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

[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.

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.

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

I'm sure that will be true in the history books written in crayon and read obsessively by those confined to rubber rooms, but the fact that Pelosi did NOT include those charges means at least one of these is true:

1. They can't be proven and Pelosi knows they wouldn't hold up.
2. Pelosi knew going in that they didn't have a strong enough case to convince Republicans and even all of the democrats to join them (Republicans are notoriously eager to go along with democrats in the vain hope of being liked by them, and a strong case would see many of them voting to convict. At this juncture several democrats are also not eager to go along with conviction, making the whole thing very weak indeed). Heck, can you see Trump trumpeting "Bipartisan aquittal"? I can.
3. They are outright fabrications that would be quickly blown away, weakening the entire case.

 

[hadit]

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.

Not yet. And Bubba didn't have balls, he was forced to. No president is going to testify under oath unless he is forced to. That would be dumb.

 

[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.

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

I'm sure that will be true in the history books written in crayon and read obsessively by those confined to rubber rooms, but the fact that Pelosi did NOT include those charges means at least one of these is true:

1. They can't be proven and Pelosi knows they wouldn't hold up.
2. Pelosi knew going in that they didn't have a strong enough case to convince Republicans and even all of the democrats to join them (Republicans are notoriously eager to go along with democrats in the vain hope of being liked by them, and a strong case would see many of them voting to convict. At this juncture several democrats are also not eager to go along with conviction, making the whole thing very weak indeed). Heck, can you see Trump trumpeting "Bipartisan aquittal"? I can.
3. They are outright fabrications that would be quickly blown away, weakening the entire case.

No, I described the real reason in my very first post in this topic, and you monkeys have since demonstrated I was dead on.

 

[hadit]

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.

Hate to break it to you, but every president protects those in his administration to the best of his ability from the consequences of their actions until it becomes expedient to sacrifice them. Under your standard, every president (at least in the modern era) should have been impeached.

 

[hadit]

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.

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

I'm sure that will be true in the history books written in crayon and read obsessively by those confined to rubber rooms, but the fact that Pelosi did NOT include those charges means at least one of these is true:

1. They can't be proven and Pelosi knows they wouldn't hold up.
2. Pelosi knew going in that they didn't have a strong enough case to convince Republicans and even all of the democrats to join them (Republicans are notoriously eager to go along with democrats in the vain hope of being liked by them, and a strong case would see many of them voting to convict. At this juncture several democrats are also not eager to go along with conviction, making the whole thing very weak indeed). Heck, can you see Trump trumpeting "Bipartisan aquittal"? I can.
3. They are outright fabrications that would be quickly blown away, weakening the entire case.

No, I described the real reason in my very first post in this topic, and you monkeys have since demonstrated I was dead on.

No, you described the reason you and the fever swamp imagine to be the real one. Hate to break it to you, but that foil helmet you bought does not really give you mind reading powers, especially not to the minds of high ranking democrats. If you had access to their minds, you'd run screaming into the night and vote Republican for the rest of your life.

 

[Siete]

“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.

Not yet. And Bubba didn't have balls, he was forced to. No president is going to testify under oath unless he is forced to. That would be dumb.

hillary testified under oath for 11 hours

trump is a lying bitch, and wouldnt last 15 seconds under oath ...

PUSSY PRESIDENT

 

[ColonelAngus]

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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

 

[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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

Nixon wasn't able to obstruct the investigation into him either but that was still an article of impeachment. This is known as the Sideshow Bob defense.

See here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/14/one-defenses-trump-is-literally-tv-sitcom-joke/

 

[Siete]

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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

 

[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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

How did Trump obstruct congress?

 

[hadit]

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.

Not yet. And Bubba didn't have balls, he was forced to. No president is going to testify under oath unless he is forced to. That would be dumb.

hillary testified under oath for 11 hours

trump is a lying bitch, and wouldnt last 15 seconds under oath ...

PUSSY PRESIDENT

Hillary was forced to testify, make no mistake. I'll amend my statement to say no one testifies under oath unless they really have to because it would be dumb to put yourself in that position. And interesting that you deflect onto Hillary. I thought that was something only those you hate try to do.

 

[hadit]

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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

How did Trump obstruct congress?

He defended himself. You're not supposed to do that when democrats come after you.

 

[Care4all]

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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

How did Trump obstruct congress?

the blanket refusal to honor subpoenas for the impeachment investigations, and blanket refusal to allow first hand witnesses testify or even show up.... there is no such thing as blanket immunity for his admin....

oh and the refusal to send the whistleblower complaint to congress as REQUIRED by law, and trying to cover up his crimes

 

[colfax_m]

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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

How did Trump obstruct congress?

He defended himself. You're not supposed to do that when democrats come after you.

Defending himself from what? Oversight?

Sorry, but if you didn't want oversight, you shouldn't taken a position in government.

 

[blackhawk]

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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

How did Trump obstruct congress?

the blanket refusal to honor subpoenas for the impeachment investigations, and blanket refusal to allow first handsubpoenas testify or even show up.... there is no such thing as blanket immunity for his admin....

Many other administrations have ignored subpoenas and blocked witnessess from testifying and the answer to that is take it to the courts which is what was done in the past instances.

