Epic Fail: Comey, Mueller, Strzok, McCabe – Not A Few Good Men

 

A Few Good Men was an epic classic movie. Released in 1992, this dramatic story of a military court-martial legal proceeding was directed by Rob Reiner and starred Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. In the end, the good guy, Navy Lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) defeats the bad guy, Guantanamo Base Commander Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson).  And in the story plot, it was Colonel Jessup who incriminated himself because in the words of Lt. Kaffee, I will “lead him right where he’s dying to go”. Oh, and one more thing, Colonel Jessup was actually guilty of the crime.

So … Columbo … why are you bringing up a 1992 movie in 2019, right?

I always say, what goes around comes around. Or was that Yogi Berra? Well, I don’t rightly know but what I do know is that some bad cops in the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DNI were 100% sure that Hillary Ramrod Clinton was going to be elected as POTUS in 2016 and that they were sure as heck Crossfire Hurricane going to do everything in their power to get in her good graces.

And so they concocted a plan. A conspiracy. This immoral outsider POTUS contender was not going to disrupt their cushy lives if they had anything to say about it! And they had a plan. An ingenious plan! They were Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee! President Trump was everything bad like that Colonel Jessup guy. And they were going to get him. Yes, yes, he wasn’t guilty of any crime of collusion with the Russians. Big deal. We know him. We’re going to shake him with a Special Counsel. We’ll put the screws to him, his associates and his family! And in the end, we’ll get him with Obstruction. He’ll incriminate himself, without any underlying crime at all!

From the movie …

I think he wants to say it. I think he’s pissed off that he’s gotta hide from this. I think he wants to say that he made a command decision and that’s the end of it. He eats breakfast 300 yards away from 400 Cubans that are trained to kill him. And nobody’s going to tell him how to run his unit, least of all the Harvard mouth in his faggoty white uniform. I need to shake him, put him on the defensive and lead him right where he’s dying to go.

So … fast forward to the upcoming release of this Mueller report. And the only thing these corrupt, immoral, crooked cops are saying is “obstruction, obstruction, obstruction”. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong answer!

Many times life does imitate art. Alas, for these poor chaps in the DOJ/FBI/CIA/DNI national security apparatus, not this time. President Donald Trump has not imitated Colonel Jessup on this. And by the way, I know Tom Cruise. And gentlemen … you are no Tom Cruise! Just sayin’ ….

So … in this real-life story, this movie’s court scene will end at the 1:33 mark. And President Trump exits the courtroom.

 

Unlike, Colonel Jessup, President Trump chose not to take the bait and chose not to fall into their obstruction trap. Any guesses why Mueller chose not to rule or charge on Obstruction?! If’n I was Comey, Strzok, Rice, Brennan, Clapper, I would be staining my drawers about now. These guys were sure that after two years of a Special Counsel witch hunt that President Trump would break and he’d commit Obstruction that Mueller could charge him with!

That’s it? That’s the plan?! And how are you going to do that?

I have no idea. I need my bat.

Unfortunately for Comey, Mueller, Strzok, McCabe, Ohr, Brennan, Clapper, Rice et. al. there is no magic bat. This is going to be an epic reversal.

Even Dana Milbank writing today at the Washington Compost (yeah, he’s in denial, but), “tis the season for treason!”

I’m sorry, your time’s run out! What do we have for the losers, Judge? Well, for our defendants, it’s a life time at exotic Fort Leavenworth! And, for defense counsel Kaffee, that’s right, it’s a court martial! Yes, Johnny! After falsely accusing a President of the United States of collusion with the Russians, Comey, Mueller, Stzok, McCabe, Ohr, Brennan, Clapper, Rice …… will …………..

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 118 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    No. I can wait an hour to read the report.

    The short form report wasn’t good enough?

    Barr has opined five times so far. I am waiting to read Mueller’s text, in the original Aramaic.

    Won’t be good enough, I wager.

    I have already said last month that I was relieved that Mueller concluded no collusion.  On the other hand Barr said in his press conference today that Mueller had cited ten examples of what could be considered Obstruction of Justice.

