Saturday Night Massacre Revisited?

I am saying that even if he INTENDED to fire Mueller, the fact that Mueller is not fired means there is no way there could have been a crime.

INTENT only matters if there is also an ACT.

Come on....Really??
/---

If someone "intends" to assassinate his/her spouse, but the plot is foiled, does that someone get a slap on the wrist and told not to do that again?
/----/ In criminal law, intent is one of three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional, as opposed to strict liability, crime. A more formal, generally synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Trump intending to fire Muller is his right. It would not be a crime. I intend to win the Powerball is not a crime. I intend to rob the 7-11 of their lottery tickets is a crime and if caught in the act I can be prosecuted.
 
There are 141 posts on this thread......and most of them simply point out that Trump ass-kissers have "nothing to worry about".....However, here they are.......LOL
 
There are 141 posts on this thread......and most of them simply point out that Trump ass-kissers have "nothing to worry about".....However, here they are.......LOL

You poor partisan left wing nut, you have failed to prove Trump did anything wrong. You remind me of shootspeeders, a wing nut with no grasp on reality and an ignorance and hatred of opinions that disagree with you.
 
You poor partisan left wing nut, you have failed to prove Trump did anything wrong.

Again, you have NOTHING to worry about, correct ???.

This whole investigation of Trump is just for fun, you can go back to posting Trump's pictures above your bed.
 
You poor partisan left wing nut, you have failed to prove Trump did anything wrong.

Again, you have NOTHING to worry about, correct ???.

This whole investigation of Trump is just for fun, you can go back to posting Trump's pictures above your bed.
/----/ Oh it's anything but for fun, Cupcake. The Deep State is fighting for its life and they want Trump gone.
 
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, it's not an impeachable offense because he didn't do it. That's my opinion. However, it adds to possible obstruction of justice allegations, doesn't it?
I also don't necessarily think McGann thought Trump's action was unlawful. He may just have felt he couldn't justify the action or defend the Pres against the ensuing backlash--which would no doubt have included some attempts at impeachment. We all know Trump can "legally" fire Mueller.

I have no doubt it happened. What's interesting to me is
(1) How did McGann manage to remain on as WH counsel after refusing to do the President's bidding?
(2) This really makes Trump look more and more like he was in a panic over the whole investigation.

The only reason I'm not convinced that this is obstruction is that Trump is a narcissist and their tantrums are serious stuff. It is still possible that he's not hiding anything but that his ego is still smarting like hell that anyone thinks Russia helped him win.
 
You poor partisan left wing nut, you have failed to prove Trump did anything wrong.

Again, you have NOTHING to worry about, correct ???.

This whole investigation of Trump is just for fun, you can go back to posting Trump's pictures above your bed.

I’m for the investigation dumb ass, I am against your bogus butt hurt. Thinking of firing and actually doing it are completely different. You and shootspeeders are two partisan nuts.
 
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.
/——/ Good riddance to those ungrateful leeche Eurotrash
 
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.

We’ve lost so much respect that Trump was being treated like a hero in switzerland
 
/-----/ No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

How about committing suicide?

A president wanting to commit suicide, and having his finger on the nuclear button would be met with impeachment to save the world.
 
No, it's not an impeachable offense because he didn't do it. That's my opinion. However, it adds to possible obstruction of justice allegations, doesn't it?
I also don't necessarily think McGann thought Trump's action was unlawful. He may just have felt he couldn't justify the action or defend the Pres against the ensuing backlash--which would no doubt have included some attempts at impeachment. We all know Trump can "legally" fire Mueller.

One idea in law is to catch criminality before it flourishes into an irreversible crime. Example, catching a terrorist before they hijack a plane and crash it into a building. Yet they are charged and punished as if they succeeded.
 
/-----/ No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

How about committing suicide?

A president wanting to commit suicide, and having his finger on the nuclear button would be met with impeachment to save the world.
/-----/ No. Since when is wanting to do something but not doing it an impeachable offense?

How about committing suicide?

A president wanting to commit suicide, and having his finger on the nuclear button would be met with impeachment to save the world.
/——/ Are you playing with your meds dosage again? We’re worried about you.
 
No, it's not an impeachable offense because
he didn't do it. That's my opinion. However, it adds to possible obstruction of justice allegations, doesn't it?
I also don't necessarily think McGann thought Trump's action was unlawful. He may just have felt he couldn't justify the action or defend the Pres against the ensuing backlash--which would no doubt have included some attempts at impeachment. We all know Trump can "legally" fire Mueller.

One idea in law is to catch criminality before it flourishes into an irreversible crime. Example, catching a terrorist before they hijack a plane and crash it into a building. Yet they are charged and punished as if they succeeded.
/—-/ Hey dummy, planning to hijack a plane is a crime. Trump has the right to fire Muller. It’s not a crime. We can’t dumb it down anymore for you.
 
/—-/ Hey dummy, planning to hijack a plane is a crime. Trump has the right to fire Muller. It’s not a crime. We can’t dumb it down anymore for you.
FIring an investigator to obstruct an investigation is also a crime. The USSC ruled on that, declaring illegal Richard Nixons firing of Archibald Cox.
 
/—-/ Hey dummy, planning to hijack a plane is a crime. Trump has the right to fire Muller. It’s not a crime. We can’t dumb it down anymore for you.
FIring an investigator to obstruct an investigation is also a crime. The USSC ruled on that, declaring illegal Richard Nixons firing of Archibald Cox.
/——/ Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha You’re pathetic. But you go with that if it helps you sleep at night. BTW Muller wasn’t fired
 
LOL! Yeah, Trump's in "serious trouble." There still is not one shred of credible, rational evidence that Trump or any senior aide/supporter colluded with the Russians to influence the election. On the other hand, there is growing evidence that Democrats in the FBI and the Justice Department broke serious laws in an attempt to protect Hillary and to damage Trump.
 
I am saying that even if he INTENDED to fire Mueller, the fact that Mueller is not fired means there is no way there could have been a crime.

INTENT only matters if there is also an ACT.

Come on....Really??
/---

If someone "intends" to assassinate his/her spouse, but the plot is foiled, does that someone get a slap on the wrist and told not to do that again?
/----/ In criminal law, intent is one of three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional, as opposed to strict liability, crime. A more formal, generally synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Trump intending to fire Muller is his right. It would not be a crime. I intend to win the Powerball is not a crime. I intend to rob the 7-11 of their lottery tickets is a crime and if caught in the act I can be prosecuted.
Of course intending to rob the 7-11 isn't a crime. If caught in the act, my intent has become an act and that is an attempt.

We do not prosecute thought crimes and we certainly don't impeach on thought crimes.

Are we really getting that silly?
 

Forum List

Back
Top