Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

I simply think he was elected for 4 years and has the right under the constitution to serve out that term.  I understand many disagree with how he is performing but that has no bearing on him staying in office.  Your outrage is not based on law only emotion.  

As President Obama pointed out back when his policies were being attacked 

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENSES 

Except Obama probably spelled it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's 7:00am, maybe, it could be 8:00am. It's hard to tell. The electricity has been off for, well, a very long time. The sun is starting to rise over the horizon with the red mist slowly lifting to li

Jack, I think you actually believe this. That's kind of scary, because it shows just how effective propaganda can be.  The dossier has not been disproven, administration and campaign officials ha

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

I don't disagree with your second statement.  The people did vote him in...that's the system and one I respect.  

Separate issue, how do you explain his dismal approval ratings?

Are the approval ratings based on policy or the man?  

His current numbers are not that far off from where Obama was at for most of his time    I never felt he should step down when his numbers went below 50 

I find Trump the man repulsive, petty and childish   

On the other hand I support many of his policies   Not all but many   I think the corporate tax rate needed to be reduced, yet I find problems with other parts of the tax plan

i think illegal immigrants need to be addressed by law not EXECUTIVE ORDER   

I like the Gorsuch pick yet believe Garland deserved a hearing.  

Regulation was out of control and reducing it is helping the economy   That doesn’t mean eliminate the EPA just write common sense regulations focusing on correction rather than punishment 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

His current numbers are not that far off from where Obama was at for most of his time

Yeah.  Riiiiiight.

Linky.

Screen Shot 2018-01-28 at 1.38.07 PM.png

Obama dropped to just below 50% at the end of his first year and Trump has spent most of the first year below 40%.  I can see how you see that as "not far off".

President Trump has NEVER polled above 50%.  His numbers are historically low.  Period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Unlike Obama, who needed to be impeached each and every day of his 8 years because he pissed off you snowflakes.

W said "elections have consequences" well before Obama did, I'm not surprised you forget that.

I never called for Obama to be impeached nor did the vast majority of citizens of either party.   Painting with that broad brush is part of the problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Yeah.  Riiiiiight.

Linky.

Screen Shot 2018-01-28 at 1.38.07 PM.png

I stated most of his time not first year, but carry on with the gotcha posts.  It probably makes points with the rabid left.  To me it is about as meaningful as pointing out spelling errors instead of debating a position. 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TMSAIL said:

I stated most of his time not first year, but carry on with the gotcha posts.  It probably makes points with the rabid left.  To me it is about as meaningful as pointing out spelling errors instead of debating a position. 

Provide a cite to support your statement that President Trump's "current numbers are not that far off from where Obama was at for most of his time".  You say "most of the time"

I am calling bullshit on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

57% of Republicans polled supported Obama impeachment

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-impeach-obama-support-33-percent-109369

It was a regular and vocal focus of party statements, stump speeches, and foxnews propaganda

 

quit lying TMSail.

Like our President, TM appears to live in a reality of his own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

57% of Republicans polled supported Obama impeachment

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-impeach-obama-support-33-percent-109369

quit lying TMSail.

You claimed every day for eight years then cherry pick a poll 

Nothing unusual for any president. Try reading your own link 

The numbers generally fall in line with CNN results from the past two presidencies — 30 percent of Americans support impeachment for former President George W. Bush in 2006 and 29 percent support impeachment for former President Bill Clinton in 1998.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like TM to take a look through these numbers and show us where President Obama's Approval rating was "not that far off for most of the time" from President Trump's ratings, which have never reached 50% and have spent most of the time below 40%.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Provide a cite to support your statement that President Trump's "current numbers are not that far off from where Obama was at for most of his time".  You say "most of the time"

I am calling bullshit on that.

I added the link to my post.  Lots of polls in the 40’s for Obama. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

I'd like TM to take a look through these numbers and show us where President Obama's Approval rating was "not that far off for most of the time" from President Trump's ratings, which have never reached 50% and have spent most of the time below 40%.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

 I get it you hate trump nothing he does will change your mind you are not alone in your beliefs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

 I get it you hate trump nothing he does will change your mind you are not alone in your beliefs.  