    I am not urging impeachment; been there, done that with Bill Clinton.  However I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”  Section 4 & 6 relate to telling the FBI that the CIA was involved.  That is not an “illegal act” but it was an “impeachable act.” Query: Do you agree with Nixon being forced to resign?  Half of all Republicans, before Nixon resigned opposed his removal.

     

    • #31
  2. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I am waiting to read Mueller’s text,

    here you go

     

    • #32
  3. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    PHenry (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I am waiting to read Mueller’s text,

    here you go

    Hey!  You gave me only Volume I of II!  

     

    • #33
  4. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    No. I can wait an hour to read the report.

    The short form report wasn’t good enough?

    Barr has opined five times so far. I am waiting to read Mueller’s text, in the original Aramaic.

    Won’t be good enough, I wager.

    I have already said last month that I was relieved that Mueller concluded no collusion. On the other hand Barr said in his press conference today that Mueller had cited ten examples of what could be considered Obstruction of Justice.

    I am not urging impeachment; been there, done that with Bill Clinton. However I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.” Section 4 & 6 relate to telling the FBI that the CIA was involved. That is not an “illegal act” but it was an “impeachable act.” Query: Do you agree with Nixon being forced to resign? Half of all Republicans, before Nixon resigned opposed his removal.

    War’s over man. Barr dropped the big one.

    • #34
  5. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    However I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    Are you referring to proposed articles? To my knowledge, the House never voted on them.

    I would support articles of impeachment against members of the Obama administration for Perversion of Justice.

    • #35
  6. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Hey! You gave me only Volume I of II!

    page 208

    • #36
  7. Ida Claire Member
    Ida Claire
    @IdaClaire

    I’ve been gone from Ricochet for awhile. The anti-Trump hysteria from active members like @GaryRobbins, and formal contributors such as @claire and Mona Charen is what drove me away.

    If they have any integrity they will reflect on why their personal animus against the President has overruled their intellect.  I’m not feeling very optimistic.  Based on @garyrobbins initial replies, and Claire Berlinski’s tweets, I think they are stuck .

    I’m not sure why I ponied up another 5 dollar for a month’s access.  I guess I was hoping against hope. I held everyone in such high regard prior to the previous 2+ years, I just wanted that restored. 

    PS Anyone know how to get accepted by the Happy Warriors group? What criteria are they looking for? 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • #37
  8. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    However I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    Are you referring to proposed articles? To my knowledge, the House never voted on them.

    I would support articles of impeachment against members of the Obama administration for Perversion of Justice.

    These are the Articles that passed the House Judiciary Committee.

    • #38
  9. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Ida Claire (View Comment):

    I’ve been gone from Ricochet for awhile. The anti-Trump hysteria from active members like @GaryRobbins, and formal contributors such as @claire and Mona Charen is what drove me away.

    If they have any integrity they will reflect on why their personal animus against the President has overruled their intellect. I’m not feeling very optimistic. Based on @garyrobbins initial replies, and Claire Berlinski’s tweets, I think they are stuck .

    I’m not sure why I ponied up another 5 dollar for a month’s access. I guess I was hoping against hope. I held everyone in such high regard prior to the previous 2+ years, I just wanted that restored.

    PS Anyone know how to get accepted by the Happy Warriors group? What criteria are they looking for?

    From my March 25, 2019 Post:

    “[We] continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.” Step 10 of Alcoholics Anonymous. https://www.aa.org/

    I had a good faith belief in collusion and/or kompromat. However, I am taking AG Barr at his word that Mueller found that no members of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Russians. 

    The issue of Obstruction of Justice is a different issue and I will await the Mueller report on that issue. But as to collusion, I was wrong.

    This is good news for America, that a President did not collude with a foreign power. 

    http://ricochet.com/608374/i-was-wrong/

    • #39
  10. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The issue of Obstruction of Justice is a different issue and I will await the Mueller report on that issue.

    So Obstruction Truthing has Trumped Collusion Truthing.

     

    • #40
  11. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The issue of Obstruction of Justice is a different issue and I will await the Mueller report on that issue.

