president of the United States, who is the highest official in the land and who has the additional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
Opinion article in the Idaho Falls Post Register, 21 February 1999
Mike Enzi, Wyoming
The president’s lawyers have argued that the president made these statements to refresh his recollection or to find out what Ms Currie knew in the event of a press avalanche. Neither of these explanations is plausible. It is impossible to refresh one’s recollection with false, leading questions. It is also impossible to find out what someone else knew if you tell them what they are supposed to believe.
The plausibility of either of these explanations is entirely discounted when you consider that the president called Betty Currie in a second time, on January 20, to ‘remind’ her of these statements.
The most likely explanation for these statements is far more sinister. That the president was intending to influence the testimony of a likely witness in a federal civil rights proceeding. President Clinton was, in fact, trying to get Betty Currie to join him in his web of deception and obstruction of justice.
Statement entered into Senate record, 22 February 1999
James Inhofe, Oklahoma
Isn’t it true that [the federal law on witness tampering] criminalizes anyone who corruptly persuades or engages in misleading conduct with the intent to influence the testimony of any person in an official proceeding?
Question co-signed by Inhofe submitted in impeachment proceedings, 23 January 1999
Richard Shelby, Alabama
Shelby said Clinton’s January 1998 meeting with Ms Currie, after returning from his own testimony in the Jones lawsuit, was a key factor in his decision to vote for conviction on the obstruction charge. House managers accused Clinton of using that meeting to try to influence Currie’s testimony.
‘That was a strong component,’ Shelby said. ‘But it’s not just one thing in the obstruction evidence. If you put it all together, I thought it was beyond a reasonable doubt.’
Associated Press report, 12 February 1999
Roy Blunt, Missouri
There is clear evidence that President Clinton committed perjury on two or more occasions, and urged others to obstruct justice. These are serious felonious acts that strike at the heart of our judicial system. Oaths taken in the American system of government are serious commitments to truth and the rule of law. Violating these oaths or causing others to impede the investigation into such acts are serious matters that meet the standard for impeachment.
House floor, 19 December 1998
Richard Burr, North Carolina
I believe the facts presented by the judiciary committee prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton repeatedly lied to a grand jury and encouraged a witness before that grand jury to provide false information. The United States is a nation of laws, not men. And I do not believe we can ignore the facts or disregard the constitution so that the president can be placed above the law.
Statement, 19 December 1998
Jerry Moran, Kansas
It is clear that President Clinton on numerous occasions lied to a federal grand jury, lied in a civil proceeding affecting the civil rights of an American citizen, and orchestrated an attempt to obstruct justice.
… The untruthful actions of the president are not mere technical violations of federal law; rather, the president’s lies, obfuscation and overt acts to obstruct justice are serious and felonious, and they tear at the essential foundation of our judicial system.
House floor, 19 December 1998
Rob Portman, Ohio
I believe the evidence of serious wrongdoing is simply too compelling to be swept aside. I am particularly troubled by the clear evidence of lying under oath in that it must be the bedrock of our judicial system.
I believe the long-term consequence to this country of not acting on these serious charges before us far outweigh the consequences of following what the constitution provides for and bringing this matter to trial in the United States Senate.
House floor, 18 December 1998
Roger Wicker, Mississippi
[Allegations that Clinton urged Lewinsky to lie] would amount to a federal felony, and that would mean serious, serious problems for President Clinton.
Interview with the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 23 January 1998
John Thune, South Dakota
Our declaration of independence says it best. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ In America there is no emperor, and there is no Praetorian guard. There is one standard of justice that applies equally to all, and to say or do otherwise will undermine the most sacred of all American ideals.
President Clinton has committed federal crimes, and there must be a reckoning, or no American shall ever again be prosecuted for those same crimes.
House floor, 18 December 1998
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ion-bill-clinton-republicans?CMP=share_btn_tw
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Following his deposition, the president had to decide what to do with his loyal secretary, Ms Betty Currie. And, again, the undisputed evidence shows that the president took the path of lies and deceit.
Contrary to federal obstruction of justice laws and contrary to judge Wright’s protective order … President Clinton left the deposition, went back to the White House and called Ms Currie at home to ask her to come to the White House the next day, which, I might add, was a Sunday.
… I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors.