 

[Care4all]

“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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

How did Trump obstruct congress?

the blanket refusal to honor subpoenas for the impeachment investigations, and blanket refusal to allow first handsubpoenas testify or even show up.... there is no such thing as blanket immunity for his admin....

Many other administrations have ignored subpoenas and blocked witnessess from testifying and the answer to that is take it to the courts which is what was done in the past instances.

yes, specific one by one evidence based on executive privilege has been withheld, never in an impeachment....except with Nixon, but the SC ruled immediately, he had to turn over the tapes to congress and there is no executive privilege that is privilege if the information is needed in a crime or impeachment so Nixon was charged with abuse of power/obstruction of congress...
Same with this new thing Trump calls BLANKET immunity, by him ordering all admin and past admin, to not show up to congress even when legally subpoenaed by congress...

there is such a thing as executive privilege, but a president's lawyer sits by the subpoenaed witness and ONLY questions asked by congress that involves that exec privilege are objected to, by the WH lawyer and the privilege is INVOKED a question at a time.

Trump spat in the Constitution's face, by ordering them just to not show up for subpoenas at all.

 

[blackhawk]

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

How did Trump obstruct congress?

the blanket refusal to honor subpoenas for the impeachment investigations, and blanket refusal to allow first handsubpoenas testify or even show up.... there is no such thing as blanket immunity for his admin....

Many other administrations have ignored subpoenas and blocked witnessess from testifying and the answer to that is take it to the courts which is what was done in the past instances.

yes, specific one by one evidence based on executive privilege has been withheld, never in an impeachment....except with Nixon, but the SC ruled immediately, he had to turn over the tapes to congress and there is no executive privilege that is privilege if the information is needed in a crime or impeachment so Nixon was charged with abuse of power/obstruction of congress...
Same with this new thing Trump calls BLANKET immunity, by him ordering all admin and past admin, to not show up to congress even when legally subpoenaed by congress...

there is such a thing as executive privilege, but a president's lawyer sits by the subpoenaed witness and ONLY questions asked by congress that involves that exec privilege are objected to, by the WH lawyer and the privilege is INVOKED a question at a time.

Trump spat in the Constitution's face, by ordering them just to not show up for subpoenas at all.

No he didn’t despite what the Trump critics like to claim this is not unprecedented the partisans can pretend otherwise all they wish it won’t make it anymore true.

 

[Care4all]

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

How did Trump obstruct congress?

the blanket refusal to honor subpoenas for the impeachment investigations, and blanket refusal to allow first handsubpoenas testify or even show up.... there is no such thing as blanket immunity for his admin....

Many other administrations have ignored subpoenas and blocked witnessess from testifying and the answer to that is take it to the courts which is what was done in the past instances.

yes, specific one by one evidence based on executive privilege has been withheld, never in an impeachment....except with Nixon, but the SC ruled immediately, he had to turn over the tapes to congress and there is no executive privilege that is privilege if the information is needed in a crime or impeachment so Nixon was charged with abuse of power/obstruction of congress...
Same with this new thing Trump calls BLANKET immunity, by him ordering all admin and past admin, to not show up to congress even when legally subpoenaed by congress...

there is such a thing as executive privilege, but a president's lawyer sits by the subpoenaed witness and ONLY questions asked by congress that involves that exec privilege are objected to, by the WH lawyer and the privilege is INVOKED a question at a time.

Trump spat in the Constitution's face, by ordering them just to not show up for subpoenas at all.

No he didn’t despite what the Trump critics like to claim this is not unprecedented the partisans can pretend otherwise all they wish it won’t make it anymore true.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNPRECEDENTED!

No President has ever done this ordering of a blanket refusal to show up!!!!

HE SPAT on the rule of law, and most importantly, the Constitution directly, which dictates 3 equal branches of government and the power to Congress as the investigative CHECK on the executive branch.

 

[Nostra]

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?

He attempted but failed?

Like a missed field goal?

What the fuck does that even mean? He had authority to fire Comey and that isn’t obstruction of the investigation. Comey wasn’t conducting the investigation unilaterally.

There is so much fucking wrong with saying that “attempting” to fire Comey is an impeachable obstruction offense that it’s frankly retarded in the pejorative sense of the word.

pssssssstttttttt -

your bullshit wont make the obstruction article go away.

but it does make you a dumbass.

do carry on -

How did Trump obstruct congress?

the blanket refusal to honor subpoenas for the impeachment investigations, and blanket refusal to allow first hand witnesses testify or even show up.... there is no such thing as blanket immunity for his admin....

oh and the refusal to send the whistleblower complaint to congress as REQUIRED by law, and trying to cover up his crimes

Challenging subpoenas in court isn't obstruction, it is how our system works. Dimwingers couldn't wait on the courts because this is about the election.

The whistleblower didn't go to Trump, dumbass. He went to, and conspired with, Schifferbrains.

No crimes, Dumbass.

 

[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.

This post (Off topic, ad hominem and not true.[/QUOTE]) was funny to Nostra. A typical right wing jerk who breaks rules and likely laws when it suit her or him. No wonder S/He fell in love with Donald Trump, the most corrupt person to ever occupy the White House.