Why isn’t obstruction of the Mueller investigation included in the articles of impeachment?

[g5000]

Now...as you watch the tard herd making all kinds of monkey sounds after everything I have posted about the Mueller investigation, you can see for yourselves that the very first post I made in this topic was dead on.

Thank you very much.

 

[Rye Catcher]

The Dimms said they had enough to impeach him for Obstruction of Justice for interfering with the Muller investigation.....so if that is TRUE, why wasn’t it added to the articles of impeachment?

That obstruction stuff wasn’t just BULLSHIT, WAS IT??

Shouldn’t all crimes be included in any impeachment proceedings?

Methinks The Speaker knows best. Too many Articles may look like a pile on, even though trump is guilty of more high crimes than the two put forth.

 

[g5000]

The Dimms said they had enough to impeach him for Obstruction of Justice for interfering with the Muller investigation.....so if that is TRUE, why wasn’t it added to the articles of impeachment?

That obstruction stuff wasn’t just BULLSHIT, WAS IT??

Shouldn’t all crimes be included in any impeachment proceedings?

Methinks The Speaker knows best. Too many Articles may look like a pile on, even though trump is guilty of more high crimes than the two put forth.

Right. It was a tactical decision.

 

[colfax_m]

The Dimms said they had enough to impeach him for Obstruction of Justice for interfering with the Muller investigation.....so if that is TRUE, why wasn’t it added to the articles of impeachment?

That obstruction stuff wasn’t just BULLSHIT, WAS IT??

Shouldn’t all crimes be included in any impeachment proceedings?

Maybe because the investigation was never obstructed.

Firing the prosecutor would be obstruction, wouldn’t you agree?

Mueller was not fired he was not denied anything he requested for his investigation he continued his investigation and completed it. His report was released to the public and he even testified before Congress so pardon me if I don't see any obstruction here.

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

 

[Nostra]

Now...as you watch the tard herd making all kinds of monkey sounds after everything I have posted about the Mueller investigation, you can see for yourselves that the very first post I made in this topic was dead on.

Thank you very much.

You really are dumb.

 

[Nostra]

Maybe because the investigation was never obstructed.

Firing the prosecutor would be obstruction, wouldn’t you agree?

Mueller was not fired he was not denied anything he requested for his investigation he continued his investigation and completed it. His report was released to the public and he even testified before Congress so pardon me if I don't see any obstruction here.

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

It wouldn't have been a crime if Trump fired Mueller. He serves at the pleasure of the President.

Oops!

 

[Siete]

Maybe because the investigation was never obstructed.

Firing the prosecutor would be obstruction, wouldn’t you agree?

Mueller was not fired he was not denied anything he requested for his investigation he continued his investigation and completed it. His report was released to the public and he even testified before Congress so pardon me if I don't see any obstruction here.

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

if -

The move made Trump only the second president in US history to fire his FBI director. Comey was leading the investigation into whether Trump campaign members colluded with Russians who hacked the 2016 election. The Trump administration said it was getting rid of Comey because of the way he handled the Hillary Clinton email probe.

 

[blackhawk]

Maybe because the investigation was never obstructed.

Firing the prosecutor would be obstruction, wouldn’t you agree?

Mueller was not fired he was not denied anything he requested for his investigation he continued his investigation and completed it. His report was released to the public and he even testified before Congress so pardon me if I don't see any obstruction here.

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

Under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch. Whether you think Donald Trump is an absolutely wonderful president or an absolutely awful one, this holds true, as it does for all other presidents, regardless of political party. You can not charge this President or any President with obstruction for doing something they have the legal authority to do firing Mueller would have been a stupid thing to do from a political standpoint but it didn't happen and even if he did do it still wouldn't have been obstruction it would have been a political disaster but not obstruction.

 

[hadit]

The Dimms said they had enough to impeach him for Obstruction of Justice for interfering with the Muller investigation.....so if that is TRUE, why wasn’t it added to the articles of impeachment?

That obstruction stuff wasn’t just BULLSHIT, WAS IT??

Shouldn’t all crimes be included in any impeachment proceedings?

Methinks The Speaker knows best. Too many Articles may look like a pile on, even though trump is guilty of more high crimes than the two put forth.

Right. It was a tactical decision.

Which means it's not about doing the "right thing", because if it was, they would have listed everything they could prove. In fact, if you really think this was a tactical move, it was a spectacularly dumb one, because Trump isn't going anywhere because of these charges.

 

[colfax_m]

Firing the prosecutor would be obstruction, wouldn’t you agree?

Mueller was not fired he was not denied anything he requested for his investigation he continued his investigation and completed it. His report was released to the public and he even testified before Congress so pardon me if I don't see any obstruction here.