Senate floor, 12 February 1999
Chuck Grassley, Iowa
It is clear to me that the president committed serious crimes when he coached his secretary, Betty Currie, and when he misled his aides Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta … These actions weren’t just outrageous and morally wrong. They were also illegal. They were a direct assault on the integrity of the judicial process.
Statement, 12 February 1999
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
The question I have that needs to desperately be answered by somebody is – when he approached Ms Currie to coach her in the fashion he did, is that a crime? Because I don’t want people at home to be confused that they can do these things, because if they do what the president did, in my opinion, they will wind up in jail.
Interview with CNN, 27 January 1999
[N]obody because of their position in society has the right to cheat and to get somebody to lie for them, even as the president. That means we’re not a nation of men or kings. We’re a nation of laws, and that’s what this case has always been about to me … He turned the judicial system upside down, every way but loose. He sent his friends to lie for him. He lied for himself.
Speaking on the Senate floor while a House impeachment manager, 8 February 1999
Senate Select Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., during a news conference releasing the committee’s report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq. The report says that the justification for going to war with Iraq was based on inaccurate intelligence and
Pat Roberts, Kansas
We in Kansas know that you don’t call witnesses in the middle of the night unless you want to sway them. The president did so. We in Kansas know that you don’t urge hiding legal evidence under the bed unless you want to affect the outcome of a legal proceeding. The president did so.
… Do these actions rise to the level envisioned by our founding fathers in the constitution as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ so warranting removal from office? Our constitution requires that the threshold for that judgment must be set by each senator sitting as a juror.
I believe an open-minded individual applying Kansas common sense would reach the conclusion that I reached.
Statement, 12 February 1999
Mike Crapo, Idaho
While most of the national attention has focused on the tawdriness of this matter, this intense fixation on sensationalism diverts attention from the true issues – the true issues related to abuse of the power of the presidency, perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
Statement, 20 December 1998
Tampering with the truth-seeking functions of the law undermines our justice system and the foundations on which our freedoms lie. All Americans must abide by the rule of law, including the president of the United States, who is the highest official in the land and who has the additional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.
Opinion article in the Idaho Falls Post Register, 21 February 1999
Mike Enzi, Wyoming
The president’s lawyers have argued that the president made these statements to refresh his recollection or to find out what Ms Currie knew in the event of a press avalanche. Neither of these explanations is plausible. It is impossible to refresh one’s recollection with false, leading questions. It is also impossible to find out what someone else knew if you tell them what they are supposed to believe.
The plausibility of either of these explanations is entirely discounted when you consider that the president called Betty Currie in a second time, on January 20, to ‘remind’ her of these statements.
The most likely explanation for these statements is far more sinister. That the president was intending to influence the testimony of a likely witness in a federal civil rights proceeding. President Clinton was, in fact, trying to get Betty Currie to join him in his web of deception and obstruction of justice.
Statement entered into Senate record, 22 February 1999
James Inhofe, Oklahoma
Isn’t it true that [the federal law on witness tampering] criminalizes anyone who corruptly persuades or engages in misleading conduct with the intent to influence the testimony of any person in an official proceeding?
Question co-signed by Inhofe submitted in impeachment proceedings, 23 January 1999
Richard Shelby, Alabama
Shelby said Clinton’s January 1998 meeting with Ms Currie, after returning from his own testimony in the Jones lawsuit, was a key factor in his decision to vote for conviction on the obstruction charge. House managers accused Clinton of using that meeting to try to influence Currie’s testimony.
‘That was a strong component,’ Shelby said. ‘But it’s not just one thing in the obstruction evidence. If you put it all together, I thought it was beyond a reasonable doubt.’
Associated Press report, 12 February 1999
Roy Blunt, Missouri
There is clear evidence that President Clinton committed perjury on two or more occasions, and urged others to obstruct justice. These are serious felonious acts that strike at the heart of our judicial system. Oaths taken in the American system of government are serious commitments to truth and the rule of law. Violating these oaths or causing others to impede the investigation into such acts are serious matters that meet the standard for impeachment.
House floor, 19 December 1998
Richard Burr, North Carolina
I believe the facts presented by the judiciary committee prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton repeatedly lied to a grand jury and encouraged a witness before that grand jury to provide false information. The United States is a nation of laws, not men. And I do not believe we can ignore the facts or disregard the constitution so that the president can be placed above the law.
