Saturday Night Massacre Revisited?

[nat4900]

The fact that Trump himself is calling this new reporting about his desire to fire Mueller, "fake news", is tantamount to an admission that if this is indeed true, then he is in very serious trouble.

Bear in mind that this revelation is a result of the WH counsel being interviewed (and inevitably recorded) by the Mueller investigators; in other words, McGahn himself must have stated that he was ordered by Trump to do something that he felt was both unethical and unlawful.....and therefore refused and threatened to resign.

So, calling this story "fake news," should prompt the obvious question of Trump backers: ...IF the story proves irrefutable, do you agree that the Trump attempt to wanting Mueller fired is an impeachable offense???

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Even if the story is true, no attempt was made.

Trump wanting to fire Mueller is not an impeachable offense. Have you found out what's wrong with you yet?

 

[Cellblock2429]

The fact that Trump himself is calling this new reporting about his desire to fire Mueller, "fake news", is tantamount to an admission that if this is indeed true, then he is in very serious trouble.

Bear in mind that this revelation is a result of the WH counsel being interviewed (and inevitably recorded) by the Mueller investigators; in other words, McGahn himself must have stated that he was ordered by Trump to do something that he felt was both unethical and unlawful.....and therefore refused and threatened to resign.

So, calling this story "fake news," should prompt the obvious question of Trump backers: ...IF the story proves irrefutable, do you agree that the Trump attempt to wanting Mueller fired is an impeachable offense???

/-----/ No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that Trump himself is calling this new reporting about his desire to fire Mueller, "fake news", is tantamount to an admission that if this is indeed true, then he is in very serious trouble.

Bear in mind that this revelation is a result of the WH counsel being interviewed (and inevitably recorded) by the Mueller investigators; in other words, McGahn himself must have stated that he was ordered by Trump to do something that he felt was both unethical and unlawful.....and therefore refused and threatened to resign.

So, calling this story "fake news," should prompt the obvious question of Trump backers: ...IF the story proves irrefutable, do you agree that the Trump attempt to wanting Mueller fired is an impeachable offense???

It's definitely not a crime. Exercising the powers granted to him by the Constitution is not a crime, no matter what his motive. That's like saying a cop can't give you a parking ticket if he's doing it because he doesn't like black people. Wrongo!

Congress can impeach a president for jaywalking if it has the votes.

 

[nat4900]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

 

[NightFox]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

Uh-huh and what does it say about a decision NOT to bring about a prohibited consequence?

....or is simply considering an option a criminal offense in nat4900 's magical world of ludicrous nonsense?

 

[Cellblock2429]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

/-----/ The president has the constitutional power to fire Muller. How is that a "prohibited consequence?"
BTW, "prohibited consequences" is a very poorly chosen phrase. "Prohibited" means "not allowed," and in this case "not allowed by law." The idea is that the "consequences," or "result," of a reckless or negligent action are typically not going to be acceptable in the eyes of the law. There are surely much better ways of expressing this concept. Ask your Special Ed teach for help on this.

 

[Cellblock2429]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

Uh-huh and what does it say about a decision NOT to bring about a prohibited consequence?

....or is simply considering an option a criminal offense in nat4900 's magical world of ludicrous nonsense?

/----/ Nat tries to sound more educated than he actually is. "prohibited consequence" is just gibberish.

 

[Thinker101]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

Wow, does that same definition apply to Hillary?

 

[konradv]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

Wow, does that same definition apply to Hillary?

Ahhh..., the "what about" dodge. Check wiki concerning the 2016 election; Hillary lost and your post is nothing more than deflection from Trump's series of disasters.

 

[NightFox]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

Uh-huh and what does it say about a decision NOT to bring about a prohibited consequence?

....or is simply considering an option a criminal offense in nat4900 's magical world of ludicrous nonsense?

/----/ Nat tries to sound more educated than he actually is. "prohibited consequence" is just gibberish.

Well in Nat's defense he/she is fairly articulate for a 3 year old.........

