Jump to content

Trump ordered Mueller's firing, then backed off - New York Times


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

It could potentially be obstruction of justice and that is a crime. If you fire an official that is investigating a crime against you that could be considered obstruction of justice. There would have to be cause for the firing of Mueller so it doesn't appear that there is a circumventing of justice.

 

How Trump Built an Obstruction of Justice Case Against Himself

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/how-trump-built-an-obstruction-of-justice-case-against-himself/551588/

 

Glad you said potentially, as if Trump could prove cause to replace Muller ( not difficult given the overt bias of the lawyers ) but not cancel the investigation it would not be obstruction of justice. Muller is only the current leader of the investigation, and is not THE investigation.

Anyway, should it come out, as appears likely at present, that the investigation is the result of a false document, the investigation will be cancelled as based on fruit of the poisonous tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Trouble said:

Firing Comey, head of the FBI or firing Mueller, Special Prosecutor does not stop an investigation of anything and it seems a stretch to say so.  The investigations continue regardless of who is the chief. If the article has any truth to it, Mueller does appear to have possible conflicts of interest and Trump has every right to put his views out there, and even be upset about it.   Maybe he did suggest Mueller should not be on the job for those reasons. Some around Trump discussed it with Trump and told him it was a bad idea and he backed off.  So what's so damning here?  The incredible thing about all the investigations to date is that not one hint of collusion or obstruction has come forth while it looks like many in the upper ranks at the FBI and Mueller investigations had a lot of bias against Trump and neither Comey nor Mueller thought to insure that their staffs investigating the matter were impartial.  Does not say much for either Comey or Mueller in my opinion. In my early life I was an investigator for the Air Force, Department of Defense and the VA.  I know how investigations are supposed to work. I have also seen first hand what biased investigators can do to an investigation. The FBI and Mueller investigations seem to stink to high heaven from what little I read in the news reports because it is apparent that the investigators have an axe to grind and there is much question due to the impartiality issue. I am hoping at the end of this fiasco we will indeed see a fair investigation by Mueller and one that everyone on both sides can accept as definitive. Left the chips fall where they may. 

If you have ever investigated anything ,other than your own personal waste products, I would be hugely surprised. You have passed sentence without any knowledge of the facts or potential evidence , bias confirmation is NOT investigation.

Mueller has disclosed very little , kept his cards very close to his chest ( Something your prize clown might learn from ) , so neither you , nor any other Trump apologist has the least idea how strong a case there may be.

My view is that Big Chief Orange Scalp is a compulsive liar so every denial should be read as an admission of guilt , just my opinion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Glad you said potentially, as if Trump could prove cause to replace Muller ( not difficult given the overt bias of the lawyers ) but not cancel the investigation it would not be obstruction of justice. Muller is only the current leader of the investigation, and is not THE investigation.

Anyway, should it come out, as appears likely at present, that the investigation is the result of a false document, the investigation will be cancelled as based on fruit of the poisonous tree.

" Appears Likely "

If a mystery document existed outside the imagination of Russian bots and desperate Trump supporters , it would have surfaced already.  We both know that Big Chief Orange Scalp would simply be incapable of keeping   such vindicating evidence to himself. The Twittersphere would be on fire !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dcutman said:

The way its looking, the FBI and the Justice Department are headed for a major cleansing.  Mueller's investigation is gonna fade into the sunset. The Democrats are are going to get decimated in the mid terms. 

I would wager everything I own that both those claims are wrong , denial is not logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

" Appears Likely "

If a mystery document existed outside the imagination of Russian bots and desperate Trump supporters , it would have surfaced already.

We both know that Big Chief Orange Scalp would simply be incapable of keeping 

 such vindicating evidence to himself. The Twittersphere would be on fire !

Try and read the news. The document is well known and has been well known for at least a year now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychological warfare                     While you are watching CNN and MSNBC  remember I tried to tell you what is going on.  

        They cry SEX !!!!     then the left gets exposed

        They cry RUSSIA  !!!!       The email sever gets exposed

        They cry obstruction !!    The FBI  gets exposed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2018 at 1:42 PM, helpisgood said:

 

I am sure that McGahn also recalled how Nixon had Archibald Cox, special prosecutor for the Watergate investigation, fired and how that all worked out for the Nixon presidency (aka, the Saturday Night Massacre). 

McGahn was 4 yrs old when Wategate broke. Doubtful he "recalls" any of it. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

McGahn was 4 yrs old when Wategate broke. Doubtful he "recalls" any of it. :thumbsup:

 

They have this new thing called history, which educated people like McGahn likely would have read.  Oh, and recalled reading.  Check it out!

Edited by helpisgood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obstructing justice much?

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/the-obstruction-case-is-getting-solid.html

 

 

Quote

 

The Obstruction Case Is Getting Solid

President Trump tried to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. That fact, reported Thursday night by the New York Times and confirmed by sources for the Washington Post and other papers, shreds the assurances from Republican lawmakers that Trump would never attempt such a thing. It also bolsters key elements of the case for impeachment.

 

Edited by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

 

Yeah he may have committed obstruction of justice but I'm not seeing it yet. He wanted to do it, he attempted to do it but people that are paid to keep him from doing stupid things stopped him. Seems more like a thought crime or am I missing something? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yeah he may have committed obstruction of justice but I'm not seeing it yet. He wanted to do it, he attempted to do it but people that are paid to keep him from doing stupid things stopped him. Seems more like a thought crime or am I missing something? 

