Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
Did Trump have the power to fire Mueller? No.

Given that he had no power to fire Mueller, I can't even make sense out of what people seem to think was going on. He can't order his lawyer to fire Mueller. He can't order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. So, what is the issue?
Click to expand...

What?

So your defense is Trump couldn't have broken the law because he isn't allowed to?

"Your honor my client can't be guilty of murder. Murder is a crime. You aren't allowed to kill people. Therefore he couldn't have done it!"
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Sometimes this just gets bizarre.

Did Trump have the power to fire Mueller? No.

Given that he had no power to fire Mueller, I can't even make sense out of what people seem to think was going on. He can't order his lawyer to fire Mueller. He can't order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. So, what is the issue?

He can, and did, order his lawyer to tell Rosenstein that he (Trump) thought Mueller ought to be removed, but that's not a crime. He could, but did not, fire Rosenstein if Rosenstein didn't fire Mueller. Whether firing Rosenstein would be a crime would be debatable, but since it didn't happen, the question is moot.
Click to expand...

Your defense is: Trump is too incompetent to commit impeachable offenses.
Is it really harmless when the person trying to poison someone can't tell the difference between rat poison and baking soda?

Trump did his levels best to stop Mueller - his level best just isn't very good. But that should make him immune form the consequences of him trying.
 
So basically Trump is the kid who wants to run away from home but can't because his mom won't let him cross the street?
 
Upchurch said:
What are you saying, then? Why wouldn't a jury convict on a series of actions that meets the definition of the crime?
Click to expand...

You are begging the question. It is more obvious in this post than in the last one, but it is happening in both posts.
 
Ziggurat said:
Mueller explicitly refused to answer that question.
Click to expand...

He did not and could not indict Trump. What he did do, however, was spell out, in gory detail, which of Trump's actions met all the criteria for obstruction of justice in multiple instances, followed by a description and justification of Congress's ability to remedy the situation, as well as an alternative if Trump is not re-elected in 2020.
 
Meadmaker said:
Ok. I didn't read the chart, but if you need a chart.....


If the most obvious is firing Comey, then...…………..nothing.

Yeah, I know. Lots of people here will disagree on that, but, nothing.
Click to expand...

Exactly it is like the big nothing of the saturday night massacre.
 
Yep.

Mueller made it clear what he considered Obstruction, and then documented multiple instances in which Trump's actions fulfilled all the criteria.

He also mentioned multiple instances of destruction of evidence or deliberate use of encryption to prevent the FBI from investigating. And of course he mentions that Trump should have talked to him instead of letting his lawyers write 100x " don't recall" on the submitted questionnaire.
 
Cain said:
This is precisely why obstruction charges exist -- because a lack of evidence can be due to false testimony, destruction, etc. But with that said, impeachment is about politics rather than the law. Hundreds of federal prosecutors can say Trump broke the law and charges would be brought against anyone else,
Click to expand...

Exactly Nixon was right "It's not a crime when the president does it"
 
Fast Eddie B said:
On this we agree. Wrong. And criminal.




On this we disagree. Paula Jones was entitled to her day in court, and the questions were deemed relevant.
Click to expand...

No they were not. They didn't object to them like they should have. That is the complexity of deposing a president the best legal thing to do in the case and the best political thing are at odds.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
William W. Belknap

Impeached unanimously by the House. A majority of the Senate, but not the required super majority, voted to convict. He resigned. I think he actually resigned before the vote in the Senate. Wiki article says he resigned even before impeachment proceedings.

Locking someone up as a result of impeachment is not an option. Removal from office is the only thing a conviction in the Senate can do. Any "locking up" has to happen in a separate, normal, trial.
Click to expand...

Though cabinet members can also be indicted through normal means, many people don't think the president can.
 
Paul2 said:
On the one hand, I agree that Dems and the left are not immune to over-reaction, etc. (Although I think that some of what you might call over-reaction about the left to Trump I wouldn't, but, still . . . .)

On the other hand, foreign leaders endorse U.S. presidential candidates all the time. Here's a list of foreign leaders who endorsed Obama in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...mpaign_endorsements#Foreign_political_figures Here's a list (albeit a short one) of foreign leaders who endorsed Romney in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._endorsements#International_political_figures. No one made a fuss about either of these.

Also, you're forgetting some differences: Italy is an ally of the U.S., but Russia isn't an ally of the U.S. Italy is in NATO, which requires all members to aid another that is attacked, but Russia isn't in NATO.
Click to expand...

There is also a difference in public statements vs a covert troll army making propaganda and social media posts from fake accounts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom