Trump hasn't been found guilty of any wrongdoing, and there isn't even any evidence that he did anything criminal. There are just a load of libturds making assumptions and accusations.
The first thing to do is get real evidence.. then if that emerges, determine if Trump was behind it.. then determine if that was illegal.
What Trump is being accused of is not even illegal!!And yet.. this idiot moonbat Al Green has decided to skip all of that.. and go right to impeachment. What a vagina this man is!
I hope there is some sort of penalty for filing such a severe action without any merit.First, sitting presidents cannot first be found guilty because they cannot be indicted or prosecuted wile in office. They must be impeached first. That all depends on the House of Representatives, which would be unlikely with the republicans in the majority. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable crime, however, and eventually led to Nixon resigning and was a key part
of the impeachment of ClintonIn typical moonbat fashion.. you completely re-write statements to suit your agendas. At no time in my comment did I use the words "guilty", "indicted", or "prosecuted". I'll try to re-state it in an simpler form. Before impeaching someone, they must have evidence - so far, they have none. Before impeaching, that evidence has to be for something that is impeachable - it is not. If you are imagining that there was obstruction of justice by having Trump fire Comey - that is nonsense. Many democraps including Pedosta and Clinton wanted Comey gone and claimed that Comey assisted Trump in getting elected. They did this up until the very day of Comey's firing. If Trump had obstructed justice by giving Comey orders to stop the investigation - then it was Comey's clear duty to report that obstruction of justice when it happened.. and he did NOT. The investigation never did stop, so obviously there was no obstruction. If you are going to cling to the premise of firing Comey… that won't work either. The FBI director is appointed by the president, and he can fire anybody that he has appointed. The act of firing is not obstruction. The act of having someone killed - as dozens of Clinton foes have mysteriously had fatal accidents - is obstruction. Lying to congress is impeachable - such as Bill and Hillary Clinton did. Deleting over 30,000 emails which were the property of the US government off of her home computer's hard drives AFTER being ordered by Congress to turn them over is a major crime which would impeach a president. Having a white house intern suck your cock in the Oral Office and stuff a cigar up her cunt and then lie about it - repeatedly - to Congress and the American people - is impeachable. Raising funds in blatantly illegal ways is impeachable (Whitewater).
So, you and the other moonbats need to activate a few brain cells, and find something else to bitch about.
:fight:Please read again your original post. The fourth word is ''guilty." You also need to educate yourself on obstruction of justice. The law states that the obstruction does not have to be successful to be a crime. And finally, you might be a bit more credible if you stop calling people you disagree with you "moonbats" and other generalized derogatory epithets :blownose:
In typical moonbat fashion.. you completely re-write statements to suit your agendas. At no time in my comment did I use the words "guilty", "indicted", or "prosecuted". I'll try to re-state it in an simpler form. Before impeaching someone, they must have evidence - so far, they have none. Before impeaching, that evidence has to be for something that is impeachable - it is not. If you are imagining that there was obstruction of justice by having Trump fire Comey - that is nonsense. Many democraps including Pedosta and Clinton wanted Comey gone and claimed that Comey assisted Trump in getting elected. They did this up until the very day of Comey's firing. If Trump had obstructed justice by giving Comey orders to stop the investigation - then it was Comey's clear duty to report that obstruction of justice when it happened.. and he did NOT. The investigation never did stop, so obviously there was no obstruction. If you are going to cling to the premise of firing Comey… that won't work either. The FBI director is appointed by the president, and he can fire anybody that he has appointed. The act of firing is not obstruction. The act of having someone killed - as dozens of Clinton foes have mysteriously had fatal accidents - is obstruction. Lying to congress is impeachable - such as Bill and Hillary Clinton did. Deleting over 30,000 emails which were the property of the US government off of her home computer's hard drives AFTER being ordered by Congress to turn them over is a major crime which would impeach a president. Having a white house intern suck your cock in the Oral Office and stuff a cigar up her cunt and then lie about it - repeatedly - to Congress and the American people - is impeachable. Raising funds in blatantly illegal ways is impeachable (Whitewater).
So, you and the other moonbats need to activate a few brain cells, and find something else to bitch about.
:fight:
Please read again your original post. The fourth word is ''guilty." You also need to educate yourself on obstruction of justice. The law states that the obstruction does not have to be successful to be a crime. And finally, you might be a bit more credible if you stop calling people you disagree with you "moonbats" and other generalized derogatory epithets :blownose:
Although I did use the word "guilty" you incorrectly assumed that was related to a trial. I must remember to chose words that can't possibly be twisted by biased moonbats. Also.. you added the word "successful" to obstruction. I didn't say that. All I did was imply that no ACTION was taken - successful or unsuccessful. I suppose that next you will be wanting to impeach Trump for THINKING he wanted the investigation stopped. That is similar to the plot of the movie "Minority Report" where people are convicted of crimes that they are prophesized to have committed in the future. The main character winds up getting in trouble for killing a man he's never even met nor ever heard of.
As for derogatory epithets… what words do you suggest I use to address these lying morons who spam the forum with venomous, malicious, seditious, traitorous, terrorist enabling comments? Perhaps.. CocoPuffs? Slitherin? Mucus Trails? Snozzberries? Dingleberries, what? I realize that when calling someone who is obviously intelligent an idiot.. it has no impact, but when you call an idiot and idiot.. it really hurts them to be recognized for what they are.