Trump is an asshole. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Personally, I don't want my President to be an asshole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sean said:

Trump is an asshole. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Personally, I don't want my President to be an asshole.

 

An asshole that is a huge embarrassment for our Country.....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sean said:

Trump is an asshole. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Personally, I don't want my President to be an asshole.

Sure I do said it quite clearly in post 3775.  What do you want to do about it?  

Barring anything outside the norm you will have your chance in the Election of 2020.  That is how this country has worked for almost 240 years  anything else is just bitching and moaning   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sean said:
46 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

 I get it you hate trump nothing he does will change your mind you are not alone in your beliefs.  

Trump is an asshole. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Personally, I don't want my President to be an asshole.

It's not that he's an asshole, it's that he was quite blatant and open that he had no respect for the US Constitution and no intention of following it. There's no law against a President being an asshole. There are plenty of laws against plenty of what President Trump has done. So far the " jury of his peers" has said "ha ha we won!"

Yes a lot of reich-winger like to howl about how Obama did not follow the Constitution with some of his Executive Orders; that's debatable. Rather comical (or not) when you reflect how -at the same time- the Repub majority Congress was defying the Constitution in not seating a Supreme Court Justice.

What's not comical is that Trump has used his office for profit from day one and dared those who want to follow the Constitution t do something about it. Trump has attempted to muzzle the free press from day one and dared those who want to follow the Constitution to do something about it.

Etc Etc Etc.

There is no equivalency " yeah what about clinton ' bama" whatever.

You're hard up against the obvious fact that those who support Trump do not support Constitutional rule. I get that. Elections have consequences.

What I don't get is why you didn't move to a dictatorship that you'd be happy with, instead of fucking up this country.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What I don't get is why you didn't move to a dictatorship that you'd be happy with, instead of fucking up this country.

Are you addressing me with this response?

And for the record, I lumped all of those disdainful characteristics you point out into a rather broad definition of "asshole" for brevity's sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sean said:

Are you addressing me with this response?

And for the record, I lumped all of those disdainful characteristics you point out into a rather broad definition of "asshole" for brevity's sake.

Thought I posted an apology/clarification already. Forgive me if this is redundant

I was referring to the Trumpettes and non-supporters and those who find Trump's assholery and disdain for the Constitution "refreshing."

I apologize for not being more clear in my earlier post

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

It's not that he's an asshole, it's that he was quite blatant and open that he had no respect for the US Constitution and no intention of following it. There's no law against a President being an asshole. There are plenty of laws against plenty of what President Trump has done. So far the " jury of his peers" has said "ha ha we won!"

Yes a lot of reich-winger like to howl about how Obama did not follow the Constitution with some of his Executive Orders; that's debatable. Rather comical (or not) when you reflect how -at the same time- the Repub majority Congress was defying the Constitution in not seating a Supreme Court Justice.

What's not comical is that Trump has used his office for profit from day one and dared those who want to follow the Constitution t do something about it. Trump has attempted to muzzle the free press from day one and dared those who want to follow the Constitution to do something about it.

Etc Etc Etc.

There is no equivalency " yeah what about clinton ' bama" whatever.

You're hard up against the obvious fact that those who support Trump do not support Constitutional rule. I get that. Elections have consequences.

What I don't get is why you didn't move to a dictatorship that you'd be happy with, instead of fucking up this country.

-DSK

 

Very well said!  Impeach the crooked asshole!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Thought I posted an apology/clarification already. Forgive me if this is redundant

I was referring to the Trumpettes and non-supporters and those who find Trump's assholery and disdain for the Constitution "refreshing."

I apologize for not being more clear in my earlier post

-DSK

Thanks, that's what I thought and why I asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

I added the link to my post.  Lots of polls in the 40’s for Obama. 