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

Under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch. Whether you think Donald Trump is an absolutely wonderful president or an absolutely awful one, this holds true, as it does for all other presidents, regardless of political party. You can not charge this President or any President with obstruction for doing something they have the legal authority to do firing Mueller would have been a stupid thing to do from a political standpoint but it didn't happen and even if he did do it still wouldn't have been obstruction it would have been a political disaster but not obstruction.

Interesting. I think that Nixon’s articles of impeachment had something similar.

Having the authority to do something is not license to do so in any circumstance.

Let’s say I offered Trump $1 million to fire Bill Barr and Trump agreed.

Trump has the authority to do it, but I doubt you’d be okay with that. Would you?

 

[Nostra]

Mueller was not fired he was not denied anything he requested for his investigation he continued his investigation and completed it. His report was released to the public and he even testified before Congress so pardon me if I don't see any obstruction here.

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

Under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch. Whether you think Donald Trump is an absolutely wonderful president or an absolutely awful one, this holds true, as it does for all other presidents, regardless of political party. You can not charge this President or any President with obstruction for doing something they have the legal authority to do firing Mueller would have been a stupid thing to do from a political standpoint but it didn't happen and even if he did do it still wouldn't have been obstruction it would have been a political disaster but not obstruction.

Interesting. I think that Nixon’s articles of impeachment had something similar.

Having the authority to do something is not license to do so in any circumstance.

Let’s say I offered Trump $1 million to fire Bill Barr and Trump agreed.

Trump has the authority to do it, but I doubt you’d be okay with that. Would you?

When you have to go to Fantasyland you know you lost.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Now...as you watch the tard herd making all kinds of monkey sounds after everything I have posted about the Mueller investigation, you can see for yourselves that the very first post I made in this topic was dead on.

Thank you very much.

You really are dumb.

Off topic, ad hominem and not true.

 

[hadit]

Mueller was not fired he was not denied anything he requested for his investigation he continued his investigation and completed it. His report was released to the public and he even testified before Congress so pardon me if I don't see any obstruction here.

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

Under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch. Whether you think Donald Trump is an absolutely wonderful president or an absolutely awful one, this holds true, as it does for all other presidents, regardless of political party. You can not charge this President or any President with obstruction for doing something they have the legal authority to do firing Mueller would have been a stupid thing to do from a political standpoint but it didn't happen and even if he did do it still wouldn't have been obstruction it would have been a political disaster but not obstruction.

Interesting. I think that Nixon’s articles of impeachment had something similar.

Having the authority to do something is not license to do so in any circumstance.

Let’s say I offered Trump $1 million to fire Bill Barr and Trump agreed.

Trump has the authority to do it, but I doubt you’d be okay with that. Would you?

In that case, the charge wouldn't have anything to do with the firing, but with the bribe. This is the same thing that happened to Bubba Clinton. He wasn't impeached for having sex with the least powerful woman in the office, despite the wailing from the usual suspects, but rather for lying under oath.

 

[g5000]

The Dimms said they had enough to impeach him for Obstruction of Justice for interfering with the Muller investigation.....so if that is TRUE, why wasn’t it added to the articles of impeachment?

That obstruction stuff wasn’t just BULLSHIT, WAS IT??

Shouldn’t all crimes be included in any impeachment proceedings?

Methinks The Speaker knows best. Too many Articles may look like a pile on, even though trump is guilty of more high crimes than the two put forth.

Right. It was a tactical decision.

Which means it's not about doing the "right thing", because if it was, they would have listed everything they could prove. In fact, if you really think this was a tactical move, it was a spectacularly dumb one, because Trump isn't going anywhere because of these charges.

No matter how many of Trump's crimes he is charged with, the spineless jellyfish Republicans will let him off.

So, for expediency's sake, Pelosi only leveled those charges which could be dealt with quickly.

Tactical.


Trump's legacy is now forever set in stone. The third president to ever be impeached, elected by Putin, tried to rig the 2020 election.

 

[Syriusly]

The Dimms said they had enough to impeach him for Obstruction of Justice for interfering with the Muller investigation.....so if that is TRUE, why wasn’t it added to the articles of impeachment?

That obstruction stuff wasn’t just BULLSHIT, WAS IT??

Shouldn’t all crimes be included in any impeachment proceedings?

Democrats should have included it- certainly there was obstruction there. They chose to focus on Trump's obstruction of justice when it came to the investigation into his attempts to have a foreign government interfer in the 2020 election- rather than go back to his obstruction of the Mueller investigation.

Good choice? I would have prefered they include both obstructions- but it will all be moot- Mitch McConnell has already said he will be working lockstep with the administration during the 'trial'.

 

[g5000]

Mueller was not fired he was not denied anything he requested for his investigation he continued his investigation and completed it. His report was released to the public and he even testified before Congress so pardon me if I don't see any obstruction here.

