64% think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So incompetent he beat hillary huh?

Yep.......Hillary was awful......lol

And yet years later you still cry over her, why?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Reading the bits about Trump ordering the firing of Mueller and it not actually happening reminded me of the characters in fiction whom the boss "fires" every couple weeks, but he remains employed because everyone knows the boss either wasn't serious, or would change his mind after thinking it over.

For quite a long time I've understood that with Trump, you have to watch what he actually DOES, and pretty much ignore what he SAYS. It's all for effect.

In fact, the President never ordered Mueller be fired. He had told McGahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had a conflict of interests and should be replaced. Since McGahn had no executive authority he could not have fired Mueller of told Rosenstein to fire Mueller, but only to advise him Mueller should be fired. McGahn, who had long been frustrated by the President not following his political advice, refused to deliver the President's message to Rosenstein for fear of triggering a "Saturday night massacre", that is, for political reasons, not for legal reasons.

If the President had wanted to fire Mueller, he could have done so without McGahn, so the claim Trump tried to fire Mueller but as stopped by McGahn is nonsense.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's what the video and I just said. Are you a parrot?


Except he didn't.

Not sure what your point is here and I don't think you are either.

We both know what my pointis, that Mueller took a parting shot at Trump by not conceding he hadn't found sufficient evidence of obstruction and by saying it was now up to Congress, the Democrat controlled House, to decide if obstruction took place. Clearly, Mueller is a sleaze, and the law student who made the video is clearly another sleaze, and if you are not too stupid to see that, you are a third sleaze.

So you have no comment beyond "everybody's a sleaze". Thanks for the deep thought. Dismissed.

"Well your honor....he shot at the guy but missed."

"Okay! Then there is no crime here! Case dismissed."

"Thank you Judge Barr."

But in this case no shots were fired.

Oh....there were plenty shots fired...in addition to the Junior meeting there were many shots fired....and we don't know which ones hit and deleted evidence....

No shots were fired and that's why Mueller was unable to find evidence of collusion or obstruction.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

For quite a long time I've understood that with Trump, you have to watch what he actually DOES, and pretty much ignore what he SAYS. It's all for effect.

Why? Why should I put any effort into supporting someone who behaves in such a manner? Liars are a non-starter for me. That's why I feel America elected terrible leadership.

 

[toomuchtime_]

For quite a long time I've understood that with Trump, you have to watch what he actually DOES, and pretty much ignore what he SAYS. It's all for effect.

Why? Why should I put any effort into supporting someone who behaves in such a manner? Liars are a non-starter for me. That's why I feel America elected terrible leadership.

Well,since we have not heard a single honest word from any Democrat is Congress for well over two years, how do you "feel" about the Democrats?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

For quite a long time I've understood that with Trump, you have to watch what he actually DOES, and pretty much ignore what he SAYS. It's all for effect.

Why? Why should I put any effort into supporting someone who behaves in such a manner? Liars are a non-starter for me. That's why I feel America elected terrible leadership.

Well,since we have not heard a single honest word from any Democrat

^ IN YOUR OPINION. Who is 'we'?

is Congress for well over two years, how do you "feel" about the Democrats?

They lie a little less than Republicans.

 

[toomuchtime_]

For quite a long time I've understood that with Trump, you have to watch what he actually DOES, and pretty much ignore what he SAYS. It's all for effect.

Why? Why should I put any effort into supporting someone who behaves in such a manner? Liars are a non-starter for me. That's why I feel America elected terrible leadership.

Well,since we have not heard a single honest word from any Democrat

^ IN YOUR OPINION. Who is 'we'?

is Congress for well over two years, how do you "feel" about the Democrats?

They lie a little less than Republicans.

lol Hardly. Their opposition to the President's border security plan as outlined in his 2018 State of the Union address is the same as Schumer's plan in 2013 (Senate bill S. 744) and yet for over two years the Democrats have cynically claimed they were horrified by it, and the whole collusion probe never had any legitimate basis but was from the start only an attempt by the Obama administration to help Clinton in the election. If you started thinking about things instead of only "feeling" about them, you would know this.

