is it impeachable to ask ukraine to investigate political adversaries?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report made it clear that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling in the election, encouraged it and hoped to benefit from it.

Mueller's report made it clear that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump. But you are crafting a string of words here that say there clearly was sufficient evidence. It seems no matter what the facts are, you strive mightily to make them what they are not.

Trump sat on a dias with Putin and said he asked him if he interfered and Putin told him.
Yesterday we found out that trump, in the Oval Office, told several Russians after telling them he fired Comey, said he didn’t care if they interfered, since we do that also
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have no compunction in letting yourself twist and torture language to suit your arguments. But you give no quarter to Trump's often careless or sloppy diction. You insist that he means exactly what his words, if used precisely, are supposed to mean. So, if he says he doesn't care, it must show that he has no concern whatsoever.

Umm, no. Trumpspeak in this case means that he understands that they do, just as we do (and everybody else does). And that their interference was not especially effective. But that doesn't mean he has absolutely no concerns about it. He did take some steps to limit outside interference.

[Pete F.]

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report made it clear that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling in the election, encouraged it and hoped to benefit from it.

Originally Posted by detbuch

Mueller's report made it clear that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump.

Mueller was prohibited by DOJ rules from indicting Trump.
He gathered evidence for Trump’s eventual indictments.
Trump’s obstruction was successful in preventing him from obtaining evidence from Ukraine.

Trump pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project throughout the election. He lied about it, saying he had no deals, no business in Russia.
Do you honestly think that he still isn’t trying to make a deal still?
Many people say he is

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]


Peto continues to impress...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report made it clear that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling in the election, encouraged it and hoped to benefit from it.

Mueller's report made it clear that there was "insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy" (quote from the report).

Mueller was prohibited by DOJ rules from indicting Trump.

It was his responsibility to determine, and so state, if there was sufficient evidence to do so. Otherwise there was no reason for his investigation. It was not meant to be evidence gathering for Congress. Congress doesn't need his investigation for that. It does its own gathering and it can impeach for any reason it chooses if it has the votes to do so.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It was his responsibility to determine, and so state, if there was sufficient evidence to do so. Otherwise there was no reason for his investigation. It was not meant to be evidence gathering for Congress. Congress doesn't need his investigation for that. It does its own gathering and it can impeach for any reason it chooses if it has the votes to do so.

Just keep supporting Putin’s Puppet

Successful obstruction leads to insufficient evidence.

Mueller’s report suggests his obstruction of justice investigation was heavily informed by an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion that says a sitting president cannot be indicted – a conclusion Mueller’s team accepted.

“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,” Mueller’s team wrote.

That decision, though, seemed to leave investigators in a strange spot. Mueller’s team wrote that they “determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.” They seemed to shy from producing even an internal document that alleged the president had done something wrong – deciding, essentially, that they wouldn’t decide.

“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 determining ‘that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.’ ”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device