    So Obstruction Truthing has Trumped Collusion Truthing.

     

    Indeed. The ‘long form’ is already in. Andrew C. McCarthy on March 26 … On Obstruction, Mueller Abdicates

    The Barr letter gingerly states that, after making a “thorough factual investigation” into alleged instances of obstruction, Mueller “ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.” Since making a prosecutorial judgmentwas Mueller’s job, that means he defaulted. What did we need him for?

    Not only that, but Mueller determined that it would be better for the attorney general to make the prosecutorial judgment. So, for the millionth time, what the hell did we need a special counsel for? If the Justice Department, in Mueller’s judgment, was perfectly well-suited to make the call, how could there possibly have been a conflict so profound that it was necessary to bring in a special counsel in the first place? A special counsel, mind you, who recruited his staff from the Justice Department, transferred the cases he brought to Justice Department components, and, now, has ultimately delegated his decision-making responsibility to the Justice Department.

    Jeff Sessions has a lot to answer for.

    • #41
  12. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Ida Claire (View Comment):
    PS Anyone know how to get accepted by the Happy Warriors group? What criteria are they looking for?

    I can’t speak for my fellows in there, but a solid history of commenting in support of Trump when he’s right would help.  Along with a history of not piling on when elites and the media and democrats launch unsubstantiated attacks.  Support for all of Trump’s policies is not required, but being unapologetically pro-America (like Trump) is a shared value.

    • #42
  13. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):
    but being unapologetically pro-America (like Trump) is a shared value.

    ‘Merica

    • #43
  14. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Ida Claire (View Comment):

    I’ve been gone from Ricochet for awhile. The anti-Trump hysteria from active members like @GaryRobbins, and formal contributors such as @claire and Mona Charen is what drove me away.

    If they have any integrity they will reflect on why their personal animus against the President has overruled their intellect. I’m not feeling very optimistic. Based on @garyrobbins initial replies, and Claire Berlinski’s tweets, I think they are stuck .

    I’m not sure why I ponied up another 5 dollar for a month’s access. I guess I was hoping against hope. I held everyone in such high regard prior to the previous 2+ years, I just wanted that restored.

    PS Anyone know how to get accepted by the Happy Warriors group? What criteria are they looking for?

    From my March 25, 2019 Post:

    “[We] continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.” Step 10 of Alcoholics Anonymous. https://www.aa.org/

    I had a good faith belief in collusion and/or kompromat. However, I am taking AG Barr at his word that Mueller found that no members of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Russians.

    The issue of Obstruction of Justice is a different issue and I will await the Mueller report on that issue. But as to collusion, I was wrong.

    This is good news for America, that a President did not collude with a foreign power.

    http://ricochet.com/608374/i-was-wrong/

    Barr, using the law, logic, and common sense very succinctly states: without an underlying crime, what can one obstruct … and any behavior which one could possibly attribute as being obstruction of justice melts away as normal behavior of a person falsely accused when it is established there never was any underlying crime.

    What Barr(or any Trump detractors for that matter) leaves unremarked upon is: How do you arrive at obstruction of justice when the underlying crime appears to have been a contrivance of the corrupt Obama DOJ/FBI/IC.

    • #44
  15. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Ida Claire (View Comment):

    I’ve been gone from Ricochet for awhile. The anti-Trump hysteria from active members like @GaryRobbins, and formal contributors such as @claire and Mona Charen is what drove me away.

    If they have any integrity they will reflect on why their personal animus against the President has overruled their intellect. I’m not feeling very optimistic. Based on @garyrobbins initial replies, and Claire Berlinski’s tweets, I think they are stuck .

    I’m not sure why I ponied up another 5 dollar for a month’s access. I guess I was hoping against hope. I held everyone in such high regard prior to the previous 2+ years, I just wanted that restored.

    PS Anyone know how to get accepted by the Happy Warriors group? What criteria are they looking for?

    From my March 25, 2019 Post:

    “[We] continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.” Step 10 of Alcoholics Anonymous. https://www.aa.org/

    I had a good faith belief in collusion and/or kompromat. However, I am taking AG Barr at his word that Mueller found that no members of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Russians.

