The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[Doc]

So because Trump wanted to fire Mueller but wasn't able to, he should be impeached.  O...K...

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Is the Muller Report not Proven evidence? You seem happy that it (rightfully) disproved the Russia Gate conspiracy theory but when it goes against what you want to think you become purposefully dense. McGahn himself (firsthand) confirmed the accuracy of the media reports surrounding Trump's request to have McGahn fire Muller and then cover up the fact that he asked McGahn to do so. 

So, if the President put a firing under consideration, is it grounds for an obstruction of justice charge then if he considers many different things? What if he considers smoking pot in the White House or thinks about messing around with a 16 year old intern? Those instances are illegal and if he hides those thoughts is he obstructing justice? Sounds ridiculous but aren't they the same?

[billsfan89]

 

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I really have nothing against you, billsfan89. Truly. I just do not understand why you keep twisting things to fit the narrative of people who lied to your face for three years without compunction. Why keep drinking their swill? Aren't you offended that the majority of the corporate media spent three years sowing division in this country by pushing a false narrative that we now know THEY knew to be fake since January of 2017? 

 

Doesn't any of that give you pause to at least consider the possibility that you were misled? 

 

I don't understand how you are not getting that I thought the Russiagate narrative was non-sense. The idea that Trump was this Manchurian candidate was silly. You act like I just watch CNN and believed everything. You are acting in bad faith because I don't 100% agree with you. I am not even arguing that based off of what we know so far Trump should be removed from office (how you keep missing this fact is astonishing) all I asserted is that this is very similar to the Clinton impeachment where laws were technically broken but that still wouldn't qualify as enough to remove him from office (based on what we know thus far.) How this is even controversial with you is stunning. Once again anyone slightly diverting from your opinion is just not good enough and an NPC or whatever other nonsense attack you want to go with. 

 

My contention is that Trump (According to the Muller Report on page 290 MaGahn testified to the fact) in ordering Muller removed for the purposes of obstructing his investigation. Now you can't argue that Trump ordered McGahn to have Muller fired that is a fact. Your only argument is that, despite that evidence it still wouldn't qualify as obstruction of justice. Which I find stupid as it asserts that someone not listening to you instructing them to commit a crime absolves them of attempting to commit a crime. 

 

"That weekend, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest.McGahn did not carry out the instruction for fear of being seen as triggering another SaturdayNight Massacre and instead prepared to resign. McGahn ultimately did not quit and the Presidentdid not follow up with McGahn on his request to have the Special Counsel removed." Muller Report Page 290. 

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, if the President put a firing under consideration, is it grounds for an obstruction of justice charge then if he considers many different things? What if he considers smoking pot in the White House or thinks about messing around with a 16 year old intern? Those instances are illegal and if he hides those thoughts is he obstructing justice? Sounds ridiculous but aren't they the same?

 

He didn't put it under consideration he literally ordered it according to McGahn himself (aka the man who he issued the order to.) How you guys seem to miss this is astonishing.  

 

"That weekend, the President called McGahn anddirected him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest.McGahn did not carry out the instruction for fear of being seen as triggering another SaturdayNight Massacre and instead prepared to resign. McGahn ultimately did not quit and the Presidentdid not follow up with McGahn on his request to have the Special Counsel removed." Muller Report Page 290. 

[row_33]

i welcome billsfan89 to the ignore list after this display today

[SoCal Deek]

Trump firing Mueller, would not have been obstructing justice.  In fact, it probably would have been better for the Dems if he had been fired. He was clueless!

[billsfan89]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Trump firing Mueller, would not have been obstructing justice.  In fact, it probably would have been better for the Dems if he had been fired. He was clueless!

 

You are asserting that firing the person investigating you is not obstructing their investigation. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

I don't understand how you are not getting that I thought the Russiagate narrative was non-sense.

 

Okay... then, if that's true (and I'm not saying that isn't your opinion)... why do you believe this: 
 

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

My contention is that Trump (According to the Muller Report on page 290 MaGahn testified to the fact) in ordering Muller removed for the purposes of obstructing his investigation.

 

That is a SUPPOSITION, posited by the very same people who created the narrative you found to be nonsense. 

 

Volume 2 is not evidence. Volume 2 is entirely based on suppositions made by the narrative engineers who pushed that "nonsense" story on the world for three full years. 