I guess staying more than 10 percentage points above where your boy dwells, I can see how you see the two as similar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

 I get it you hate trump nothing he does will change your mind you are not alone in your beliefs.  

I get it you love trump nothing he does will change your mind you are not alone in your beliefs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

I simply think he was elected for 4 years and has the right under the constitution to serve out that term.  I understand many disagree with how he is performing but that has no bearing on him staying in office.  Your outrage is not based on law only emotion.  

As President Obama pointed out back when his policies were being attacked 

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENSES 

The attacks are only partially because of his policies.   The racism, the money laundering, the hypocrisy, and most of all, the influence peddling infuriate me.   It’s a morality thing as much as a deficit or environmental thing.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2018 at 5:50 PM, Bus Driver said:

It is kinda funny how TM is defending this.  In essence, he is saying "He can't be guilty of obstruction because he isn't good at it - he wasn't successful."

No conviction, no crime.

Pretty simple really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Very well.

Can we have him back?

He'll vote Democratic this time you know...... All dead people do.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billy backstay said:

 

6 hours ago, Dog said:

I never thought of you as an idiot before. You can't imagine circumstances in which firing Mueller would not be obstruction?

It's a moot point, obstruction happened when Comey was fired, you are beating a dead horse.

 

This is part of Mueller's mandate -

 

IMG_3784.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:
2 hours ago, saxdog said:

There was this guy named Nixon. Anybody remember him?

Very well.

Can we have him back?

Maybe, I'm not sure who to ask. Duke University's Law School doesn't want him back, so apparently you don't have to worry about a bidding war for him

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

So if Trump intended to fire Mueller and subsequently thought better of it, changed his mind and did not, that constitutes obstruction. Good luck with that one.  Clove Hitch is right in that the Comey firing is the stronger case..

No. In that scenario Trump took no action. We're not talking about that scenario, no matter how you keep trying to spin it that way.

The scenario in question is that Trump intended to fire Mueller, ordered a subordinate to do exactly that, was then told that the subordinate in question would not carry out that order, after which Trump then "thought better of it". The criminal action is in bold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'd like him to die broke, poor, forsaken by all who know him, in shame and ignominy. With every single thing he's ever done destroyed, salt strewn upon the grounds of mara lago, and his children exiled to st. helena.

Patience, grasshopper, patience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Absolutely.  Presidents are elected by the people, once elected they do not serve at the whim of polls.  One persons view of good  for the country can and often is exactly opposite of someone else’s 

You truly don’t understand impeachment, which is a political, not criminal, process.

 

(commas as intended)

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Never confuse not understanding with ability to not understand.

Nor confuse the public appearance of not understanding with the actuality of not understanding. It's amazing just how obtuse some people can get if the concept being discussed happens to reflect negatively (at the time) on their chosen side of politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'd like him to die broke, poor, forsaken by all who know him, in shame and ignominy. With every single thing he's ever done destroyed, salt strewn upon the grounds of mara lago, and his children exiled to st. helena.

Hell no. I may have to stop there in a couple of years.

My vote is for Johnston Atoll. Ain't no pussies to grab there without feathers on 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

No. In that scenario Trump took no action. We're not talking about that scenario, no matter how you keep trying to spin it that way.

The scenario in question is that Trump intended to fire Mueller, ordered a subordinate to do exactly that, was then told that the subordinate in question would not carry out that order, after which Trump then "thought better of it". The criminal action is in bold.

Good luck with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Good luck with that.

What's luck got to do with it? I'm simply correcting you on the action that constitutes obstruction of justice. I'm not making a prediction Trump will be impeached for it. That would require both spine and moral compass from the majority party in House & Senate. Both attributes are direly lacking from the current Republican Party congress-critters.

Let's see how the mid-terms shake out before we make any predictions needing "luck". ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

What's luck got to do with it? I'm simply correcting you on the action that constitutes obstruction of justice. I'm not making a prediction Trump will be impeached for it. That would require both spine and moral compass from the majority party in House & Senate. Both attributes are direly lacking from the current Republican Party congress-critters.