Let's hope the people that are paid to keep him from doing stupid things stop him from hitting his BIG  nuclear launch button are with him 24 hours a day.  Otherwise all of us will  be just a pile of ashes.

 

Or better yet, America could get a president that didn t need to keep people to keep him from doing stupid things

Edited by isaanbanhou
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Yeah he may have committed obstruction of justice but I'm not seeing it yet. He wanted to do it, he attempted to do it but people that are paid to keep him from doing stupid things stopped him. Seems more like a thought crime or am I missing something? 

It's not only the consistent pattern of behavior, but also intent.  Trump has consistently shown that he wants this Russian investigation stopped.  If I was Mueller, the first question I'd ask is "WHY does Trump want this thing stopped?"  So it definitely has to go beyond proving obstruction.  The press has already dug up quite an impressive array of dirty Russian money finding its way to Trump.  I'm certain Mueller has much, much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You should really get your facts together first. This "Breaking News Story" was written and published 7 MONTHS AGO!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/robert-mueller-trump.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You should really get your facts together first. This "Breaking News Story" was written and published 7 MONTHS AGO!

 

What does the date have to do with whether or not the story is factual?  And, something that happened months ago, which is just now coming to light, is breaking news.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

What does the date have to do with whether or not the story is factual?  And, something that happened months ago, which is just now coming to light, is breaking news.  

That's the whole point. It's NOT just now coming to light. It was brought into the light, quite falsely, by a bias newspaper and written by Trump hating reporters 7 months ago. It's being brought back into the light, again quite falsely, because the msm can't find anything else to complain about atm so it's wash, rinse, repeat until they get some new fake news story to run with.

Reread the OP and then reread the original version of the same story from the link I posted. You'll see quite clearly that the so-called sources have changed but not the bias and debunked fake story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is just reaping what he has sown

 

Scream fake news enough and pretty soon all the news becomes fake so we have to choose what is fake and what is not

 

In this case this "re-hashed" story has legs because it shows a pattern of conduct and a pattern can only be shown if you look at the past

 

Just like  NBC News Lester Holt's interview where Trump admitted that he fired Comey for the Russia "thing":

 

Quote

 I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”

source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

In this case this "re-hashed" story has legs because it shows a pattern of conduct and a pattern can only be shown if you look at the past

A pattern can only be shown from repeated actions, not repeated telling of the same action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

Either way this goes, are the trumpsters here going to accept if trump is guilty? Or the anti trumps going to do the same if he’s found that nothing has happened illegally?

Then GOP nominee was asked at the third debate if he would accept the results of the election,he said we'll see.

 And, the Anti Trump crowd .They are on a mission!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

Either way this goes, are the trumpsters here going to accept if trump is guilty? Or the anti trumps going to do the same if he’s found that nothing has happened illegally?

I'm puzzled as to what Trump would be guilty of in this. He has the right to sack Mueller if he wants, just as he can sack anyone in the DOJ or FBI.

Far as I know, wanting to sack someone, and not doing so is not yet a crime.

Had Trump not had a very successful meeting at Davos, I doubt this old news would have been resurrected, but if the anti Trumpers have to rely on this sort of thing to attack him over, I'm guessing that they don't have anything better to beat him with.

 

Far as the anti Trumps are concerned, they will apparently never accept that Trump is not guilty, even calling him guilty of dietary offences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Far as I know, wanting to sack someone, and not doing so is not yet a crime.

 

The OP says "Trump ordered..." pretty clearly.  That's an actual thing he did, not just "wanted" to do.   Unless you're thinking that 'attempt' plays no part in the commission of a crime, in which case we can get rid of all those silly crimes like attempted robbery and attempted murder. 

 

Conspiracy and abetting also have legal consequences. Nixon didn't personally break into Watergate, but he did attempt to create a conspiracy by covering up some of the evidence.

Edited by attrayant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 3

      Thailand Live Monday 23 September 2024

    2. 0

      Suspected Drunk Drivers in Thailand to Face New Testing Methods

    3. 0

      A Grim Warning for Global Sea Levels The Secrets of the Doomsday Glacier

    4. 0

      Labour Leaders to Reject Free Clothing: Starmer and Rayner Announce Change

    5. 0

      Farage Declares "Bigots Not Welcome" as Reform UK Aims for Professionalism

    6. 0

      Kamala Harris Blames Trump Policies for Deaths of Two Georgia Women

    7. 0

      Kamala Harris' Media Absence Defended: Adviser Cites Busy Schedule

    8. 0

      Putin Urges Women to Work and Have a Family as Birth Rates Drop in Russia

    9. 0

      Britain's Reluctance to Challenge the Powerful: A System Under Scrutiny

    10. 0

      Care Homes Urged to Embrace Transgender Identities in Elderly Care

    11. 123

      Are these people stark raving mad?

    12. 89

      Americans -- did you know that Albania wants us? (Another Plan B alternative to Thailand)

    13. 123

      Are these people stark raving mad?

    14. 27

      Is Civil Unrest Inevitable If Trump Loses?

×
×
  • Create New...
""