[US Only] Impeachment Vote

[bluefirecorp_]

Edit: Admins editted my post. I linked to roll 483 and they changed it to some purple book shit. Fuck this site.


Inquiry has begun:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jerry-nadler-were-pursuing-a-de-facto-impeachment-inquiry

----

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll483.xml

People who voted for impeachment of the dude that's not a fan of cryptocurrencies:

Adams

Barragán

Bass

Beatty

Blumenauer

Bonamici

Boyle, Brendan F.

Brown (MD)

Butterfield

Cárdenas

Carson (IN)

Castro (TX)

Cicilline

Clark (MA)

Clarke (NY)

Clay

Cohen

Davis, Danny K.

Dean

DeGette

DeSaulnier

Dingell

Doggett

Doyle, Michael F.

Engel

Escobar

Espaillat

Evans

Fudge

García (IL)

Garcia (TX)

Gomez

Green, Al (TX)

Grijalva

Higgins (NY)

Huffman

Jackson Lee

Jayapal

Johnson (TX)

Kelly (IL)

Kennedy

Kildee

Kirkpatrick

Larsen (WA)

Lawrence

Lee (CA)

Levin (CA)

Levin (MI)

Lieu, Ted

Lofgren

Lowenthal

Lowey

Maloney, Carolyn B.

Matsui

McCollum

McGovern

McNerney

Meng

Moore

Moulton

Nadler

Napolitano

Neguse

Norcross

Ocasio-Cortez

Omar

Pallone

Pascrell

Payne

Pingree

Pocan

Pressley

Raskin

Richmond

Roybal-Allard

Scanlon

Schakowsky

Scott, David

Sherman

Speier

Swalwell (CA)

Thompson (CA)

Thompson (MS)

Titus

Tlaib

Tonko

Torres (CA)

Trahan

Vargas

Vela

Velázquez

Waters

Watson Coleman

Welch

Wilson (FL)

If you want to remove the anti-bitcoin dude, then work on removing everyone else from that "aye" list from office... assuming you're American.

[squatz1]

What?

Do you truly think that Trump actually does care about BItcoin in the least? The answer to this question is NO, I doubt even he truly knows what Bitcoin is. Trump wanted to attach Facebook and Libra, and used Bitcoin as a way to do this.

If anyone is to care about Crypto it's going to be the federal regulators, instead of Trump himself -- and the IRS/SEC doesn't seem to think that BTC must be removed.

[bluefirecorp_]

I wonder when we'll see impeachment pass the House. Right now, it's a minority of Democratic representatives listed in the first post. Eventually, I think we'll see a lot more come over to the right side of history on this. 

My prediction is November 22, 2019.

[squatz1]

I wonder when we'll see impeachment pass the House. Right now, it's a minority of Democratic representatives listed in the first post. Eventually, I think we'll see a lot more come over to the right side of history on this. 

My prediction is November 22, 2019.

Never. We will never see impeachment proceedings pass through the house.

I'm going to bet that most of the information present right now is it -- relating to the 'dirt' that they have on Trump. So that pretty much means that moderate Democrats and all Republicans aren't going to vote to impeach him.

Why is that? The public doesn't support impeaching and then removing this President from office. People may not like him, but removing a president from office requires a high crime to be committed and Trump hasn't hit that.

Plus people feel as if you're pulling away a democratically elected person because you don't like him -- which is BS as well.

[bluefirecorp_]

Plus people feel as if you're pulling away a democratically elected person because you don't like him -- which is BS as well.

Mueller's testimony is tomorrow. We'll see if that changes a few views. Overall, it's pretty obvious that he colluded with a foreign hostile entity to boost his election numbers. If you cheat to win, you shouldn't be rewarded with a victory.

[squatz1]

Plus people feel as if you're pulling away a democratically elected person because you don't like him -- which is BS as well.

Mueller's testimony is tomorrow. We'll see if that changes a few views. Overall, it's pretty obvious that he didnt colluded with a foreign hostile entity to boost his election numbers. If you win, you should be rewarded with a victory.

I corrected that for you, take a look!

Trump didn't collude, by the way, that's what the Mueller report was about. Mueller's testimony isn't going to deviate from the report, which is what he said as well.

[bluefirecorp_]

that's what the Mueller report was about. Mueller's testimony isn't going to deviate from the report, which is what he said as well.

My friend. It's very obvious you didn't read the report if you believe that's what it said.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Please read it yourself. Unlike most Americans (which can't read past 5 pages), I believe that bitcoin members should have the ability to read into the report themselves.

I hate how the entire page highlighting Trump's profile is redacted (page 36 iirc) ;(

And the lack of congressional oversight in this specific matter is quite scary. The executive put themselves above the law effectively.

[DireWolfM14]

It's very obvious you didn't read the report if you believe that's what it said.

It's obvious you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what the report says.  Reading comprehension hasn't been your strong point, so I don't reckon you're going to change your mind even IF you were to read the report.

I dare you to point to one incriminating passage out of the Mueller report that a rational, unbiased individual will see as incriminating.  Lets see if you can curb your hate and have a rational, intellectual argument about the subject.

[bluefirecorp_]

I dare you to point to one incriminating passage out of the Mueller report that a rational, unbiased individual will see as incriminating. 

Receiving stolen goods is illegal afaik? Check into page 48.

But I know for sure you haven't read the report because you wouldn't be saying this if you had.

[DireWolfM14]

Receiving stolen goods is illegal afaik? Check into page 48.

No, the real Mueller report, not the one you obtained from Alyssa Milano.  The one that actually states the date of the theft, while Obama was still president.  How does that incriminate a presidential candidate? 