Let's see how the mid-terms shake out before we make any predictions needing "luck". ;)

 

 Assuming for arguments sake that firing Mueller would constitute obstruction of justice and assuming the NYT story can be corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt, the scenario you cite shows both intent to fire for a period of time followed by intent not to fire with intent not to fire prevailing. Good luck with that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt in this instance. I could be incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dog said:

 Assuming for arguments sake that firing Mueller would constitute obstruction of justice and assuming the NYT story can be corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt, the scenario you cite shows both intent to fire for a period of time followed by intent not to fire with intent not to fire prevailing. Good luck with that one.

The NYT story can be corroborated, but it will never remove the doubt of the Faithful.  Not that this doubt is "reasonable".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

The NYT story can be corroborated, but it will never remove the doubt of the Faithful.  Not that this doubt is "reasonable".  

Who will corroborate the story?  More unnamed sources?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

 Assuming for arguments sake that firing Mueller would constitute obstruction of justice and assuming the NYT story can be corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt, the scenario you cite shows both intent to fire for a period of time followed by intent not to fire with intent not to fire prevailing. Good luck with that one.

This may come in useful in the future.  Can you tell us a bit about the beyond a reasonable doubt corroboration standard?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

This may come in useful in the future.  Can you tell us a bit about the beyond a reasonable doubt corroboration standard?  

You never did tell us what principle establishes that Trump's firing of Mueller regardless of circumstances would necessarily constitutes obstruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

You never did tell us what principle establishes that Trump's firing of Mueller regardless of circumstances would necessarily constitutes obstruction.

Yes; Dog has requested an answer. How dare you not obey?

sigh  

Dog: what we’ve had is statements of intent and detailing motive by Trump to fire Mueller in order to stop the Russia probe, ie a stated desire to obstruct Justice... what is new is that he reportedly ordered the WH counsel to carry out the order.  

If true, it is yet another reason for Congress to consider Articles of Impeachment. My biggee has been, and remains, maladministration.

You have hoops and hurdles you expect everyone to jump through and over, but we don’t care about “proving” this to you. When the house of cards falls, you will have had as much to do with it as any of us, here.

Have a nice day.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Yes; Dog has requested an answer. How dare you not obey?

sigh  

Dog: what we’ve had is statements of intent and detailing motive by Trump to fire Mueller in order to stop the Russia probe, ie a stated desire to obstruct Justice... what is new is that he reportedly ordered the WH counsel to carry out the order.  

If true, it is yet another reason for Congress to consider Articles of Impeachment. My biggee has been, and remains, maladministration.

You have hoops and hurdles you expect everyone to jump through and over, but we don’t care about “proving” this to you. When the house of cards falls, you will have had as much to do with it as any of us, here.

Have a nice day.

 

It's ok, it was rhetorical question. There is no such principle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dog said:

You never did tell us what principle establishes that Trump's firing of Mueller regardless of circumstances would necessarily constitutes obstruction.

Nope, you changed the question with that bolded Doggy bit. Of course nobody will take that bait. Mueller showing up at the White House with a bomb belt and a couple ounces of coke would justify firing and would not be obstruction. Under most realistic circumstances firing Mueller would constitute obstruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Andrew McCabe just resigned. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42865202

I wouldn't work for the Tangerine Twat either. It must have been pretty hard on him over the last year of vindictive bullshit.

I will feel much safer with the upper levels of our law enforcement and counter terrorism agencies staffed with people loyal to the occupant of the Oval Office over the country.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Nope, you changed the question with that bolded Doggy bit. Of course nobody will take that bait. Mueller showing up at the White House with a bomb belt and a couple ounces of coke would justify firing and would not be obstruction. Under most realistic circumstances firing Mueller would constitute obstruction.

No I did not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I will feel much safer with the upper levels of our law enforcement and counter terrorism agencies staffed with people loyal to the occupant of the Oval Office over the country.  

