No Collusion!

[rogue06]

Jim that is nuts, there would have been no legal jeopardy since nothing illegal would have been done. And again you only know about this because Trump did not assert executive privilege, which was his Constitutional right.

It's the willingness to preserve and turn over every single document requested and the allowing everyone to freely testify without declaring executive privilege^[1] that drives a stake straight through the heart of the claim of any obstruction. Sure, at one point Trump wanted to fire Mueller, but he was legally allowed to do that. IOW, doing so would not constitute obstruction and merely wanting to do so doesn't even come close by any stretch of the imagination.





1. Again, compare this to how the Democrats respond in similar circumstances. When subpoenaed Hillary immediately deleted 33,000 emails, acid washed the hard drive with something that drug lords and organized crime bosses use and smashed all blackberry devices with hammers.

And then there was what Bill Clinton did

[Mountain Man]

It's the willingness to preserve and turn over every single document requested and the allowing everyone to freely testify without declaring executive privilege^[1] that drives a stake straight through the heart of the claim of any obstruction. Sure, at one point Trump wanted to fire Mueller, but he was legally allowed to do that. IOW, doing so would not constitute obstruction and merely wanting to do so doesn't even come close by any stretch of the imagination.





1. Again, compare this to how the Democrats respond in similar circumstances. When subpoenaed Hillary immediately deleted 33,000 emails, acid washed the hard drive with something that drug lords and organized crime bosses use and smashed all blackberry devices with hammers.

And then there was what Bill Clinton did

For that matter, Obama's "wing man" Eric Holder was the first Attorney General in US history to be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over certain damning documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. (Source)

[seer]

For that matter, Obama's "wing man" Eric Holder was the first Attorney General in US history to be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over certain damning documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. (Source)

Talk about obstruction, I remember how upset Jim was about that. Not...

[rogue06]

It's the willingness to preserve and turn over every single document requested and the allowing everyone to freely testify without declaring executive privilege^[1] that drives a stake straight through the heart of the claim of any obstruction. Sure, at one point Trump wanted to fire Mueller, but he was legally allowed to do that. IOW, doing so would not constitute obstruction and merely wanting to do so doesn't even come close by any stretch of the imagination.





1. Again, compare this to how the Democrats respond in similar circumstances. When subpoenaed Hillary immediately deleted 33,000 emails, acid washed the hard drive with something that drug lords and organized crime bosses use and smashed all blackberry devices with hammers.

And then there was what Bill Clinton did

For that matter, Obama's "wing man" Eric Holder was the first Attorney General in US history to be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over certain damning documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. (Source)

All of which brought a collective yawn from the MSM/left, and yet they want us to believe that Trump is the threat.

[Mountain Man]

tide_has_turned_trump.jpg

[Cow Poke]

To which a slew of federal prosecutors both past and present made it crystal clear that they would have had no trouble prosecuting her based on the evidence that was laid out.

But Comey snatched the case from prosecution, and Jimmy is not the least bit concerned about that ACTUAL obstruction of justice.

[Cow Poke]

Please pay attention to the post immediately above yours which I'll repost just for you.

In your case you aren't a low information voter but rather an ignorant foreigner merely regurgitating the pap meant for low information voters.

It's amazing how well Tassman can type with his eyes do frequently slammed shut. Maybe he's using speech recognition software?

[Mountain Man]

But Comey snatched the case from prosecution, and Jimmy is not the least bit concerned about that ACTUAL obstruction of justice.

Loretta Lynch had already said she would defer to Comey, nevermind that he's not the one to make that call. Of course that was after Lynch and Bill Clinton had their little off-the-record tarmack meeting.

[JimL]

Jim that is nuts, there would have been no legal jeopardy since nothing illegal would have been done. And again you only know about this because Trump did not assert executive privilege, which was his Constitutional right.

