Trump invokes executive privilege over Mueller report

Your argument is that Trump did not obstruct justice because he did not follow up on his previous effort to obstruct justice by obstructing justice.

 

Trump had the right to fire Mueller, or Comey as even Comey admitted. There can be no obstruction for exercising a legitimate constitutional right.

It's over, deal with it.

 

Firing Comey or Mueller is obstruction of justice when you fire them specifically because you want to obstruct justice.

 

But the key in a court of law(and you know this) is A: You have to prove Trump's intent to obstruct justice. You can't just claim he did, and have the claim be the sole authoritative word. That's no longer a criminal charge, that's what we call an 'opinion'. But I hold that not only does the Prosecution have to show Trump's intent to obstruct justice, they have to show the actual injury that came from the obstructive act, or attempted obstructive act.

And that's where the prosecution's case, falls apart.

 

Well actually firing Mueller could be obstruction even if Trump had a legal right to fire him. That's never been Barr's issue. I can be driving a stolen car, and legally buy gas, and then drive it to another state. I bought the gas, but I still stole the car, and buying the gas is part of the facts showing I intended to steal the car. In short, it's about WHY Trump wanted to fire Mueller, and apparently ordered it happen.

Rather, Barr's issue with the report is whether Trump could be indicted in Court. I happen to agree with Barr and say … nay. But Barr sang another tune once upon a time when a special prosecutor shared a deposition with Paula Jones in a private suit. Barr's possible penchant for hypocrisy may be an different issue.

But all agree, Trump can be impeached in the House for obstruction … and there is evidence for it …. not all of which is being shared with the House. And the question really is … WHY. Barr's not prohibited by any order or biding court opinion saying he can't. He's just saying he won't. Imo, he has little ground for that, legally. But the question is WHY does Trump want this. He's not gonna get impeached for trying to fire Mueller or for firing Comey. And why not let McGahan tesfify? He's not gonna get impeached for telling McGhan to bury subpoenas or something.

The Mueller probe would be over except Trump won't let it die by just letting people read the whole report. LOL

 

Trump's been clear on why(literally clear, on twitter.) Because he believed in Mueller's supposed conflict of interests. Trump never wanted to stop or impede the investigation, he wanted someone else to take it over. Now was he expecting an outcome if someone else did take it over? Who knows, Trump's not going to incriminate himself and the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution.

All the defense has to do, is give a reasonable doubt. And I think the doubt is reasonable, if only otherwise it's because it is Donald J. Trump. Anyone else, and we'd agree that the circumstantial evidence is almost nonexistent.

As an example, if Trump tried to 'influence the Manafort Jury', then we're influencing testimony right now by having a discussion on PF ROFL.

 

My argument is exactly as I stated. If an underling defies orders that you intended to be followed through multiple times common sense says that person would be fired for insubordination. Yet McGahn wasn’t fired which tells me there wasnt intent there. Basically it’s the flimsiest straw y’all can grab and won’t amount to anything imo

 

At least your honest that transparency wasn’t an issue when everyone was saying Obama administration was the least transparent. Your point would carry more weight had you kept the same standard regardless of political affiliation

 

Your point would carry more weight if you had anything on me on the Obama administration.... you don't, since I joined this forum in October 2017.

What i know is the clear cover-up that is occurring since the Mueller report came out... It completely exonerates Trump, except you cannot talk to a primary witness, we're making it difficult to talk to the Special Counsel, and we're calling the Mueller report Executive Privileged... Uh huh.... "essentially" full exoneration....

And that's not even getting to Mnuchin violating clear federal law...

 

Ya I’m sure that’s what it’ll turn out to be. If I’m wrong I’ll be the first to say I was and I hope you’ll do the same if your wrong

 

Then Rosenstein should be impeached also for suggesting to the President that Comey be fired. Comey should have resigned, and Trump should never have had him continue. That showed Trump's political inexperience. Those who genuinely want to learn should visit the following site.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comeys-best-service-1484266535

 

Ha Ha.... that's totally not the way it happened, and I suspect you know that.

Per the Mueller report, Rosenstein had no problems with Comey getting fired, but the idea and impetus came from the WH.

SNIP

ENDSNIP

Page 67 of Volume 2...

 

Read the letter Rosenstein sent to the President. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767

As well, here's what Democrats had to say.

You're being played.

 

Pot meet kettle. The difference is a border Patrol Agent as well as a DEA Agent, not to mention hundreds of Mexican citizens died at the business end of Fast and Furious guns. No wonder Obama invoked executive privilege. Who died from the Russian collusion Trump was cleared of? Who?

 

Exactly what Rosenstein was told to do, and as I posted.... he was a good soldier..

 

He was Bob Mueller's soldier for a decade.

 

Pffft. Not to take away from a pretty strong showing, but when you think that history shows the midterms favor the opposing party, that's a fairly desperate conversation.

 

If the president can fire the guy investigating him, and can’t be investigated by congress....then you’re saying he’s just above the law.