    The issue of Obstruction of Justice is a different issue and I will await the Mueller report on that issue. But as to collusion, I was wrong.

    This is good news for America, that a President did not collude with a foreign power.

    http://ricochet.com/608374/i-was-wrong/

    Barr, using the law, logic, and common sense very succinctly states: without an underlying crime, what can one obstruct … and any behavior which one could possibly attribute as being obstruction of justice melts away as normal behavior of a person falsely accused when it is established there never was any underlying crime.

    What Barr(or any Trump detractors for that matter) leaves unremarked upon is: How do you arrive at obstruction of justice when the underlying crime appears to have been a contrivance of the corrupt Obama DOJ/FBI/IC.

    The whole concept of obstruction of justice bugs me. I get that destroying evidence is a crime, but the underlying idea, ‘you are guilty of inconveniencing me in my quest to destroy you’ has a strong whiff of the Inquisition. 

    • #45
  16. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Perhaps you didn’t hear, but the redacted Mueller Report will be released today after Barr first does his Rebuttal Press Conference in, well, two minutes.

    Your post reminds me of the football player who spiked the football on the 1 yard line, which was ruled a fumble, giving the ball to the other team on the 20 yard line.

    “You can’t handle the truth”

    • #46
  17. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Ida Claire (View Comment):
    PS Anyone know how to get accepted by the Happy Warriors group? What criteria are they looking for?

    I can’t speak for my fellows in there, but a solid history of commenting in support of Trump when he’s right would help. Along with a history of not piling on when elites and the media and democrats launch unsubstantiated attacks. Support for all of Trump’s policies is not required, but being unapologetically pro-America (like Trump) is a shared value.

    It’s A Great Day To Be A Happy Warrior!

    • #47
  18. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

     

    • #48
  19. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo…
    @GumbyMark

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

     

    Great film and the only big budget movie that makes the viewer confront the issues in fighting the War on Terror without preaching to them.

    • #49
  20. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    These are the Articles that passed the House Judiciary Committee.

    In other words, not debated, amended or voted upon in the House.

    I stand by my characterization of “Proposed Articles of Impeachment.”

     

    • #50
  21. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    These are the Articles that passed the House Judiciary Committee.

    In other words, not debated, amended or voted upon in the House.

    I stand by my characterization of “Proposed Articles of Impeachment.”

    That wasn’t the question.  You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.  

    • #51
  22. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    No. I can wait an hour to read the report.

    The short form report wasn’t good enough?

    Barr has opined five times so far. I am waiting to read Mueller’s text, in the original Aramaic.

    Won’t be good enough, I wager.

    I have already said last month that I was relieved that Mueller concluded no collusion. On the other hand Barr said in his press conference today that Mueller had cited ten examples of what could be considered Obstruction of Justice.

    I am not urging impeachment; been there, done that with Bill Clinton. However I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.” Section 4 & 6 relate to telling the FBI that the CIA was involved. That is not an “illegal act” but it was an “impeachable act.” Query: Do you agree with Nixon being forced to resign? Half of all Republicans, before Nixon resigned opposed his removal.

     

    Given that the underlying crime was a hoax, perhaps a better term for what Trump is accused of (by some of Mueller’s Democratic prosecutors) would be “Obstruction of Injustice”.

    • #52
  23. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Query: Do you agree with Nixon being forced to resign?

    Given the unprecedented domestic spying against an opposition political campaign in 2016, no. Nixon should have pulled a Bill Clinton and toughed it out.

    Things might have worked out better for Vietnam and Cambodia if he had.

    • #53
  24. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.

    I am not the person who caucused with donkeys to populate the House of Representatives with Democrats because I so intensely believed that the President of the US was “credibly” accused of collusion – while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    They were not debated, amended nor voted upon, merely being the recommendation of the House Judiciary committee. They were proposed to the House and never acted upon.

    I’ll stick with my formulation.

    • #54
  25. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Ida Claire (View Comment):
    The anti-Trump hysteria from active members like @GaryRobbins, and formal contributors such as @claire and Mona Charen is what drove me away.

