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

[Berkshire]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

 

It's called "obstruction of justice."  This has been explained to you guys many times.  You should look up the term "Saturday Night Massacre" because there's historical precedence. 

[ncc1701d]

On 1/30/2018 at 8:06 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

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. 

I’m not asking if you’re puzzled. I’m asking if mueller finds him guilty of anything that requires him to leave office - will you accept it.

 

the same goes the other way around if he’s found not to have done anything illegal. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 1:46 PM, attrayant said:

 

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.

If it can be PROVEN that Trump ordered it and that he covered it up, then he will be guilty of ordering and covering. No such PROOF has emerged as yet, no matter how much Trump haters wish it had.

Regardless, this is only old news dug up to ruin Trump's Davos win, as none of the other mud flung at Trump over the past year has stuck.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

I’m not asking if you’re puzzled. I’m asking if mueller finds him guilty of anything that requires him to leave office - will you accept it.

 

the same goes the other way around if he’s found not to have done anything illegal. 

 

Why are you asking me if I'll accept him not being found guilty of anything? That should be addressed to those well known posters on every Trump post on TVF.

 

Not that my opinion matters, if Trump is convicted in a court of law, why wouldn't I accept it?

I'm not invested in Trump and said so before he was elected. My primary interest was in seeing that she didn't win.

Should Trump be evicted, Pence will take over, so nothing changes, and in any event, the Dems would have to be barking to nominate her again- job done.

[ncc1701d]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why are you asking me if I'll accept him not being found guilty of anything? That should be addressed to those well known posters on every Trump post on TVF.

 

Not that my opinion matters, if Trump is convicted in a court of law, why wouldn't I accept it?

I'm not invested in Trump and said so before he was elected. My primary interest was in seeing that she didn't win.

Should Trump be evicted, Pence will take over, so nothing changes, and in any event, the Dems would have to be barking to nominate her again- job done.

 My Question was open to everyone.

 

I’m asking you because you quoted my question but then didn’t answer it.

 

your opinion matters as much as anyone else’s. Since you’ve brought up Hilary, I still find it interesting when she actually has been investigated I think it’s 22 times now by the republicans and other independent branches and cleared of all charges - but you don’t let that sway your opinion. And that’s why I ask the question regarding muellers investigation. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by ncc1701d

[attrayant]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it can be PROVEN that Trump ordered it and that he covered it up, then he will be guilty of ordering and covering. No such PROOF has emerged as yet

 

 

It's unlikely he did so in front of a live camera or hot mic.  Short of an affidavit signed by Trump and notarized by Rosenstein, What would constitute satisfactory proof?

 

It's worth noting that Trump isn't denying this allegation with his usual gusto.  He offered an uncharacteristic, lukewarm "fake news" (even though Fox News has also confirmed the story) and that was that.  

[thaibeachlovers]

and so another nothing burger to attack Trump fades away to insignificance in favour of the latest attack of the day by Dems and media. If I had time I could list them all and it would be a very long list. Even the 14 or whatever women accusing Trump of bad things has fallen off the radar, and in the present anti male environment I thought that would have been ramped up.

[attrayant]

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and so another nothing burger to attack Trump fades away to insignificance in favour of the latest attack of the day by Dems and media. If I had time I could list them all and it would be a very long list.

 

Translation: I could do it, but I don't wanna.

 

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Even the 14 or whatever women accusing Trump of bad things has fallen off the radar, and in the present anti male environment I thought that would have been ramped up.

 

You seem to be able to see what's in front of you but you can't grasp its importance.  What does that say when there is so much corruption and lies coming from the administration on a daily basis that even sexual assault accusations by more than a dozen women have to go on the back burner?

[Silurian]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

You seem to be able to see what's in front of you but you can't grasp its importance.  What does that say when there is so much corruption and lies coming from the administration on a daily basis that even sexual assault accusations by more than a dozen women have to go on the back burner?

 

This seems to be the standard operating procedure in the current WH. Create as many lies and misdirection as possible to totally obfuscate their true intentions. Each scandal is met with pivots and spins until no one is sure of the truth. Even new scandals such as Ben Carson's dubious and ethically questionable family favoritism which would be front page news in any other administration is now buried under a mountain of other dubious and ethically questionable WH administration activity.

 

New WH mottto: If you can't fool them with brilliance, bury them with bull.