 

Why do you take it as gospel when the law, reality, and other evidence shows it's not?

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

 

You are asserting that firing the person investigating you is not obstructing their investigation. 

It is not 'their' investigation.  When Trump fired Comey, did the FBI cease to exist?

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

You are asserting that firing the person investigating you is not obstructing their investigation. 

it is a valid legal debate as to whether you can be prosecuted for obstruction of a crime you didn't commit. if there isn't a crime, how can you obstruct it?

[billsfan89]

 

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

It is not 'their' investigation.  When Trump fired Comey, did the FBI cease to exist?

 

You would then have to believe that firing the person leading the investigation would have no impact on the investigation. Stop with this bad reductive thinking. 

[row_33]

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

it is a valid legal debate as to whether you can be prosecuted for obstruction of a crime you didn't commit. if there isn't a crime, how can you obstruct it?

 

 

 

 

------------------------------

 

 

 

look.... everything Trump did is evil, and those that agree don't care about facts at all...  simple....

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by row_33

[billsfan89]

Just now, Foxx said:

it is a valid legal debate as to whether you can be prosecuted for obstruction of a crime you didn't commit. if there isn't a crime, how can you obstruct it?

 

It is still a crime to obstruct an investigation into yourself. However the reason as to why I think this crime (similar to Clinton's crime of perjuring himself) wouldn't qualify as being enough to remove him from office (based on what we know so far) is due to the fact that the underlying investigation wasn't that valid. However all I am saying is that technically Trump did commit a crime. That's all, that's all I am saying. 

[Nanker]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

You are asserting that firing the person investigating you is not obstructing their investigation. 

What you assert is an incomplete argument. Trump was completely within his rights to fire Mueller. Period. End of sentence. 
 

IF he blocked the appointment of a replacement Special Investor THAT would have been obstruction. 
 

Neither of those things happened. 

[Doc]

So wait, firing Mueller would not have ended the investigation?

 

[billsfan89]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Okay... then, if that's true (and I'm not saying that isn't your opinion)... why do you believe this: 
 

 

That is a SUPPOSITION, posited by the very same people who created the narrative you found to be nonsense. 

 

Volume 2 is not evidence. Volume 2 is entirely based on suppositions made by the narrative engineers who pushed that "nonsense" story on the world for three full years. 

 

Why do you take it as gospel when the law, reality, and other evidence shows it's not?

 

The reason I believe Russia Gate to be non-sense is that the media narrative of Trump being a Manchurian candidate doesn't jive with Trump's actions on Russia. He literally pulled out of the nuclear treaty that ended the Cold War. In fact that narrative has pushed Trump to push harder on Russia and has escalated tensions. Obama made fun of Romeny for stating that we were in a new Cold War and I agreed with that being stupid and based in the 1980's. 

 

However there isn't a debate that Trump did trying and obstruct the investigation. Is it enough to remove him from office? No, I look at this (once again based off of what we know so far) as illegal but not enough to remove someone from office over. I don't even get why you would object that much over this assertion. Also this isn't a supposition either. This is literally a man firing the man leading the investigation of him. In a court of law you don't need to have him literally say "I did this for X reason." Your burden of proof is as high as Dave Chappelle's was for R.Kelly in that hilarious bit. 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

However all I am saying is that technically Trump did commit a crime. That's all, that's all I am saying. 

 

I get that, and I'm not trying to drag you over the coals, but you're basing that belief entirely on a supposition made by proven liars. 

 

Not evidence. 

 

And if he committed a crime, they would have charged him. They have been actively trying to charge him with ANYTHING they can find for three years -- and the entire SCO investigation was designed to be an obstruction trap to get exactly that result... 

 

And they still didn't get it. 

 

Because he didn't commit a crime.

[Taro T]

30 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Is the Muller Report not Proven evidence? You seem happy that it (rightfully) disproved the Russia Gate conspiracy theory but when it goes against what you want to think you become purposefully dense. McGahn himself (firsthand) confirmed the accuracy of the media reports surrounding Trump's request to have McGahn fire Muller and then cover up the fact that he asked McGahn to do so. 

