Since it is not on it then where is it? Has the House voted to begin an impeachment? See msg #91. Nadler cannot start one on his own.
give it time, they are still collecting information and Trump is obstructing, so we have to wait on the courts
Well, that is the society we are working toward, but we have a major political force, allied with the massive Fake News, Entertainment and Social Mega Mega-Corps deeply invested in promoting tribalism, division, resentment and strife, all allied against Trump, even though he is only one man, they seem to be over-matched.
Sure.... Impeaching O'Kavanaugh would be useful as well, or any of the dozens of unqualified judges appointed by the unqualified Senate... https://www.thenation.com/article/impeach-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/ https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-picks-more-not-qualified-judges-1 But this is now one of the most important duties of this committee, so I expect they will stay on it..
The judge won't ask that since it's in the application... the judge will just need to determine if it's a legal request, following the Watergate model. I personally think it's 50/50 the judge grants this without the House declaring a formal impeachment inquiry, but it's worth a shot... And the judge would ask, not say, since it's a question...
"The American Bar Association on Friday awarded Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh its highest rating, giving the judge a unanimous “well-qualified” score." https://www.nationalreview.com/news...-gives-brett-kavanaugh-well-qualified-rating/ Sounds pretty qualified to me.
O'Kavanaugh is probably qualified as a judge, just not as a human being.... The ABA doesn't take stuff like that into account. I was referring to the other idiots put in robes by the buffoon and Moscow Mitch...
Follow the ball. Mueller cannot indict. Congress cannot indict. Not only is there no point to coming to a conclusion on whether there was a crime committed if no one can indict based on his report, its unethical in his view, to come to a legal conclusion, or level a legal 'charge' that serves no legal purpose. All that is left is for this 'conclusion' is to serve a political purpose. Donald Trump cannot defend himself against this charge in a criminal trial So Mueller refuses to charge in the first place. The best way to ensure he won't ever be forced to make a charge, is not to come to a legal conclusion.
“I can say that my two newest colleagues are very decent and very smart individuals,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg told her former clerk, Duke Law School professor Neil Siegel, at a Washington, D.C., event hosted by the school on Wednesday, CNN reported."
“I can say that my two newest colleagues are very decent and very smart individuals,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg told her former clerk, Duke Law School professor Neil Siegel, at a Washington, D.C., event hosted by the school on Wednesday, CNN reported."
Yes... I understand this man had many women who vouched for him as well.... https://www.oxygen.com/snapped/crime-time/groupies-loved-serial-killer-ted-bundy
Do you have any empirical evidence that he is choosing less qualified judges than those before him have chosen?
Just the Bloomberg Law link I posted WAY WAY back in Post #130.... I'll now sit back and await your trashing of the ABA.... that seems to be the direction the argument goes from here...
The judge will ask them exactly that for their probable cause and for what legislative purpose. Grand Jury testimony is SECRET, the secret grand jury is a cornerstone of of legal system and legal protections. It is not to be used for partisan political purposes.
I am so sick and tired of you guys proclaiming something then when that flops it's "well just wait you'll see". You've been saying that for over two years and so far have not produced anything to see. When will you give it up?
That's nonsense. Mueller can indict once Trump leaves office by whatever means. His duty was to report any charges of criminal acts for prosecution to the AG in his confidential report. He made no such charges. He was required by law and his letter of authorization to come to a conclusion to bring charges for prosecution or issue a declination, PERIOD end of story. He said he could bring no criminal charge but would defer to the AG for final determination. That determination made with the Deputy Attorney General and the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel was no evidence to support a criminal charge. Follow the ball, it's been deflate and thrown in the trash.
I think most do, this is the worst President ever, the history books need to show we tried to stop him
I support it because it's a fool's errand and any idiot that goes for it will likely not be re-elected. That's a chance to replace a moron Democrat with the less stupid Democrat or maybe even a Republican.