Trump the Autocrat.

[NorrinRadd]

Ad hominem. Mueller is a lifelong republican who approved every member of his team.

This is evidence he was either a biased Never-Trumper, or a disgruntled prospective FBI-head reject.

If neither of those, it is evidence the cognitive dysfunction he displayed in the hearings was already well in place two years ago.

Only bias, vindictiveness, or rank fecklessness would cause someone to appoint team members who were not only overwhelmingly members of the party opposing the target of the investigation, but in many cases *actively* so (as donors, supporters, etc.), including one who attended Crooked Hil's expected victory party (and who was also infamous for having his major court victories overturned due to his inappropriate methods).

[NorrinRadd]

It's the intent that matters. Mens rea.

Right. The intent would be to obtain an honest and unbiased Special Counsel, which Mueller was not (at least in Trump's estimation, and probably in actual fact), not to impede the investigation.

[NorrinRadd]

Okay, which bills? I'll look them up - I just need the names.

While we wait for Jim -- or someone -- to cite source, here is the National Review on the subject.

[NorrinRadd]

I would dearly love for Trump and his team to gird up their loins and implement (Josh) Hammer Time.

Imagine the delightful pig-like squealing at the "autocrat" behavior!

[Teallaura]

While we wait for Jim -- or someone -- to cite source, here is the National Review on the subject.

Thanks!

[carpedm9587]

Wow - I'm away for 24 hours and four PAGES of posts? I have nowhere near the energy/interest to catch up. I'll leave y'all to it.

Unsubscribing

[JimL]

No, I think you have to actually make a substantive effort before a crime occurs. There has to be an actual crime - being talked out of committing one isn't itself a crime. Not even a little bit. And that's as close as it gets to actual obstruction. It's not at all surprising that Mueller failed to make a determination - what's surprising is that he was dumb enough to include the implication (and again, brings up the issue of who wrote this thing?).

Okay, so now we've established the problem you are having, you do not understand the law. Attempted obstruction is illegal, and Trump attempted it by trying to get his underlings to fire Mueller on several different occasions. It doesn't matter that they never carried it out, they were told by Trump to fire Mueller, but they knew it was illegal and so never carried it out. That is obstruction according to the law, Tea. And please stop with the it isnt surprising "Mueller failed to make a determination" nonsense. If that has to be explained to you again, then you just aren't paying attention.

[JimL]

And you are as nutty as they come. Treason has an actual definition, JimmyMarie.

I couldn't care what your definition of treason is you anti-democracy pinko commie, you. When you support a president, and a Senate Majority leader, Moscow Mitch, who you know to be aiding and abetting a foreign adversary to undermine our electoral system, to undermine democracy itself, then I say you are as treasonous as they are.

[JimL]

This is evidence he was either a biased Never-Trumper, or a disgruntled prospective FBI-head reject.

If neither of those, it is evidence the cognitive dysfunction he displayed in the hearings was already well in place two years ago.

Only bias, vindictiveness, or rank fecklessness would cause someone to appoint team members who were not only overwhelmingly members of the party opposing the target of the investigation, but in many cases *actively* so (as donors, supporters, etc.), including one who attended Crooked Hil's expected victory party (and who was also infamous for having his major court victories overturned due to his inappropriate methods).

The evidence of Trumps obstruction, and of P Manaforts conspiracy, Trump JR. J.Kushner and P Manaforts collusion, came from the testimony of witnesses as well as collected data. Stop trying to make excuses. Who made up the investigative team is irrelevant.

[Mountain Man]

Okay, so now we've established the problem you are having, you do not understand the law. Attempted obstruction is illegal, and Trump attempted it by trying to get his underlings to fire Mueller on several different occasions. It doesn't matter that they never carried it out, they were told by Trump to fire Mueller, but they knew it was illegal and so never carried it out. That is obstruction according to the law, Tea. And please stop with the it isnt surprising "Mueller failed to make a determination" nonsense. If that has to be explained to you again, then you just aren't paying attention.

There is no such crime as "attempted obstruction", dummy. You either commit obstruction, or you don't. If an action could lead to obstruction, but the individual decides against it, then no crime was committed.

Secondly, firing Mueller would not have obstructed the investigation which would have continued on without him.

Third, Mueller said under oath that his investigation was never impeded or obstructed in any way.

It's time to wake up, Jimmy. The dream of impeachment is over.

