No Collusion!

[JimL]

Perhaps you should adjust your prosecutorial delusion to "ATTEMPTED obstruction!"

Do you know what they call attempted obstruction CP? They call it obstruction.

[Cow Poke]

Intent dummy, intent.

Jim, that's really really stupid. If my INTENT is to kill you, but I never take any action, there is no crime. I'm sure you INTEND to use proper grammar, but that doesn't get you an A on your homework.

Trump is lucky that his underlings refused to carry out his orders, but he intended for them to, and that is a criminal offense.

No, it's not.

You should already know by this time why there was no indictment by Mueller,

Ya finally got something right!

but I know that you Trumpsters

Have ya cancelled your NAMBLA membership yet, Jimmy?

will never admit to anything. It's ok, live in your fantasy world of the deep state like the con man Trump instructed you.

At this point, it's obvious that you realize how stupid your arguments are, so you're just basking in your profound ignorance.

[Cow Poke]

Do you know what they call attempted obstruction CP? They call it obstruction.

NAMBLA supporters call it that.

[lilpixieofterror]

Intent dummy, intent. Trump is lucky that his underlings refused to carry out his orders, but he intended for them to, and that is a criminal offense. You should already know by this time why there was no indictment by Mueller, but I know that you Trumpsters will never admit to anything. It's ok, live in your fantasy world of the deep state like the con man Trump instructed you.

And again Jimmy. Most of us are just lucky that we don’t have someone with the full resources of the federal government, millions of dollars, and years to dig into every aspect of our lives.

[Cow Poke]

And again Jimmy. Most of us are just lucky that we don’t have someone with the full resources of the federal government, millions of dollars, and years to dig into every aspect of our lives.

I'm clean as a whistle!!!

(well, as long as they don't go past 1978, and they never depose Rogue. )

[JimL]

NAMBLA supporters call it that.

[Cow Poke]

You should resign in disgrace!

[seer]

Intent dummy, intent. Trump is lucky that his underlings refused to carry out his orders, but he intended for them to, and that is a criminal offense. You should already know by this time why there was no indictment by Mueller, but I know that you Trumpsters will never admit to anything. It's ok, live in your fantasy world of the deep state like the con man Trump instructed you.

Again Jim:

1. Trump never followed up, and he could have.

2. Jim did Trump have the legal right to fire Mueller? Yes or no?

3. And you only know this because Trump allowed McGahn to testify, he was within his legal right to assert executive privilege.

[JimL]

Jim, that's really really stupid. If my INTENT is to kill you, but I never take any action, there is no crime. I'm sure you INTEND to use proper grammar, but that doesn't get you an A on your homework.

No, that's a poor analogy, because that's not how it happened. A better analogy is that of a man who aims his gun to murder someone and someone else hits his arm making him miss. The intent and the act to murder was there, but the attempt failed. Get the diffrerence? Trump intended to obstruct and he made the attempt, but he failed due to his underlings refusing to carry it through.

No, it's not.

Yes it is, just as it would be in my analogy above.

At this point, it's obvious that you realize how stupid your arguments are, so you're just basking in your profound ignorance.

Except that I'm right and you're wrong. As usual!

[Tassman]

Jim, that's really really stupid. If my INTENT is to kill you, but I never take any action, there is no crime. I

You are incorrect. The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime.

The implication of the report is that Trump may have escaped a finding that he obstructed justice only because his top aides refused to carry out his most dramatic orders. Indeed, Mueller’s team describes several of Trump's actions as satisfying all the legal elements of obstruction.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...leased-1280960

[Cow Poke]

You are incorrect.

If you say so, then I must be correctomundo!

The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime.

You kinda skipped the part where, first, there has to actually be a crime, and, lo and behold, there's not even an indictment.

[rogue06]

Again Jim:

1. Trump never followed up, and he could have.

2. Jim did Trump have the legal right to fire Mueller? Yes or no?

3. And you only know this because Trump allowed McGahn to testify, he was within his legal right to assert executive privilege.

That's the point that the left and the MSM (being redundant here) keeps hoping that their low information voters don't realize. It wouldn't have been a crime (obstruction of justice or otherwise) if Trump had fired Mueller. He would have been fully within his authority to do so. Any price he would possibly have paid would not have been legal but rather political -- at the ballot box in 2020.

[Tassman]

You kinda skipped the part where, first, there has to actually be a crime, and, lo and behold, there's not even an indictment.

Actually you “kinda skipped the part” where, according to the Report, Trump may have escaped a finding that he committed the crime of obstructing justice only because his top aides refused to carry out his explicit illegal orders.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...leased-1280960

[Cow Poke]

Actually you “kinda skipped the part” where, according to the Report, Trump may have escaped a finding that he committed the crime of obstructing justice only because his top aides refused to carry out his explicit illegal orders.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...leased-1280960

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

[Mountain Man]

Actually you “kinda skipped the part” where, according to the Report, Trump may have escaped a finding that he committed the crime of obstructing justice only because his top aides refused to carry out his explicit illegal orders.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...leased-1280960

In other words, Trump listened to his advisors, or he at least had the good sense to not force the issue through other channels that were available to him, including direct executive action.

The way Mueller's report reads, it's like a cop pulling you over and saying, "You know, if you had run that red light then you would have broken the law." You say, "But I didn't run the red light." And he says, "Yes, but IF you had..."

Imagine a prosecutor trying to take that story to a judge.