ILikePie5

I think we have good info to work off of, no need for more claims. Just get input from at least one of the inactives, then we can get a real lynch wagon going. 

Should vanilla town claims be lynched? There are two possibilities: 1) That they are vanilla town or 2) They are mafia fake claiming. Mafia would know if option 1 is correct. In that case, leaving a claimed VT alive long enough helps scum narrow down the power roles 

Why can't we popcorn people for character and/or role?

It wasn't about sufficiency of evidence.

It is known that he did those things and ordered those things and there is sufficient evidence to show so. It's about to what extent do those acts constitute crimes and whether he can be impeached for those acts, which is purely decided by the house and subsequently the senate

Of course legalities aside, such behaviour is obviously corrupt, so why do you defend him for such behaviour?

You don't have quite the right idea for part 2 of the Mueller report. Mueller's wording was specific in that Trump was not exonerated, and left the matter to the house as to whether the described incidences can be concluded as acts of obstruction, and whether they should lead to impeachment

Before I go, thoughts on a mass character claim?

What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

This has nothing to do with the legality of impeding the Mueller investigation, because Trump was not impeached for anything related to the Mueller investigation. Impeachment was declared to be nonjusticiable in US v Nixon, matters outside of impeachment are not.

Let's assume this is true.

How does Trump being impeached prevent a ruling on this matter, especially when he was not impeached on the basis of this matter?

and

What rulings have the courts made concerning this matter?

If you want to engage with me on a topic, you need to actually know what you're talking about instead of making up rubbish.

Courts make rulings based on indictments. It is standing procedure that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The courts haven't made a ruling because he has not been indicted. This does not mean that the courts cannot make a ruling because he's already been impeached. This is nonsense that doesn't mean anything

Is there a chance as time goes on, more people will leave Trump and join with some Democrat candidates

Pelosi not only thinks she is above the law and the courts but apparently above the Senate as well. 

Seriously though, I don't think Trump will actually win in 2020. We have a strong list of presidential Democrats now, and they might be taking over the senate in 2020. Also with the impeachment inquires, things don't look good for Trump...

The courts haven't made a ruling on these cases I believe. That, and they wouldn't making a ruling on whether or not the defense of this behaviour is morally reprehensible or pathethic. Any ruling would be purely based on the legality

The legality of these cases aside, I find your defense of obviously corrupt practices to be absolutely pathetic and morally reprehensible.

There were several cases where Trump explicitly impeded the investigation

The report found that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey shortly after Comey refused to end the investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser. [Vol. 2, 75]

Trump tried to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to protect him by limiting the investigation into himself and his associates. [Vol. 2, pg. 97, 112, 113]

Trump ordered White House Counsel Donald McGahn to fire Special Counsel Mueller, but McGahn refused to carry out the order. Trump then ordered McGahn to lie about the attempted firing and create false records. [Vol. 2, pg. 89, 120]

Trump actively discouraged his senior aides charged with crimes from cooperating with federal investigators by suggesting the possibility of pardons or threatening them in public and in private. [Vol. 2, pg. 120-128, 144-152]

The report concludes that President Trump personally helped write a false statement for his son to give the public about a meeting with Russian operatives at the Trump campaign headquarters. He falsely claimed the meeting was to discuss adoption policy, rather than the real purpose of the meeting, which was to get information benefiting his campaign and damaging his opponent. [Vol. 2, pg. 101-103]

The whole point of precedent is that a decision has already been made for the interpretation for a law. Further situations that are similar to the precedent refer back to the decision of the precedent. The precedent in this case has already established that the president does not get to arbitrarily invoke privilege. I'm not sure how clearer it could possibly be

And if the witnesses were choosing, on their own, to fight the subpoena in court you might have a point. But that isn't what is happening. Trump, the alleged criminal, is ordering the witnesses to refuse the subpoena's. That is a very different scenario. 

The judicial branch has already issued a precedent on the usage of executive privilege in a case like this

Nick looked like he was instigating violence at a protest. So the media denounced him for violence. i agree they acted without all the facts. But they were denouncing violence. Greta is trying to get the world to actually listen about a massive impending threat. She is not advocating for violence. She is completely peaceful. She has done nothing wrong. The right are attacking her personally. 

I agree there is a double standard. You want to point to what happened to nick as bad (which it was) and then point to what is happening to Greta (which is just as bad) and don't care. It is you who has the double standard. 

And also, she is advocating for a cause that effects the entire world. That is literally a selfless act. 

A subpoena is already a legally binding order. The idea that once you receive a legally binding order and then you can just refuse to comply is insane. If you do that once when something seems odd, that would be one thing. When you order everyone to refuse every subpoena, that undermines the entire political system. It is an obvious stall tactic to prevent congress from doing it's constitutionally required job.    

There literally is.

It is within the rights of a defendant to order the witnesses to his crimes not to testify? You have a very strange opinion of how this is supposed to work. If the president really did have the power to prevent witnesses testifying to his crime he would be immune from criminal prosecution, he would be immune from being investigated by congress. He would be entirely above the law as no one would have the power to investigate him. That is a king. 

The difference is what they are "accused" of. Nick looked like he was triggering violence at a protest. I agree that wasn't the case, but it looked like it was. Greta has never been accused of anything at all. She peacefully calls for action to save the world. The attacks against her are mostly personal when she hasn't done anything and everyone knows that. 

The difference is when the left found out nick didn't do anything wrong they stopped. The right knows Greta hasn't done anything wrong and they still keep on attacking. 

It's not just the president that gets these protections against an abusive Congress, ordinary people get them too.

He is preventing witnesses from testifying about his crimes. 

umm what? One of the main purposes of congress is to act as a check on the executive branch. If the president can simply refuse to let them investigate then they cannot possibly act as that check. That combined with the justice department being told they can't charge him with a crime would make him completely immune from any repercussion of criminality, IE a king. 

They cannot use foreign governments to do so. If they want to get the FBI to investigate that would be normal. Getting a foreign government to do it is a crime. 

This would mean that Pie is town and is actually a bleeder and will die at the end of this round