Trump-Mueller tensions escalate

[EasterJoy]

For the record, while I think that a President who has committed serious crimes ought to be impeached and removed from office, I do not think this situation we are looking at now is an opportunity for some kind of a recall vote. Presidents who commit crimes ought to be removed from office. Presidents who are merely bad at their jobs ought to be endured until their term is up. We cannot afford the terrible precedent of an unpopularity coup that misuses that extreme authority given to Congress.

As for the 25th Amendment, it would be an extremely bad idea to use that to remove a President on the theory that a President who makes serious mistakes in a habitual manner has proven he must be too crazy to be President. He may be very misguided and deeply mistaken about the true consequences of his actions, but that does not make him* literally* delusional. Those who suggest Trump might become such a terror to his own Cabinet that they would vote for his removal are suggesting the use of a nuclear bomb in the Cabinet room. IMO, it is not to be thought of.

The problem with using partisanship as a litmus test is the very real possibility that the Presdident considers anyone willing to do the investigation will have automatically proven themselves to be unfairly biased against him. It seems to be a Catch-22.

Besides that, Mr. Trump seems to think that it is impossible to commit obstruction of justice when you are not the one who committed the crime being investigated. The truth is that you can. You can even commit obstruction of justice when there has been no crime.

As for the Russian interference in our elections, it has been said by those working in the intelligence community that the Russians have looked for ways to do that for many, many years, not just this election, and that there is no indication that they’ve stopped. Why would they do this? The weaker our political system is, the weaker our leaders are, the weaker our nation is on the international stage, the less the Russians have to concern themselves with what diplomatic actions we might take.

The President has used massive amounts of Russian investment over the past 20 years on his road to recovery from a financial hole of ruinious size. It is sensible to consider whether he was in a unique position compared to other candidates to have his campaign approached to cooperate with the perennial Russian desire to disrupt our elections. That does not mean his campaign was the only one that could have been approached or that the bid was successful. Perhaps it did not happen. It is not a witch hunt to seriously consider the possibility that it did.
**
I just wondered how many here thought Mr. Trump would actually take the step of firing Mueller or anyone else from the Attorney General on down who stood in the way of that getting done.

Also, do those who think the President would do this also think that firing Mueller would stop investigation into this matter?**

 

[josie_L]

Townhall is a right wing biased outlet. It only tells the right’s side of the story.
Politifact tell the story with facts.

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/26/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-calls-muellers-special-counsel-clint/

Townhall is a conservative based outlet, and that’s the reason why I like them, because quite frankly I’m fed up with the very leftist biased MSM.

As for Politifact, I’ve already encountered their supposed facts, so no, thank you.

 

[josie_L]

For the record, while I think that a President who has committed serious crimes ought to be impeached and removed from office, I do not think this situation we are looking at now is an opportunity for some kind of a recall vote. Presidents who commit crimes ought to be removed from office. Presidents who are merely bad at their jobs ought to be endured until their term is up. We cannot afford the terrible precedent of an unpopularity coup that misuses that extreme authority given to Congress.

As for the 25th Amendment, it would be an extremely bad idea to use that to remove a President on the theory that a President who makes serious mistakes in a habitual manner has proven he must be too crazy to be President. He may be very misguided and deeply mistaken about the true consequences of his actions, but that does not make him* literally* delusional. Those who suggest Trump might become such a terror to his own Cabinet that they would vote for his removal are suggesting the use of a nuclear bomb in the Cabinet room. IMO, it is not to be thought of.

The problem with using partisanship as a litmus test is the very real possibility that the Presdident considers anyone willing to do the investigation will have automatically proven themselves to be unfairly biased against him. It seems to be a Catch-22.

Besides that, Mr. Trump seems to think that it is impossible to commit obstruction of justice when you are not the one who committed the crime being investigated. The truth is that you can. You can even commit obstruction of justice when there has been no crime.

As for the Russian interference in our elections, it has been said by those working in the intelligence community that the Russians have looked for ways to do that for many, many years, not just this election, and that there is no indication that they’ve stopped. Why would they do this? The weaker our political system is, the weaker our leaders are, the weaker our nation is on the international stage, the less the Russians have to concern themselves with what diplomatic actions we might take.

The President has used massive amounts of Russian investment over the past 20 years on his road to recovery from a financial hole of ruinious size. It is sensible to consider whether he was in a unique position compared to other candidates to have his campaign approached to cooperate with the perennial Russian desire to disrupt our elections. That does not mean his campaign was the only one that could have been approached or that the bid was successful. Perhaps it did not happen. It is not a witch hunt to seriously consider the possibility that it did.
**
I just wondered how many here thought Mr. Trump would actually take the step of firing Mueller or anyone else from the Attorney General on down who stood in the way of that getting done.

Also, do those who think the President would** do this also think that firing Mueller would stop investigation into this matter?

The DOJ would continue investigations if needs be.

 

[EasterJoy]

The DOJ would continue investigations if needs be.