I wonder how JFK got away with Bobby as his AG.  Holder was lock step in line with Obama as was Lynch.  Why is Trump being held to a different standard of who can serve with him.

I doubt JFK or Obama had to ask for loyalty because it was already a given.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

I wonder how JFK got away with Bobby as his AG.  Holder was lock step in line with Obama as was Lynch.  Why is Trump being held to a different standard of who can serve with him.

I doubt JFK or Obama had to ask for loyalty because it was already a given.

Yeah, those were the days, eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

I wonder how JFK got away with Bobby as his AG.  Holder was lock step in line with Obama as was Lynch.  Why is Trump being held to a different standard of who can serve with him.

I doubt JFK or Obama had to ask for loyalty because it was already a given.

Because we have never had a purge of career law enforcement so that they can be replaced with sycophants to oversee people who are engaged in an investigation that involves the President.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Because we have never had a purge of career law enforcement so that they can be replaced with sycophants to oversee people who are engaged in an investigation that involves the President.  

One man's purge is another mans leveling of the playing field.  Do you think Comey would have kept his job under a Hillary administration?  When she fired him for how he handled the lead up to the election would that have beeen a purge?   

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/370019-was-lynch-coordinating-with-comey-in-the-clinton-investigation

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

One man's purge is another mans leveling of the playing field.  Do you think Comey would have kept his job under a Hillary administration?  When she fired him for how he handled the lead up to the election would that have beeen a purge?   

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/370019-was-lynch-coordinating-with-comey-in-the-clinton-investigation

 

Isn't that a two wrongs make a right argument?  Hillary was a shitty choice, Trump was a shittier choice.  We need to get better people to run.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

One man's purge is another mans leveling of the playing field.  Do you think Comey would have kept his job under a Hillary administration?  When she fired him for how he handled the lead up to the election would that have beeen a purge?   

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/370019-was-lynch-coordinating-with-comey-in-the-clinton-investigation

 

The problem is that when you are a President who is under investigation, leveling the playing field by nixing the people supervising the investigation is obstruction of justice.  It's what happens in banana republics.  And yes, if Hillary had done it, she would have been guilty of obstruction just the same.  Whataboutism doesn't work in this case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Isn't that a two wrongs make a right argument?  Hillary was a shitty choice, Trump was a shittier choice.  We need to get better people to run.  

Yep I agree with that Unfortunately Trump (in many cases through his own actions ) has most likely ended anyone outside the political spectrum running again.  Why would any successful, intelligent  person submit themselves to that type of Scrutiny

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

One man's purge is another mans leveling of the playing field.  Do you think Comey would have kept his job under a Hillary administration?  When she fired him for how he handled the lead up to the election would that have beeen a purge?   

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/370019-was-lynch-coordinating-with-comey-in-the-clinton-investigation

 

Probably. Say what you will about Hillary, but she knows how the game is played, and while would likely hold a grudge, would be too smart to obstruct justice ala Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Yep I agree with that Unfortunately Trump (in many cases through his own actions ) has most likely ended anyone outside the political spectrum running again.  Why would any successful, intelligent  person submit themselves to that type of Scrutiny

what type of scrutiny? He certainly didn't get any. From his voters that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The problem is that when you are a President who is under investigation, leveling the playing field by nixing the people supervising the investigation is obstruction of justice.  It's what happens in banana republics.  And yes, if Hillary had done it, she would have been guilty of obstruction just the same.  Whataboutism doesn't work in this case. 

Sorry I'm not buying the obstruction charge until the investigation ends.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/business/dealbook/trump-obstruction-justice-prove.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when Trump was toast for having colluded with the Russians? Now it looks like that was just pretext for an open ended investigation.

 “Show me the man and I’ll find the crime.” ....Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria (Director of Stalin’s Secret Police)

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

TM, seriously?  You don't believe Mueller's going to wade in with a shit ton full of shit on Trump?  Naive to say the least.  Good for you to wait for judgement day, but it's coming.  