[Teallaura]

Okay, so now we've established the problem you are having, you do not understand the law. Attempted obstruction is illegal, and Trump attempted it by trying to get his underlings to fire Mueller on several different occasions. It doesn't matter that they never carried it out, they were told by Trump to fire Mueller, but they knew it was illegal and so never carried it out. That is obstruction according to the law, Tea. And please stop with the it isnt surprising "Mueller failed to make a determination" nonsense. If that has to be explained to you again, then you just aren't paying attention.

Even an attempt must be substantive - which there is nothing to show. You are the one showing his ignorance of the law. Had there been substance to the claims there would have been no trouble reaching a determination, which, of course, Mueller DIDN'T do.

You are flat out wrong.

[Mountain Man]

The fact that Democrats are vowing to continue the investigation in order to find evidence of impeachable offense should tell you what a bust the special counsel investigation really was. The House has effectively kicked Mueller to curb and wants a do-over.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019...ment-evidence/

Haven't liberals been telling us that the Mueller report speaks for itself? I guess it's not telling them what they want to hear.

[rogue06]

There is no such crime as "attempted obstruction", dummy. You either commit obstruction, or you don't. If an action could lead to obstruction, but the individual decides against it, then no crime was committed.

Secondly, firing Mueller would not have obstructed the investigation which would have continued on without him.

Third, Mueller said under oath that his investigation was never impeded or obstructed in any way.

It's time to wake up, Jimmy. The dream of impeachment is over.

And let's not forget that, as the report revealed, Trump put a document hold on his entire staff instructing them to preserve everything. This meant that he turned over all requested documents (+1,400,000). Further he allowed everyone to testify (never once claiming executive privilege)^[1]. This caused Mueller to acknowledge that there never was any interference in his investigation from the Trump Administration (although Trump did rant and rave and sorely did want to).

Now contrast that to how Democrats react when under investigation. When Hillary received subpoenas she immediately deleted 33,000 emails, acid washed hard drives and smashed blackberries with hammers. And just imagine the reaction if Donald Jr. or Jared Kushner had a secret meeting with William Barr on the tarmac of an airport in which the Secret Service detail was ordered to step outside while they supposedly only talked about golf and grandkids.






1. Shortly after the release of the summary of Mueller's report there was a legal expert on (IIRC) Bloomberg who specialized in executive privilege claims who noted that he wasn't aware of any other president not claiming executive privilege (or try stonewalling) when subpoenas get served.

[Jim B.]

It makes them look desperate and like sore losers. The fact that they keep losing and keep trying to get do-overs shows them to be whiney crybabies. They lost the election, so have tried for nearly 3 years now to accuse Trump of colluding with the Russians. The Mueller Report quashed that idea completely, so then they try to claim he obstructed justice. The report said he didn't, but they call in Mueller to try again. Mueller gives them nothing, now they want to try impeachment. It is sad. sad, sad, sad.

If they try impeachment, they will lose again. This will piss off their constituents and probably make them lose their seats in 2020. Their liberal constituents will be mad that they couldn't get it done, and their conservative constituents will be mad they even tried. Also all this nonsense ties them up while they should be out campaigning or actually doing their jobs as legislators.

So I am betting Trump WANTS them to try to impeach him.

Who are you talking to. Yourself? Republicans have lost 6 out of 7 of the last presidential elections in the popular vote. The only way they can win is by cheating, by voter suppression, by stealing a SCOTUS seat like in 2016, by the bogus impeachment of Clinton (lying about extramarital sex) in 98, stopping the recount in 2000, and on and on....There are far greater grounds for impeaching trump than for impeaching Clinton, at least ten cases of obstruction, or at least for opening a friggin inquiry.

We "lost" the election arguably over a stolen SCOTUS seat. That open seat mobilized the evangelical base just enough to put Trump over the top in the three crucial swing states, plus the fact that we had a pathetic, arrogant candidate in Hillary who didn't think she needed to campaign there.

And maybe Trump should actually be doing his job for once instead of watching Fox and Friends or his boyfriend Sean or going to his "Daddy Needs Some Love" Bund rallies!

[Jim B.]

So I am betting Trump WANTS impeachment.

I doubt it. Trump is all about image and all about his *Brand*. That's all there is to him. Impeachment would sully that image and that brand. He would permanently have this big black asterisk next to his name in the history books. (Little does he know that he's going to have a lot worse than that!)