No, it is not Trumps executive priviledge, or Constitutional right, to obstruct justice. If Trump believed it was his legal right, then you can bet your bottom dollar he would have just done it, rather than passing the buck to several different toadies to do. White House Council McGahn resigned rather than fire Mueller, Lewendowski tried to pass it off to another advisor, who also refused, so ask yourself then, why didn't Trump just do it himself?

[Tassman]

Ah, so there was no crime, and you are firmly mired in the mud of woulda shoulda coulda!

There is sufficient evidence for Mueller to indict Trump for obstruction, only DOJ policy re "sitting presidents" prevented him.

“Mueller’s team describes several of Trump's actions as satisfying all the legal elements of obstruction”. “Trump may have escaped a finding that he obstructed justice only because his top aides refused to carry out his most dramatic and illegal orders”. In short, his intention was to obstruct justice by removing Mueller, whom he perceived as a major threat to him…as indeed is quoted in the Report: “President Donald Trump responded to news of special counsel Robert Mueller's 2017 appointment by telling then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he was "f******" - Politico. Not linked because of Trump’s language throughout.

Trump's fears were hopefully correct, given the growing anger over the “10 episodes where Trump might have obstructed justice”. This will be up to Congress to determine what to do when it receives the full unredacted Report.

[NorrinRadd]

There is sufficient evidence for Mueller to indict Trump for obstruction, only DOJ policy re "sitting presidents" prevented him.

“Mueller’s team describes several of Trump's actions as satisfying all the legal elements of obstruction”. “Trump may have escaped a finding that he obstructed justice only because his top aides refused to carry out his most dramatic and illegal orders”. In short, his intention was to obstruct justice by removing Mueller, whom he perceived as a major threat to him...

This post by MM in another thread is relevant.

Also relevant is that this is a case of different legal theories. Andy McCarthy takes the view that only actions that are *inherently* illegal can be obstructive. Speculations about what an actor was thinking or intending should not be part of the equation.

…as indeed is quoted in the Report: “President Donald Trump responded to news of special counsel Robert Mueller's 2017 appointment by telling then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he was "f******" - Politico. Not linked because of Trump’s language throughout.

I think it has already been shown that the context was that he was fracked because, guilty or not, a Special Counsel is a millstone around the neck.

And then there's the fact that other close Trump associates have disputed the truthfulness of that whole account.

Trump's fears were hopefully correct, given the growing anger over the “10 episodes where Trump might have obstructed justice”. This will be up to Congress to determine what to do when it receives the full unredacted Report.

A year or so from now, if ever, after a lot of entertaining wrangling in courts.

[oxmixmudd]

This post by MM in another thread is relevant.

Also relevant is that this is a case of different legal theories. Andy McCarthy takes the view that only actions that are *inherently* illegal can be obstructive. Speculations about what an actor was thinking or intending should not be part of the equation.



I think it has already been shown that the context was that he was fracked because, guilty or not, a Special Counsel is a millstone around the neck.

And then there's the fact that other close Trump associates have disputed the truthfulness of that whole account.



A year or so from now, if ever, after a lot of entertaining wrangling in courts.

From a man who has admitted he would be ok with trump killing a person in front of him, if it was the right person.

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

From a man who has admitted he would be ok with trump killing a person in front of him, if it was the right person.

Jim

You seriously need to take a break, Jim. you have left irrational far behind and are into full-on delusion.

[Cow Poke]

No, it is not Trumps executive priviledge...

Trump's.

[oxmixmudd]

You seriously need to take a break, Jim. you have left irrational far behind and are into full-on delusion.

No - A large number of you have left rational behind. And Moral. How you all are justifying the positions you are taking to defend trump are beyond me, but when a person can write that he would be ok with Trump killing a person in broad daylight if it was the right person, then that person has crossed a line no one should ever cross. And I will not back off. And there is no 'just kidding'. You can't kid about stuff like that.

And the same is true of anyone that thinks it was ok.


Jim