We heard that during  the Plame investigation. Rove and Chaney were going down, baby.  Instead we got Scooter on the same charge as General Flynn   

Like I have said I can live with a president Pence.  

I do appreciate the more moderate tone you are using.  It is noted :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

The press

Oh, you mean the free coverage that the MSM gave him that enabled him to kick all the other republicans collective asses? That scrutiny?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

 Assuming for arguments sake that firing Mueller would constitute obstruction of justice and assuming the NYT story can be corroborated beyond a reasonable doubt, the scenario you cite shows both intent to fire for a period of time followed by intent not to fire with intent not to fire prevailing. Good luck with that one.

Doesn't matter what the intent is after the criminal action. The scenario I cite shows an intent to fire Mueller whilst taking an action to do so, which constitutes obstruction of justice. If you shoot with intent to kill, that's attempted murder - doesn't matter if you miss, doesn't matter if you later don't want to kill the person in question, later call an ambulance to save their life, someone jumps in to take your gun from you, etc. You have still committed the crime when you took the action with intent. Same principle applies.

So, yeah, your interpretation of the law is fatally flawed. Good luck with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Doesn't matter what the intent is after the criminal action. The scenario I cite shows an intent to fire Mueller whilst taking an action to do so, which constitutes obstruction of justice. If you shoot with intent to kill, that's attempted murder - doesn't matter if you miss, doesn't matter if you later don't want to kill the person in question, later call an ambulance to save their life, someone jumps in to take your gun from you, etc. You have still committed the crime when you took the action with intent. Same principle applies.

So, yeah, your interpretation of the law is fatally flawed. Good luck with that.

Dog forgets that all of that testimony is in the books obtained under oath months ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Mitch McConnell, or someone I heard on NPR today, said that firing Mueller would surely terminate this administration.

 

“It’s pretty clear to me that everybody in the White House knows it would be the end of President Trump’s presidency if he fired Mr. Mueller"

- Lindsey Graham

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

One man's purge is another mans leveling of the playing field.  Do you think Comey would have kept his job under a Hillary administration?  When she fired him for how he handled the lead up to the election would that have beeen a purge?   

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/370019-was-lynch-coordinating-with-comey-in-the-clinton-investigation

If she fired him whilst he was investigating her and stated to the public if was to deal with "that Russia email thing" - yes, it would have been obstruction. Hillary would then be in similar hot water over it as Trump is. No matter how much you spin, lie, and otherwise try deflecting for Trump, the action he took for the reason he said he took it would get both sides in trouble. Trump only has himself to blame for that.

And then there's Mueller...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

Sorry I'm not buying anything negative about Trump unless he personally confesses them to me, in sworn writing, printed& signed in triplicate in front of the Pope.

We know. We get it. It's why we mock you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Remember when Trump was toast for having colluded with the Russians?

Still is. Investigation is not over.

 

1 hour ago, Dog said:

Now it looks like that was just pretext for an open ended investigation.

An open ended investigation finds no crime unless one was committed. In Trump's shoes, with Trump's history and business practices, I too would have wanted to end the investigation any way I could. Remember when he said his financial records were a "red line"? Ah, good times. :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Remember when Trump was toast for having colluded with the Russians? Now it looks like that was just pretext for an open ended investigation.

 “Show me the man and I’ll find the crime.” ....Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria (Director of Stalin’s Secret Police)

I'm getting a lot of mileage out of this image -

 

IMG_3784.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

“It’s pretty clear to me that everybody in the White House knows it would be the end of President Trump’s presidency if he fired Mr. Mueller"

- Lindsey Graham

Thanks for the correction; yes it was Graham, not McConnell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean said:

I'm getting a lot of mileage out of this image -

 

IMG_3784.JPG

That's my point. The collusion fiction is looking more and more like it was pretext for an open ended investigation. (An insurance policy if you will). It served its purpose and no one talks about it anymore..

Link to post
Share on other sites