I know we cannot read anyone’s mind, but do you think the President believes this? He seemed to have said that he fired Comey because of the investigation, and that seems to imply he thought the investigation would be ended when Comey was removed. Or do you think his comments about not hiring Sessions if he’d know he’d recuse himself only means that Trump wants someone he believes to be a political ally running the investigation, which would mean Trump knows it will go forward no matter who he fires but will be kept within boundaries favorable to Mr. Trump, his family and those in his campaign?

 

[Joyful_Song]

The bottom line for me is Trump does not represent me in any way shape or form. He is the most uninformed, unqualified, ignorant, bullying, misogynistic, repugnant individual to hold public office.
His life background speaks for itself.
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/
Donald Trump is now president and not just a private citizen, but that doesn’t mean he’s free of the controversies that dogged him in his former life.
Congress are the only ones who can remove him and replace with someone stable.

 

[josie_L]

I know we cannot read anyone’s mind, but do you think the President believes this? He seemed to have said that he fired Comey because of the investigation, and that seems to imply he thought the investigation would be ended when Comey was removed.

But Comey’s investigation never included Trump as per his own words, as such, the firing of Comey is not an indication of obstruction of justice. One does not equate with the other.

 

[fmchan52]

The bottom line for me is Trump does not represent me in any way shape or form. He is the most uninformed, unqualified, ignorant, bullying, misogynistic, repugnant individual to hold public office.
His life background speaks for itself.
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/
Donald Trump is now president and not just a private citizen, but that doesn’t mean he’s free of the controversies that dogged him in his former life.
Congress are the only ones who can remove him and replace with someone stable.

How do you know all these things about Mr. Trump? Do you have a personal relationship
with him of some kind? Did you know every politician that has ever held office personally?

 

[josie_L]

The bottom line for me is Trump does not represent me in any way shape or form. He is the most uninformed, unqualified, ignorant, bullying, misogynistic, repugnant individual to hold public office.
His life background speaks for itself.
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/
Donald Trump is now president and not just a private citizen, but that doesn’t mean he’s free of the controversies that dogged him in his former life.
Congress are the only ones who can remove him and replace with someone stable.

So you just want him brought down for any conceivable “controversy” at all?

 

[Joyful_Song]

I know we cannot read anyone’s mind, but do you think the President believes this? He seemed to have said that he fired Comey because of the investigation, and that seems to imply he thought the investigation would be ended when Comey was removed. Or do you think his comments about not hiring Sessions if he’d know he’d recuse himself only means that Trump wants someone he believes to be a political ally running the investigation, which would mean Trump knows it will go forward no matter who he fires but will be kept within boundaries favorable to Mr. Trump, his family and those in his campaign?

Also, why does he keep firing everyone whose job it is to investigate?
Sally Yates, Preet Bharara, James Comey, If trump had nothing to hide he would concentrate on the country’s many issues and not comment until the investigations were concluded.

 

[EasterJoy]

But Comey’s investigation never included Trump as per his own words, as such, the firing of Comey is not an indication of obstruction of justice. One does not equate with the other.

Trump does not have to have interferred with an investigation into himself personally in order to commit obstruction of justice. He does not have to have interferred into an investigation into matters that eventually resulted in an indictment. He only has to have interferred with an investigation, period. That, all by itself, is obstruction of justice.

For instance, let us say that there is a murder investigation and a father tampers with evidence or attempts to influence witnesses that might have thrown suspicion on his son. Even if there was no murder or if there was a murder and his son was not involved, those are still criminal acts and the father could still go to prison. The same would go if the father were an official who fired someone investigating the crime because he thought a different investigator would leave his son out of the investigation. That is obstruction of justice.

 

[Joyful_Song]

So you just want him brought down for any conceivable “controversy” at all?

There is no “conceivable controversy” about it. Look at what we already know about Trump.

 

[Joyful_Song]

There is no “conceivable controversy” about it. Look at what we already know about Trump.

And I just want to add that if President Obama, Bush, or Reagan acted this way I would have called for their removal too.
Disgraceful.

 

[josie_L]

How do you know all these things about Mr. Trump? Do you have a personal relationship
with him of some kind? Did you know every politician that has ever held office personally?

She has, moreover, admitted to voting for Clinton and Obama, those individuals of true morality and integrity.

 

[josie_L]

There is no “conceivable controversy” about it. Look at what we already know about Trump.

No, I don’t know what we supposedly know about Trump.

 

[josie_L]

And I just want to add that if President Obama, Bush, or Reagan acted this way I would have called for their removal too.
Disgraceful.

So did you call for President Obama’s impeachment on Benghazi???

 

[EasterJoy]

And I just want to add that if President Obama, Bush, or Reagan acted this way I would have called for their removal too.
Disgraceful.

President Reagan knew to be alot more passive agressive about resisting the Iran Contra investigation. He rode it out, not by ignoring it, but he did know what he could and could not do about it. Maybe he ought to have been impeached, but it is instructive to contrast Reagan with Nixon.