[bluefirecorp_]

Receiving stolen goods is illegal afaik? Check into page 48.

No, the real Mueller report, not the one you obtained from Alyssa Milano.

Wait... what?

I linked to a .gov site. Not some random ass site. What sort of refutation is this? Sounds like some projection from your neck of the woods.

Also, I was wrong about the page number, Page 60 is where Trump Jr. gets the dirt from Wikileaks (aka, receiving stolen property).

Not sure if the PDF isn't allowed to be loaded in foreign nations, but this is page 60:

[squatz1]

Receiving stolen goods is illegal afaik? Check into page 48.

No, the real Mueller report, not the one you obtained from Alyssa Milano.

Wait... what?

I linked to a .gov site. Not some random ass site. What sort of refutation is this? Sounds like some projection from your neck of the woods.

Also, I was wrong about the page number, Page 60 is where Trump Jr. gets the dirt from Wikileaks (aka, receiving stolen property).

Not sure if the PDF isn't allowed to be loaded in foreign nations, but this is page 60:

Are we calling this a theft?

The guy literally got a username and password for a site and used it. I fail to see what was wrong here.

There was no collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians. It's pretty simple. Mueller even said this

[bluefirecorp_]

Are we calling this a theft?

The guy literally got a username and password for a site and used it. I fail to see what was wrong here.

There was no collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians. It's pretty simple. Mueller even said this

Foot note 257; "stolen". Of course "stolen" implies theft...

----

“Director Mueller,” Nadler asked, “the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?”

“Correct,” Mueller replied. “That is not what the report said.”

Nadler quoted from a section of the report in which Mueller’s team wrote that it would have exonerated Trump on the question of obstruction if it could. But, the report says, it couldn’t.



“So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?” Nadler asked.

“That is correct,” Mueller replied.

“And what about total exoneration? Did you totally exonerate the president?” Nadler continued.

“No,” Mueller said.

“Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.

“Yes,” Mueller replied.

Trump has also repeatedly rejected the idea that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was meant to aid his own candidacy. (He also regularly rejects the idea that any Russian interference takes place, but that’s well-established by now.) Under questioning from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Mueller contradicted Trump’s claims.

“Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Lofgren asked.

It did, Mueller replied. Lofgren followed up: Which one?

“Well,” Mueller said, “it would be Trump.”

When Mueller appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday afternoon, committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) walked through a number of the claims Trump has made in the past about Mueller and his probe.

Few were more direct than this one: “Your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it?” Schiff asked.

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller replied.

Schiff walked through several other claims that the president has made. Schiff noted that Mueller’s report identified outreach attempts from Russia to Trump’s campaign.

“The campaign welcomed the Russian help did they not?” Schiff asked.

“I think we report in the report indications that that occurred, yes,” Mueller said.

"When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it?" Schiff asked later.

“True,” Mueller replied.

---

What you're saying directly contradicts what Mueller testified today. These are words directly out of the man's mouth. Not fake bullshit from Trump or some Republican congressperson.

[bluefirecorp_]

BUCK: Let me just stop. You made the decision on the Russian interference [conspiracy]. You couldn’t have indicted the president on that. And you made the decision on that. But when it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick, and that is fundamentally unfair.

MUELLER: I would not agree to that characterization at all. What we did is provide to the attorney general in the form of a confidential memorandum our understanding of the case, those cases that were brought, those cases that were declined, that one case where the president cannot be charged with a crime.

BUCK: Okay, but the … could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?

MUELLER: Yes.

BUCK: You believe that he committed … you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?

MUELLER: Yes.

I mean, if we would impeach him, we could charge him for obstruction now

[Spendulus]

BUCK: Let me just stop. You made the decision on the Russian interference [conspiracy]. You couldn’t have indicted the president on that. And you made the decision on that. But when it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick, and that is fundamentally unfair.

MUELLER: I would not agree to that characterization at all. What we did is provide to the attorney general in the form of a confidential memorandum our understanding of the case, those cases that were brought, those cases that were declined, that one case where the president cannot be charged with a crime.

BUCK: Okay, but the … could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?

MUELLER: Yes.

BUCK: You believe that he committed … you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?

MUELLER: Yes.

I mean, if we would impeach him, we could charge him for obstruction now

[TECSHARE]

In order for him to have obstructed justice, the original crime would have to have been valid to begin with, which it was not. The FISA warrant was based on manufactured evidence, the investigation was based on the FISA warrant, and the obstruction of justice charges were based on the resulting investigation. This was a fraud from start to finish.

[bluefirecorp_]

In order for him to have obstructed justice, the original crime would have to have been valid to begin with, which it was not.

Hey man, you're not very familiar with the Clinton case. Anyway, Trump also perjuried himself and covered up the evidence. It's pretty clear case of obstruction.

The best part of the whole thing is Mueller openly admitted Trump could be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president.

Of course, you don't care about evidence. You just like your conspiracies

[Astargath]

In order for him to have obstructed justice, the original crime would have to have been valid to begin with, which it was not.

Hey man, you're not very familiar with the Clinton case. Anyway, Trump also perjuried himself and covered up the evidence. It's pretty clear case of obstruction.

The best part of the whole thing is Mueller openly admitted Trump could be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president.

Of course, you don't care about evidence. You just like your conspiracies

The best part is actually this: https://youtu.be/iiT1uzlcvUE when he corrected himself and said they did not reach a conclusion whether the president commited a crime or not.

[bluefirecorp_]

Oh, a mass shooting to distract from impeachment.

Seems... like a pattern.

[bluefirecorp_]

Oh, a mass shooting to distract from impeachment.

Seems... like a pattern.

Another mass shooting today too. Wonder how long until we forget about impeachment.