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

Under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch. Whether you think Donald Trump is an absolutely wonderful president or an absolutely awful one, this holds true, as it does for all other presidents, regardless of political party. You can not charge this President or any President with obstruction for doing something they have the legal authority to do firing Mueller would have been a stupid thing to do from a political standpoint but it didn't happen and even if he did do it still wouldn't have been obstruction it would have been a political disaster but not obstruction.

Interesting. I think that Nixon’s articles of impeachment had something similar.

Having the authority to do something is not license to do so in any circumstance.

Let’s say I offered Trump $1 million to fire Bill Barr and Trump agreed.

Trump has the authority to do it, but I doubt you’d be okay with that. Would you?

"Article Three of impeachment against Richard Nixon, the Article was based on the idea that Richard Nixon as president failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information Richard Nixon chose not to comply and the Congress back in that time said you're taking impeachment away from us. You're becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need, it is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you.

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is that day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress and he became the judge and jury." - Senator Lindsay Graham, 1998

 

[g5000]

McConnell will hold the impeachment trial in record time. He will not allow the Senate Republicans to make monkeys of themselves the way Hoyer did in the House.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

Under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch. Whether you think Donald Trump is an absolutely wonderful president or an absolutely awful one, this holds true, as it does for all other presidents, regardless of political party. You can not charge this President or any President with obstruction for doing something they have the legal authority to do firing Mueller would have been a stupid thing to do from a political standpoint but it didn't happen and even if he did do it still wouldn't have been obstruction it would have been a political disaster but not obstruction.

Interesting. I think that Nixon’s articles of impeachment had something similar.

Having the authority to do something is not license to do so in any circumstance.

Let’s say I offered Trump $1 million to fire Bill Barr and Trump agreed.

Trump has the authority to do it, but I doubt you’d be okay with that. Would you?

In that case, the charge wouldn't have anything to do with the firing, but with the bribe. This is the same thing that happened to Bubba Clinton. He wasn't impeached for having sex with the least powerful woman in the office, despite the wailing from the usual suspects, but rather for lying under oath.

Yeah, it’s not a very good analogy.

It’s about intent though. I don’t accept that a president gets to decide who is under investigation in his administration. Using his authority to protect people from the consequences of their actions is corrupt and is exactly what I would consider a high crime. I think the founders would agree.

 

[Siete]

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

Under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch. Whether you think Donald Trump is an absolutely wonderful president or an absolutely awful one, this holds true, as it does for all other presidents, regardless of political party. You can not charge this President or any President with obstruction for doing something they have the legal authority to do firing Mueller would have been a stupid thing to do from a political standpoint but it didn't happen and even if he did do it still wouldn't have been obstruction it would have been a political disaster but not obstruction.

Interesting. I think that Nixon’s articles of impeachment had something similar.

Having the authority to do something is not license to do so in any circumstance.

Let’s say I offered Trump $1 million to fire Bill Barr and Trump agreed.

Trump has the authority to do it, but I doubt you’d be okay with that. Would you?

In that case, the charge wouldn't have anything to do with the firing, but with the bribe. This is the same thing that happened to Bubba Clinton. He wasn't impeached for having sex with the least powerful woman in the office, despite the wailing from the usual suspects, but rather for lying under oath.

Clinton had the balls to testify under oath .....

Goldilocks, not so much.

 

[blackhawk]

Mueller was not fired he was not denied anything he requested for his investigation he continued his investigation and completed it. His report was released to the public and he even testified before Congress so pardon me if I don't see any obstruction here.

Trump attempted to fire him, didn’t he?

Trump might have wanted to fire him but he didn't so Mueller completed his work end of story. Wanting to do something does not make you guilty of it.

“Wanting” to do something is not the same as “attempting” to do something.

Lots of obstruction of justice is unsuccessful attempts, but it’s still a crime.

So tell me again, didn’t Trump attempt to fire Mueller?

Under the Constitution, it is beyond the power of Congress to limit or impose conditions on any president’s authority to remove a political appointee within the Justice Department or any other department in the executive branch. Whether you think Donald Trump is an absolutely wonderful president or an absolutely awful one, this holds true, as it does for all other presidents, regardless of political party. You can not charge this President or any President with obstruction for doing something they have the legal authority to do firing Mueller would have been a stupid thing to do from a political standpoint but it didn't happen and even if he did do it still wouldn't have been obstruction it would have been a political disaster but not obstruction.

Interesting. I think that Nixon’s articles of impeachment had something similar.

Having the authority to do something is not license to do so in any circumstance.

Let’s say I offered Trump $1 million to fire Bill Barr and Trump agreed.

Trump has the authority to do it, but I doubt you’d be okay with that. Would you?

Nixons impeachment was over an actualy crime a break in and bugging of his political rivals. Taking a million dollars to do so would be called bribery which is an actual crime exercising your legal authority to fire an FBI Dierctory, Attorney General, Special Prosecutor or any other person in a cabinet position which all President s have the authority to do is not.