 

[josie_L]

Trump does not have to have interferred with an investigation into himself personally in order to commit obstruction of justice. He does not have to have interferred into an investigation into matters that eventually resulted in an indictment. He only has to have interferred with an investigation, period. That, all by itself, is obstruction of justice.

For instance, let us say that there is a murder investigation and a father tampers with evidence or attempts to influence witnesses that might have thrown suspicion on his son. Even if there was no murder or if there was a murder and his son was not involved, those are still criminal acts and the father could still go to prison. The same would go if the father were an official who fired someone investigating the crime because he thought a different investigator would leave his son out of the investigation. That is obstruction of justice.

Easterjoy, I’ve already stated the reasons why Comey was fired, if you don’t believe them then there’s nothing more than I can do, however, Comey stated that the fabrications from the NYT article that first alluded to a Russia/Trump collusion were false.

1. Comey debunked New York Times reporting of Trump-Russia collusion

First, Comey characterized as “not true” the New York Times anonymous-leaks article, that initiated the collusion frenzy back in February. The Times article claimed that “members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts (my italics) with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.” The Times story careened around the media, until it became Gospel truth of Trump-Russia collusion. It turns out the story was known to be false, but no one bothered to tell American voters.

The (abridged) exchange with Senator Risch (R-Idaho) proceeded as follows:

RISCH: You talked with us shortly after February 14th, when the New York Times wrote an article that suggested that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. Do you remember reading that article when it first came out?

COMEY: I do.

RISCH: After that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don’t know where this is coming from, but this is not the case. This is not factual (my italics). Do you recall that?

COMEY: Yes.

RISCH: So, the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?

COMEY: In the main, it was not true. And again, all of you know this (my italics). Maybe the American people don’t.

Most damning in this exchange is Comey’s cynical “you know but the American people don’t.” Where is the outrage that the media collusion narrative was based on a falsehood of which U.S. senators were aware? The Times has issued no retraction and lamely states that “the immediate sources could not be reached” but “they have indicated that they believed the account was solid.” The anonymous sources can believe what they want, but the FBI head thinks otherwise.

forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/11/three-overlooked-statements-by-comey-that-blow-apart-the-russian-collusion-narrative/#573d67e72583

 

[josie_L]

President Reagan knew to be alot more passive agressive about resisting the Iran Contra investigation. He rode it out, not by ignoring it, but he did know what he could and could not do about it. Maybe he ought to have been impeached, but it is instructive to contrast Reagan with Nixon.

It is not obstruction of justice to use the presidential powers of pardon and/or firing of individuals in an investigation.

In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals who had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms deal. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious, accusing Bush of stifling his ongoing investigation and suggesting that he may have done it to prevent Weinberger or the others from pointing the finger of blame at Bush himself. The New York Times also reported that the investigation might have pointed to Bush himself.

This is what Walsh said: “The Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. We will make a full report on our findings to Congress and the public describing the details and extent of this cover-up.”

Yet Bush was neither charged with obstruction of justice nor impeached. Nor have other presidents who interfered with ongoing investigations or prosecutions been charged with obstruction.

washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-history-precedent-and-james-comeys-opening-statement-show-that-trump-did-not-obstruct-justice/article/2625318

Moreover,

The Comey statement suggests that one reason Trump fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump “repeatedly” told Comey to “get that fact out,” and he did not.

If that is true, it is certainly not an obstruction of justice.

Nor is it an obstruction of justice to ask for loyalty from the director of the FBI, who responded “you will get that ‘honest loyalty’] from me.”

Comey understood that he and Trump may have understood that vague phrase “honest loyalty” differently. But no reasonable interpretation of those ambiguous words would give rise to a crime. Many Trump opponents were hoping that the Comey statement would provide smoking guns.

It has not.

Instead it has weakened an already weak case for obstruction of justice.

 

[Thorolfr]

His speech to the Boy Scouts goes a long way in proving your point. He appears to be deteriorating daily. More tweets this morning.,

And according to the Washington Post, “Not invited on the adventure: Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an Eagle Scout whose day job appears in jeopardy in Washington.” LOL…Mr. Trump was so mean for not inviting Jeff Sessions to his speech at the Boy Scout Jamboree.

 

[EasterJoy]

Easterjoy, I’ve already stated the reasons why Comey was fired, if you don’t believe them then there’s nothing more than I can do, however, Comey stated that the fabrications from the NYT article that first alluded to a Russia/Trump collusion were false.

The President himself said he fired Comey because the Russia-Trump thing was bogus. He is the one who said he based his decision on that, after changing his initial story that he did it on the recommendations of his AG and assistant AG.

You don’t fire a law enforcement official in your administration because they’re conducting an investigation you have personal reasons to want stopped. You could commit obstruction of justice that way. You certainly do not lower suspicions that way. Mr. Trump does not seem to realize that.