 

[Wyatt earp]

The fact that Trump himself is calling this new reporting about his desire to fire Mueller, "fake news", is tantamount to an admission that if this is indeed true, then he is in very serious trouble.

Bear in mind that this revelation is a result of the WH counsel being interviewed (and inevitably recorded) by the Mueller investigators; in other words, McGahn himself must have stated that he was ordered by Trump to do something that he felt was both unethical and unlawful.....and therefore refused and threatened to resign.

So, calling this story "fake news," should prompt the obvious question of Trump backers: ...IF the story proves irrefutable, do you agree that the Trump attempt to wanting Mueller fired is an impeachable offense???

Why would it be impeachable if Trump got Mueller fired????????

 

[Wyatt earp]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

Wow, does that same definition apply to Hillary?

Ahhh..., the "what about" dodge. Check wiki concerning the 2016 election; Hillary lost and your post is nothing more than deflection from Trump's series of disasters.

What disasters?

 

[bripat9643]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

The consequence isn't prohibited, so your definition is irrelevant.

 

[mudwhistle]

The fact that Trump himself is calling this new reporting about his desire to fire Mueller, "fake news", is tantamount to an admission that if this is indeed true, then he is in very serious trouble.

Bear in mind that this revelation is a result of the WH counsel being interviewed (and inevitably recorded) by the Mueller investigators; in other words, McGahn himself must have stated that he was ordered by Trump to do something that he felt was both unethical and unlawful.....and therefore refused and threatened to resign.

So, calling this story "fake news," should prompt the obvious question of Trump backers: ...IF the story proves irrefutable, do you agree that the Trump attempt to wanting Mueller fired is an impeachable offense???

/-----/ No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?
View attachment 173505

This is leftists and their Fake News.
Guilty of thought crimes.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that Trump himself is calling this new reporting about his desire to fire Mueller, "fake news", is tantamount to an admission that if this is indeed true, then he is in very serious trouble.

Bear in mind that this revelation is a result of the WH counsel being interviewed (and inevitably recorded) by the Mueller investigators; in other words, McGahn himself must have stated that he was ordered by Trump to do something that he felt was both unethical and unlawful.....and therefore refused and threatened to resign.

So, calling this story "fake news," should prompt the obvious question of Trump backers: ...IF the story proves irrefutable, do you agree that the Trump attempt to wanting Mueller fired is an impeachable offense???

Why would it be impeachable if Trump got Mueller fired????????

Because all the snowflakes would get their panties into a tight little wad.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why on earth would this be an impeachable offense? Since when is it a high crime or misdemeaner to fire an employee?

If Donald Trump wanted to fire Robert Mueller, Robert Mueller would be unemployed today.

 

[Eaglewings]

If Obama did anything close to the behavior of Trump, these excuses would be off the table..

Hypocrite Hillbillies

 

[Rustic]

The fact that Trump himself is calling this new reporting about his desire to fire Mueller, "fake news", is tantamount to an admission that if this is indeed true, then he is in very serious trouble.

Bear in mind that this revelation is a result of the WH counsel being interviewed (and inevitably recorded) by the Mueller investigators; in other words, McGahn himself must have stated that he was ordered by Trump to do something that he felt was both unethical and unlawful.....and therefore refused and threatened to resign.

So, calling this story "fake news," should prompt the obvious question of Trump backers: ...IF the story proves irrefutable, do you agree that the Trump attempt to wanting Mueller fired is an impeachable offense???

/-----/ No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?
View attachment 173505

This is leftists and their Fake News.
Guilty of thought crimes.

Yep, progressives are very Orwellian in their views

 

[konradv]

No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

In criminal law, intent is defined as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

Wow, does that same definition apply to Hillary?

Ahhh..., the "what about" dodge. Check wiki concerning the 2016 election; Hillary lost and your post is nothing more than deflection from Trump's series of disasters.

What disasters?

Read the news much? We've lost the respect of a lot of our allies. The Republicans could go down in flames this fall. The great "deal maker" couldn't manage to avert a government shutdown. One administration appointee after another has left because of malfeasance in office or an inability to get along with Trump. I could go on, but you get the drift.