Saturday Night Massacre Revisited?

[radical right]

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?

Trump thought about firing Mueller, not a crime.
But Trump was caught in the act of instructing McGahn to tell the DOJ to fire Mueller, and that is an attempt.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

Trump thought about firing Mueller, not a crime.
But Trump was caught in the act of instructing McGahn to tell the DOJ to fire Mueller, and that is an attempt.

He never did. That is the essense of the complaint. It was discussing, instructing McGahn to tell the DOJ to fire Mueller. He never actually gave the instruction.

 

[radical right]

He never did. That is the essense of the complaint. It was discussing, instructing McGahn to tell the DOJ to fire Mueller. He never actually gave the instruction.

Trump order McGahn. McGahn threatened to quit before carrying out Trumps order. At which point Trump backed off.

But Trump issued the order. It wasn't just a discussion.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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???

Not impeachable. Only in that loonbat maxine waters head of yours.

 

[Papageorgio]

/-----/ 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.

Well that isn’t happening. So, you have nothing.

 

[Papageorgio]

/—-/ 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.

That didn’t happen, so you still have nothing. Try again.

 

[Avatar4321]

It’s mindboggling that any of you think Trump not doing something that he cAn legally do is obstruction of justice, but the FBI and DOJ fixing It so Hillary isn’t prosecuted for the servers isnt

 

[nat4900]

Trump ORDERED for Mueller to be fired......he was not only thinking about it, he ORDERED IT........the fact that saner minds threaten to quit if he ordered them to do it, does NOT exculpate the moron in chief from his intent to fire the very same person who was investigating his possible wrong doings.

You Trump ass kissers may not like it, but reality is what it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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???

Of course it’s an impeachable offence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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."

Please tell us how making a decision, but not acting upon it is a "prohibited consequence"?

I promise I won't laugh

 

[CowboyTed]

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."

Please tell us how making a decision, but not acting upon it is a "prohibited consequence"?

I promise I won't laugh

He gave the order to his lawyer... His lawyer said he would resign, he then rescinded the order...

Trump is looking as guilt as hell at interfering with justice

 

[AntonToo]

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?

Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense - If Trump made an order to his lawyer to fire Mueller, then that establishes intent to thwart investigation just as well as lawyer actually carrying out the order and firing Mueller.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Trump was well within his right to fire Mueller, even though he didn't. You people are freaking out over nothing.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense - If Trump made an order to his lawyer to fire Mueller, then that establishes intent to thwart investigation just as well as lawyer actually carrying out the order and firing Mueller.

Oh palease.

 

[nat4900]

Please tell us how making a decision, but not acting upon it is a "prohibited consequence"?

I promise I won't laugh

Well,, Frankie.......do this:

Send a threatening email to the WH and without acting upon it, see what happens......deal?

 

[nat4900]

Obstruction of Justice is an impeachable offense - If Trump made an order to his lawyer to fire Mueller, then that establishes intent to thwart investigation just as well as lawyer actually carrying out the order and firing Mueller.

Two minor (but important) distinctions to the above........

A. McGahn is NOT really Trump's lawyer, but the White House lawyer, who took an oath to defend the office of the presidency and not an oath to be a stooge for Trump.

B. Threatening to fire a special prosecutor duly assigned to investigate possible wrongdoings of an administration CANNOT as easily fall under the privy of a Trump firing that individual as it would be to fire your valet. THAT is an attempt to cover up your possible wrongdoings.

 

[2aguy]

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???

You mean...he didn't fire mueller? The entirety of the story is...he didn't fire mueller......

And if he had fired mueller....it is his power to do it...since he is the head of the Executive Branch numb nuts......and mueller's hiring is not legal to begin with...since it didn't meet the requirements in the special counsel statute......moron...

 

[nat4900]

And if he had fired mueller....it is his power to do it...since he is the head of the Executive Branch numb nuts......and mueller's hiring is not legal to begin with...since it didn't meet the requirements in the special counsel statute......moron...

Well, the above is further proof that you're an idiot.

The independent counsel statute states that someone must be appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority

In other words, the DOJ ....being part of the executive branch CANNOT investigate the executive branch and has to cede that power to an INDEPENDENT body.......ergo, firing that independent body usurps the powers of the executive branch.

 

[2aguy]

And if he had fired mueller....it is his power to do it...since he is the head of the Executive Branch numb nuts......and mueller's hiring is not legal to begin with...since it didn't meet the requirements in the special counsel statute......moron...

Well, the above is further proof that you're an idiot.

The independent counsel statute states that someone must be appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority

In other words, the DOJ ....being part of the executive branch CANNOT investigate the executive branch and has to cede that power to an INDEPENDENT body.......ergo, firing that independent body usurps the powers of the executive branch.

Wrong...there must be an actual crime first....there is no crime here. There must be a crime that has been committed and then the conflict of interest directs a special prosecutor to be commissioned, there was no crime here...mueller was appointed before a crime was found......that violates the statute....


Moron....

Mueller Investigation: Politics, Not Law Enforcement or Counterintelligence

The Justice Department did not, as the pertinent special-counsel regulations require, identify specific crimes it suspected had been committed by Trump-campaign officials. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein disclosed no factual predicate calling for a criminal investigation from which Trump’s Justice Department would be ethically required to recuse itself.

--------

See, we’re not following the normal rules, in which a prosecutor is assigned only after evidence of an actual crime has emerged. We’re in the wooly realm of counterintelligence, where anything goes. And in the event our aggressive prosecutor can’t find any crimes — which would be no surprise, since the investigation was not triggered by a crime — no matter: The special counsel is encouraged to manufacture crimes through the investigative process. Misleading assertions by non-suspects made to investigators probing non-crimes can be charged as felony false statements.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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???

Nixon had Bork to do his dirty work – Trump may not be able to find someone as dishonest to do the same.