 

The point he's being making which you seem to not be grasping is that because people (even orange ones) start out with a presumption of innocence when an investigator says there isn't enough evidence to suggest they are guilty of something, then they are (barring some new evidence coming out, and after a 2 year investigation which even had access to evidence collected by what certainly now appears to be illegal surveillance, how much new factual evidence could ever be found?) innocent.  Which covers volume 1.

 

If the investigator says crimes possibly were committed, then they may or may not have been.  But without a trial where the defendant gets to present evidence that supports his case that he is innocent, all that is is an accusation.  Guilt isn't proven merely by the accusation (at least in this country at least up through today), but through a hearing of all the evidence.  And, where it seems you take exception, the Special Council's Boss, the Attorney General, looked at the evidence the SC came up with about possible obstruction of justice and decided there wasn't enough evidence to even bother with further proceedings.

 

And considering several of even those potential examples of obstruction include thought crimes (well he wanted to fire Mueller, but he didn't) which aren't illegal in this country (at present) and as we now know (courtesy of Mr. Horowitz and Mr Mueller) that there wasn't a crime to be obstructing the investigation of; it seems rather flimsy to even say he isn't innocent of that as well.  So, it seems the AG made the correct call on that.  You seem to disagree with that.

 

It isn't that those results break DR's way (and he's been consistent all along that he's interested in the truth) it's that those happen to break the way our legal system has been set up.  Unless you are proven guilty, then you are innocent.  And saying obstruction might have occurred is not the same as proving it has.

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, Nanker said:

What you assert is an incomplete argument. Trump was completely within his rights to fire Mueller. Period. End of sentence. 
 

IF he blocked the appointment of a replacement Special Investor THAT would have been obstruction. 
 

Neither of those things happened. 

 

If you fire the head of an investigation it delays the investigation as the new person heading it up has to reorient themselves into continuing the investigation. It was designed to be a stall tactic. You don't have to end something to obstruct it. Trump in business would stall things out with lawsuits and other methods of dragging things out. This is exactly what he was trying to do with this investigation. 

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

The point he's being making which you seem to not be grasping is that because people (even orange ones) start out with a presumption of innocence when an investigator says there isn't enough evidence to suggest they are guilty of something, then they are (barring some new evidence coming out, and after a 2 year investigation which even had access to evidence collected by what certainly now appears to be illegal surveillance, how much new factual evidence could ever be found?) innocent.  Which covers volume 1.

 

If the investigator says crimes possibly were committed, then they may or may not have been.  But without a trial where the defendant gets to present evidence that supports his case that he is innocent, all that is is an accusation.  Guilt isn't proven merely by the accusation (at least in this country at least up through today), but through a hearing of all the evidence.  And, where it seems you take exception, the Special Council's Boss, the Attorney General, looked at the evidence the SC came up with about possible obstruction of justice and decided there wasn't enough evidence to even bother with further proceedings.

 

And considering several of even those potential examples of obstruction include thought crimes (well he wanted to fire Mueller, but he didn't) which aren't illegal in this country (at present) and as we now know (courtesy of Mr. Horowitz and Mr Mueller) that there wasn't a crime to be obstructing the investigation of; it seems rather flimsy to even say he isn't innocent of that as well.  So, it seems the AG made the correct call on that.  You seem to disagree with that.

 

It isn't that those results break DR's way (and he's been consistent all along that he's interested in the truth) it's that those happen to break the way our legal system has been set up.  Unless you are proven guilty, then you are innocent.  And saying obstruction might have occurred is not the same as proving it has.

 

You can't charge a sitting president. You present the evidence to Congress. That's what Muller did. Congress didn't think it was strong enough to warrant removal because while a crime was committed it wasn't strong enough in nature to warrant the political will to justify it. 

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

 

You would then have to believe that firing the person leading the investigation would have no impact on the investigation. Stop with this bad reductive thinking. 

OK, what if it had a positive impact on the investigation?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

If you fire the head of an investigation it delays the investigation as the new person heading it up has to reorient themselves into continuing the investigation. It was designed to be a stall tactic. You don't have to end something to obstruct it. Trump in business would stall things out with lawsuits and other methods of dragging things out. This is exactly what he was trying to do with this investigation. 

 

Yet Mueller himself testified that he was not delayed, not interfered with, and the Trump team turned over more documents and made more witnesses available to the SCO than any previous administration in history. 

 

Obstruction is tough to prove when it never happened.