Mueller Report Imminent

#6,528
#6,528
0nelilreb said:
I believe you . So when is the impeachment trial starting ?
Click to expand...
You know Pelosi did an interview this weekend where she spelled out her calculus on this for the idiot Dems who are screeching for a pound of flesh and are too stupid to do the analysis on their own, right?

So you just outted yourself as dumber and more uninformed than the screaming hoard of liberal activists...

RockyTop85 said:
I absolutely think there’s evidence of obstruction in Volume II. Whether it’s worth impeachment... 🤷🏻‍♂️

I thought Clinton should have been removed but in a world where he wasn’t, this probably isn’t worth it.
Click to expand...

... for some substanceless snark that was a week behind the conversation.

Well played.
 
#6,529
#6,529
RockyTop85 said:
No. His efforts to fire Mueller, his efforts to have Sessions direct Mueller not to investigate the president after Sessions recused, and his conduct related to Manafort.

A reasonable inference can be made that Trump’s conduct influenced Manafort’s calculus when determining whether to lie about his interactions with Kilimnik, which just happens to be the most suspicious behavior covered in Volume I.

All of the above instances meet the elements of obstruction, IMO. (The success or failure of an obstructive act does not appear to be an element under the federal statutes. This is based on the analysis performed by Mueller and the discussion of obstruction statutes in, I think, Section A of Volume II. I’ll concede that the reasonableness of this inference is a fair point of disagreement, but IMO, its not material to whether the facts meet the elements of the crime. I mention it only because it does go to the severity of the offense.)

I’m not even considering Comey. I don’t think the authority to fire Comey is a viable defense, I just think there’s too much contradicting evidence of intent, with respect to the Comey firing. I’m not sure it’s even in my second tier of offenses. It might be obstruction, but it’s too much of a close call in light of other, better charges.

The firing of Comey is factually significant because it’s the genesis of the obstruction investigation. Shortly thereafter, Trump became aware that he was being personally investigated, McGahn told him he may have exposure, and that’s when his efforts to assert control over the investigation became more frenetic. IMO, these events are material to a shift in intent.
Click to expand...
I guess where I am differing is I dont see how talking to another individual, not Mueller, about firing Mueller could be obstruction. Granted I dont fully understand the relationship between president and AG, but I am seeing it as client lawyer-esque. Even if it isnt I dont see how talking about firing is the same as moving forward with it. Where is that line between talking about the firing and obstruction?

In my world if we dont like the response from one specialist we talk to others. To see if they are right, or if we should be talking to someone else. But having the conversation doesnt rise to a criminal level, imo.

If it is obstruction I dont see how every president isnt guilty of just about everything. Talked about war with a general, war crime. Talked about changing the laws because one is an issue and its conspiracy. I would even say it was obstruction if Trump actually went public with the firing aspect, instead of leaks. But it was a behind closed door meeting and as far as I have seen presented nothing came out of those that could be considered illegal.

I dont think Trump even actually fired anyone over this. They all resigned before anything illegal went down. Intent is just one thing here, actual crime is the other. Amazingly its opposite of Hillary defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496, SpaceCoastVol, NEO and 3 others
#6,533
#6,533
ETV said:
I'm guessing that you and a few others may be medicated beyond normal human tolerances just so that all of you can still function day to day.
Click to expand...
I would be okay. Like I've said before, I'm pretty much Trump proof; at least compared to the average person.
Sure, I would be saddened for my children and their future children, and for humanity on this planet in general, but I'll try to focus on the extra couple of dollars in my wallet for the brief time that continues.
On the bright side, Trump is great for both of my daughters' chosen career paths. He increases the demand for their expertise greatly.
 
#6,534
#6,534
luthervol said:
I would be okay. Like I've said before, I'm pretty much Trump proof; at least compared to the average person.
Sure, I would be saddened for my children and their future children, and for humanity on this planet in general, but I'll try to focus on the extra couple of dollars in my wallet for the brief time that continues.
On the bright side, Trump is great for both of my daughters' chosen career paths. He increases the demand for their expertise greatly.
Click to expand...

Are they experts in derangement syndromes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, RavinDave, 1972 Grad and 3 others
#6,535
#6,535
RockyTop85 said:
You know Pelosi did an interview this weekend where she spelled out her calculus on this for the idiot Dems who are screeching for a pound of flesh and are too stupid to do the analysis on their own, right?

So you just outted yourself as dumber and more uninformed than the screaming hoard of liberal activists...



... for some substanceless snark that was a week behind the conversation.

Well played.
Click to expand...

You do realize you go on and on and on about the mueller report and what you think it means and how a case could be made blah blah blah when all you had to say was .. the left has been outplayed and bringing impeachment proceeding against Trump would only get him re-elected . See I made it easy .
 
#6,538
#6,538
1972 Grad said:
I just saw a poll that said 57% of Democrats still believe that Trump is guilty of treason. TDS is still strong.
Click to expand...
And 88% of republicans think Clinton was involved in criminal activity related to the uranium 1 conspiracy.
 