Statement, 19 December 1998
Jerry Moran, Kansas
It is clear that President Clinton on numerous occasions lied to a federal grand jury, lied in a civil proceeding affecting the civil rights of an American citizen, and orchestrated an attempt to obstruct justice.
… The untruthful actions of the president are not mere technical violations of federal law; rather, the president’s lies, obfuscation and overt acts to obstruct justice are serious and felonious, and they tear at the essential foundation of our judicial system.
House floor, 19 December 1998
Rob Portman, Ohio
I believe the evidence of serious wrongdoing is simply too compelling to be swept aside. I am particularly troubled by the clear evidence of lying under oath in that it must be the bedrock of our judicial system.
I believe the long-term consequence to this country of not acting on these serious charges before us far outweigh the consequences of following what the constitution provides for and bringing this matter to trial in the United States Senate.
House floor, 18 December 1998
Roger Wicker, Mississippi
[Allegations that Clinton urged Lewinsky to lie] would amount to a federal felony, and that would mean serious, serious problems for President Clinton.
Interview with the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 23 January 1998
John Thune, South Dakota
Our declaration of independence says it best. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ In America there is no emperor, and there is no Praetorian guard. There is one standard of justice that applies equally to all, and to say or do otherwise will undermine the most sacred of all American ideals.
President Clinton has committed federal crimes, and there must be a reckoning, or no American shall ever again be prosecuted for those same crimes.
House floor, 18 December 1998
Last edited:
57Brave
Well-known member
Before I turn in for the night
Bear in mind deniers.
1) There are 10-12 ongoing investigations that we earned of last week
We dont know who is involved or what it pertains to
2) Ivanka was interviewed and was listed as a proffer
That is interesting, why would she be testifying with the possibility of immunity ?
y'all can go look all of that up
Bear in mind deniers.
1) There are 10-12 ongoing investigations that we earned of last week
We dont know who is involved or what it pertains to
2) Ivanka was interviewed and was listed as a proffer
That is interesting, why would she be testifying with the possibility of immunity ?
y'all can go look all of that up
sturg33
I
What do you want to happen next?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Let’s start at the end of this story. This weekend, I read Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report twice, and realized that enough was enough—I needed to do something. I’ve worked on every Republican presidential transition team for the past 10 years and recently served as counsel to the Republican-led House Financial Services Committee. My permanent job is as a law professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, which is not political, but where my colleagues have held many prime spots in Republican administrations.
If you think calling for the impeachment of a sitting Republican president would constitute career suicide for someone like me, you may end up being right. But I did exactly that this weekend, tweeting that it’s time to begin impeachment proceedings.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/gop-staffer-advocates-trumps-impeachment/587785/
There are a number of former congressman who have spoken up. But so far nothing from those currently in Congress.
If you think calling for the impeachment of a sitting Republican president would constitute career suicide for someone like me, you may end up being right. But I did exactly that this weekend, tweeting that it’s time to begin impeachment proceedings.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/gop-staffer-advocates-trumps-impeachment/587785/
There are a number of former congressman who have spoken up. But so far nothing from those currently in Congress.
Some butt-hurt rino thinks Trump should be impeached because of Weissmann allegations. Posted in the sip-n-slurp mainstream. Shocking. I'm sold. Pack it in boys. He's guilty. The same group that's been condemning him since 2015 is condemning him again. It's legit.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
impeachment will never happen. Voting him out is on the table.
57Brave
Well-known member
it is looking very likely impeachment will be discussed on the House floor in open hearings.
It may very well never come to a Senate vote but, the arguement that it is the constitutional duty of the House of Representatives to consider is compelling.
Besides questions raised by the Mueller Report the Cohen testimony a few weeks back where he clearly spelled out crimes committed by POTUS.
Those charges to my mind must be addressed
It may very well never come to a Senate vote but, the arguement that it is the constitutional duty of the House of Representatives to consider is compelling.
Besides questions raised by the Mueller Report the Cohen testimony a few weeks back where he clearly spelled out crimes committed by POTUS.
Those charges to my mind must be addressed
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
I have no argument with that.
Nothing will happen. Get Biden/Harris train going, that is what I want now.
Admir it. You are very loose butthole.
Runnin
Well-known member
The most butt-hurt person these days is William Barr. Trump dragged him into his obstruction case and put him front and center.
sturg33
I
At least you have finally accepted the fact that collusion was a fantasy conspiracy hoax