    Just checked @claire twitter post. She is still broken.

    • #55
  26. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    BTW: Hey, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok,

    Y’know why you’re about to be hoist on your own petard?

    Because your tradecraft sucks.

    Know why your tradecraft sucks?  Because you opted to choose dealing in metaphorical muck and mud and blood instead of literal muck and mud and blood.

    But you thought, because of your mastery of dark ops in the metaphorical swamp, you could act seamlessly in the literal, meat-infested swamp.

    Okay, heroes, here we go.

    • #56
  27. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Ida Claire (View Comment):
    The anti-Trump hysteria from active members like @GaryRobbins, and formal contributors such as @claire and Mona Charen is what drove me away.

    Just checked @claire twitter post. She is still broken.

    Tom Nichols and Rick Wilson are not giving up. They are going to find that collusion if it kills them!

    • #57
  28. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.

    I am not the person who caucused with donkeys to populate the House of Representatives with Democrats because I so intensely believed that the President of the US was “credibly” accused of collusion – while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic.  Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable.  Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    They were not debated, amended nor voted upon, merely being the recommendation of the House Judiciary committee. They were proposed to the House and never acted upon.

    Article I passed the House Judiciary Committee 27-11, Article II passed 28-10, and Article III passed 21-17.  Articles IV, V & VI did not receive majority votes.  Articles I and II had substantial Republican support in the House Judiciary Committee.  Nixon resigned before the House had the chance to impeach him.  Goldwater said that Nixon had only a dozen votes in the Senate while he would have needed 34 votes to stop his removal from office.

    No one is above the law.  

    • #58
  29. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.

    I am not the person who caucused with donkeys to populate the House of Representatives with Democrats because I so intensely believed that the President of the US was “credibly” accused of collusion – while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic. Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable. Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    They were not debated, amended nor voted upon, merely being the recommendation of the House Judiciary committee. They were proposed to the House and never acted upon.

    Article I passed the House Judiciary Committee 27-11, Article II passed 28-10, and Article III passed 21-17. Articles IV, V & VI did not receive majority votes. Articles I and II had substantial Republican support in the House Judiciary Committee. Nixon resigned before the House had the chance to impeach him. Goldwater said that Nixon had only a dozen votes in the Senate while he would have needed 34 votes to stop his removal from office.

    No one is above the law.

    That’s the theory alright. 

    • #59
  30. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    You are moving the goal posts to satisfy yourself.

    I am not the person who caucused with donkeys to populate the House of Representatives with Democrats because I so intensely believed that the President of the US was “credibly” accused of collusion – while willfully ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Given what I have read so far of the Mueller Report, I made the absolute right decision to support Democrats for the House in 2018, and if I had it to do over again, I would have given more money to save our Republic. Trump clearly obstructed Justice, and must be held accountable. Any Republican who does not express revulsion at Trump’s Obstruction of Justice must be held accountable, and if that means that we lose the Senate, so be it.

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I note for the record that Article I of the Nixon Articles of Impeachment was for “Obstruction of Justice.”

    They were not debated, amended nor voted upon, merely being the recommendation of the House Judiciary committee. They were proposed to the House and never acted upon.

    Article I passed the House Judiciary Committee 27-11, Article II passed 28-10, and Article III passed 21-17. Articles IV, V & VI did not receive majority votes. Articles I and II had substantial Republican support in the House Judiciary Committee. Nixon resigned before the House had the chance to impeach him. Goldwater said that Nixon had only a dozen votes in the Senate while he would have needed 34 votes to stop his removal from office.

    No one is above the law.

    How do you obstruct justice when the ostensible “crime” is a Obama DOJ/FBI/IC set up with no evidence, which then surreptitiously triggers a Special Counsel.    The Special Counsel immediately determines there is no underlying “crime” and alters the course of the investigation to spend 674 days baiting the subject of the investigation into obstructing justice, and at the conclusion of the investigation does not forward to the AG a referral to indict the subject for obstruction of justice.

    From this set of facts Rachel Maddow arrives at obstruction of justice …. well done.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.