#6,543
#6,543
UT_VOLS13 said:
So, wrong again as usual.
Click to expand...
It may be a little on the low end.
Go ahead and throw in 93% of repubs believe Clinton was criminally guilty in Bengahzi.
96% of repubs. believe Clinton was criminally guilty in the handling of her e-mails.
and the 95.2% of the repubs. who believe Obama was somehow criminally guilty in Fast and Furious.
Nobody is more gullible for a good conspiracy than are the repubs.
 
#6,544
#6,544
luthervol said:
It may be a little on the low end.
Go ahead and throw in 93% of repubs believe Clinton was criminally guilty in Bengahzi.
96% of repubs. believe Clinton was criminally guilty in the handling of her e-mails.
and the 95.2% of the repubs. who believe Obama was somehow criminally guilty in Fast and Furious.
Nobody is more gullible for a good conspiracy than are the repubs.
Click to expand...


LOL, just pulling crap out your ass as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#6,545
#6,545
luthervol said:
It may be a little on the low end.
Go ahead and throw in 93% of repubs believe Clinton was criminally guilty in Bengahzi.
96% of repubs. believe Clinton was criminally guilty in the handling of her e-mails.
and the 95.2% of the repubs. who believe Obama was somehow criminally guilty in Fast and Furious.
Nobody is more gullible for a good conspiracy than are the repubs.
Click to expand...
In the case of the emails, didn't Comey essentially say she was guilty, they just weren't going to press charges?
 
#6,547
#6,547
Weezer said:
In the case of the emails, didn't Comey essentially say she was guilty, they just weren't going to press charges?
Click to expand...

Yes and Trump has to be guilty of something because he won’t show his taxes but taking a hammer to your phones and devises and losing the sims card doesn’t mean anything . Lol “The wheels on the bus go round and round “
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#6,548
#6,548
LouderVol said:
I guess where I am differing is I dont see how talking to another individual, not Mueller, about firing Mueller could be obstruction. Granted I dont fully understand the relationship between president and AG, but I am seeing it as client lawyer-esque. Even if it isnt I dont see how talking about firing is the same as moving forward with it. Where is that line between talking about the firing and obstruction?

In my world if we dont like the response from one specialist we talk to others. To see if they are right, or if we should be talking to someone else. But having the conversation doesnt rise to a criminal level, imo.

If it is obstruction I dont see how every president isnt guilty of just about everything. Talked about war with a general, war crime. Talked about changing the laws because one is an issue and its conspiracy. I would even say it was obstruction if Trump actually went public with the firing aspect, instead of leaks. But it was a behind closed door meeting and as far as I have seen presented nothing came out of those that could be considered illegal.


I don't think Trump even actually fired anyone over this. They all resigned before anything illegal went down. Intent is just one thing here, actual crime is the other. Amazingly its opposite of Hillary defense.
Click to expand...
1. Your analogies about “just talking” are invalid because they lack nexus to the presumed facts. Trump didn’t “just talk about it” he directed that the firing be done and called back asking for an update. Have you ever directed anybody to commit a crime? Why not, if it’s no big deal?

2. Your analogies to your own work have the same flaw as above, but additionally this incredibly favorable view is not shared by the people who were actually involve at the time, namely McGahn, Lewandowski, and Dearborn. None of them thought this was just a routine business decision. They thought they were being directed to commit criminal acts and they refused. McGahn even prepared to resign over it. It was also something Trump had been specifically counseled not to do.

3. The general idea of “it can’t be a crime because nobody actually got fired” is immaterial to the issue of whether or not a crime was committed under federal law. I said this in my last post. The one that you quoted.
 
#6,549
#6,549
0nelilreb said:
You do realize you go on and on and on about the mueller report and what you think it means and how a case could be made blah blah blah when all you had to say was .. the left has been outplayed and bringing impeachment proceeding against Trump would only get him re-elected . See I made it easy .
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn’t mean to trigger you with discussion of matters outside your safe space.
 
#6,550
#6,550
RockyTop85 said:
1. Your analogies about “just talking” are invalid because they lack nexus to the presumed facts. Trump didn’t “just talk about it” he directed that the firing be done and called back asking for an update. Have you ever directed anybody to commit a crime? Why not, if it’s no big deal?

2. You’re analogies to your own work have the same flaw as above, but additionally this incredibly favorable view is not shared by the people who were actually involve at the time, namely McGahn, Lewandowski, and Dearborn. None of them thought this was just a routine business decision. They thought they were being directed to commit criminal acts and they refused. McGahn even prepared to resign over it. It was also something Trump had been specifically counseled not to do.

3. The general idea of “it can’t be a crime because nobody actually got fired” is immaterial to the issue of whether or not a crime was committed under federal law. I said this in my last post. The one that you quoted.
Click to expand...

@RockyTop85 I'm directing you to rob the bank nearest to you.

Should I be expecting the feds to come knocking on my door?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top