Not one word of truth from any Democrat in Congress in well over two years.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

For quite a long time I've understood that with Trump, you have to watch what he actually DOES, and pretty much ignore what he SAYS. It's all for effect.

Why? Why should I put any effort into supporting someone who behaves in such a manner? Liars are a non-starter for me. That's why I feel America elected terrible leadership.

Well,since we have not heard a single honest word from any Democrat

^ IN YOUR OPINION. Who is 'we'?

is Congress for well over two years, how do you "feel" about the Democrats?

They lie a little less than Republicans.

lol Hardly. Their opposition to the President's border security plan as outlined in his 2018 State of the Union address is the same as Schumer's plan in 2013 (Senate bill S. 744) and yet for over two years the Democrats have cynically claimed they were horrified by it, and the whole collusion probe never had any legitimate basis but was from the start only an attempt by the Obama administration to help Clinton in the election. If you started thinking about things instead of only "feeling" about them, you would know this.

Not one word of truth from any Democrat in Congress in well over two years.

Neither party gets border control right in my opinion. If the investigation had no 'legitimate basis', it wouldn't have happened. Based on your 'feeling' you decided to choose the giant douche over the turd sandwich.

 

[Jitss617]

This latest survey (post the redacted Mueller report,) is a bit of "bad news" for Trump.....not only in his attempts to obstruct justice, but ALSO of his incompetence in such attempts.

As a reminder to the simple math challenged, Trump sycophants, 64% is almost 2 out of 3 voters.

Bad news for Trump: 64% of Americans think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice

So why is Hillary not in jail?

 

[Jitss617]

Some loser on msnbc said trump has broken the laws so many times democrats don’t know where to start.. lol WHAT!!! Hahahha
You all have lost your minds

 

[Pogo]

This latest survey (post the redacted Mueller report,) is a bit of "bad news" for Trump.....not only in his attempts to obstruct justice, but ALSO of his incompetence in such attempts.

As a reminder to the simple math challenged, Trump sycophants, 64% is almost 2 out of 3 voters.

Bad news for Trump: 64% of Americans think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice

Actually, in legal terms it is, 100%.

Here's a helpful primer I happened across yesterday: I like this guy. He's a video law class.

​

He's slick, but he's also slimy, just as Mueller is. By suggesting the President may be guilty of obstruction but falsely claiming he can't indict him, despite the fact there is no case law to support that claim, and by suggesting the Democrat controlled House is where the President can get a fair hearing, Mueller makes a mockery of his own claim to "fairness".

Those were as he points out, Mueller's own ground rules from the outset. That means he can find evidence but (thinks he) cannot indict.

Now, the question of whether that's true (that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted) isn't at all settled. There's no known reason that can't happen. So it's a self-limitation.

The framers of the constitution gave us a way to remove a president, impeachment. After impeachment, he certainly can be charged. This is way it should be done.

Although the constitution does not address the issue of criminal prosecution of a president, it gives no mechanism for handling the problems. The first problem is who is going to charge the president, arrest the president, and indict the president. All of the principals involved work for the president. If there were a legal move against the president, council would go to court claiming the infrastructural of the constitution would make it unconstitutional to indict a president. The most probable outcome would be the supreme court would agree. However, if the court refused to rescue the president, then we would see a series legal moves by the president to delay action and that could take years. However, suppose all this fails and the case goes to court. Who is going to be running goverment etc. Congress would have to act to impeach the president, something that should have been done to begin with. This is why impeachment is by far the best and the only practical way to remove a president other than an election.

Arrr, there be conflation about. Let's distinguish between indicting an President and impeaching a President.

Indictment means charging some entity with a crime. Impeachment means removal from office. Those are two different things. They may well happen concurrently but they need not. Either can exist without the other.

When one is fired from a job (analogously, impeached), one doesn't go to court or jail; one simply discontinues employment and moves on to presumably another job. Meanwhile his co-worker may have committed a crime but was not fired.

As for who would do what, the DOJ -- or if applicable, a lower court --- would do the indicting, whatever court applied to the crime would handle it, and if he was sentenced to prison, or for whatever period he/she was unavailable to execute the duties of President, the VP would take over per the Constitution, just as in any other circumstance.

There's no reason it needs to be complicated.

On the other hand if the position is taken that the POTUS is immune from prosecution that's an enormous Pandora's Box. He could for example shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and as long as he did so while in office it would be "legal".

The Cliff's Notes: Indicting a President, or even convicting one, is not "removing" him or her.

 

[Pogo]

Some loser on msnbc said trump has broken the laws so many times democrats don’t know where to start.. lol WHAT!!! Hahahha
You all have lost your minds

And you have apparently lost your link.

 

[Jitss617]

Some loser on msnbc said trump has broken the laws so many times democrats don’t know where to start.. lol WHAT!!! Hahahha
You all have lost your minds

And you have apparently lost your link.

It was live tv

 

[Pogo]

Some loser on msnbc said trump has broken the laws so many times democrats don’t know where to start.. lol WHAT!!! Hahahha
You all have lost your minds

And you have apparently lost your link.

It was live tv

Of course it was.

I'm watching "live TV" right now that has a special report on how you're a fucking moron. I don't have a link though.

Besides which, if this is something on TV the address "you" cannot apply. This board is not your TV.

 

[Lastamender]

This latest survey (post the redacted Mueller report,) is a bit of "bad news" for Trump.....not only in his attempts to obstruct justice, but ALSO of his incompetence in such attempts.

As a reminder to the simple math challenged, Trump sycophants, 64% is almost 2 out of 3 voters.

Bad news for Trump: 64% of Americans think attempting and failing to obstruct justice is as bad as obstructing justice

Then they do understand our legal system. The MSM never bothers to explain it. Anyway, their ignorance does not effect the law.

 

[Jitss617]

Some loser on msnbc said trump has broken the laws so many times democrats don’t know where to start.. lol WHAT!!! Hahahha
You all have lost your minds

And you have apparently lost your link.

It was live tv

Of course it was.

I'm watching "live TV" right now that has a special report on how you're a fucking moron. I don't have a link though.

Projecting?

 

[MisterBeale]

Some loser on msnbc said trump has broken the laws so many times democrats don’t know where to start.. lol WHAT!!! Hahahha
You all have lost your minds

And you have apparently lost your link.

It was live tv

Of course it was.

I'm watching "live TV" right now that has a special report on how you're a fucking moron. I don't have a link though.

Besides which, if this is something on TV the address "you" cannot apply. This board is not your TV.

 

[Mike473]

What do the polls say about attempted coup attempts? Are they considered as bad a successful ones?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I agree that if trump issued orders to obstruct, it is bad. The fact that the only reason obstruction didnt take place is because of the insubordination of those working for him, is no excuse.

However, it's hard to speak out on it because the left will not speak out against their own when wrongdoing has occurred.

Had Hillary won, you can bet there would have been no further investigation of her clear and apparent obstruction (destroying evidence, wiping servers etc.)

It's the one thing that is noticable between the two sides. The right will criticize their own, you'll hardly ever find anyone on the left who will do the same.

That must be why we have ZERO Rumpbots who will break down and admit the obvious, that he's repeatedly lying about where his father was born.

SMH Nun so blind, pray for us.

I have no idea where his father was born. I wasnt aware that was even an issue....

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not only did he attempt to obstruct....HE DID. All the evidence proving conspiracy with Wikileaks and Russia was destroyed...trump is happy he got away with it....

Link to an article claiming evidence was destroyed?