BREAKING: Robert Mueller is speaking right now, for the first time since the report was released

Exactly.

Even if it had happened, it would not be obstructing justice for any more reason than firing Comey wasn't obstruction.

MrTLawyer screwed up and admitted that the requirement for "obstruction" requires corrupt intent.

Of course, he knows there is no corrupt intent, so he's hiding from the question.

 

The poster said Trump did not ask McGahn to lie for him. He did.
When you ask someone to stop the investigation and the ask him to lie about it your making a pretty strong case for intent to obstruct.

 

I think the only ones that think that are the ones Trump hired... he hires the best lawyers.. lol

 

Obviously, Rosenstein determined that Mueller didn't have the evidence to indict, which is an inconvenient point that many people are fond of overlooking...

 

they don't care about the truth

Trump has the power of Manon over his cult following

 

Worse, they can't point to the corrupt intent for their "obstruction" nonsense.

 

The truth that the Mueller investigation didn't find any connection between a single American and Putin, and was predicated on a dossier paid for, leaked and peddled by the people investigating him?

 

Progs mimicking Stalin and his henchmen.

Go figure...

 

Wow.... you are way out there.... Even though I think it's a loser, those that are saying there was no OOJ because Mueller wasn't actually fired can at least make an arguable case...

I haven't seen anybody, other than you, make THAT claim...

I suggest you google Saturday Night Massacre and the aftermath...

 

Was firing Comey obstruction?

You might also note there was an actual crime in the SNM.

 

He has the wrong investigation. The only mention of dossier in the report is about a Trump rant.

 

Mueller, while noting that his report did not exonerate Trump, followed the Justice Department' s guideline in not considering indicting a sitting president.

"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%99s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution
​

Under the restriction, the issuing of any criminal indictments would be deferred until out-of-office.

 

The Mueller Report discusses it. And these are two of the incidents that the committees wil ask McGhan about. Trump is trying to prevent that.

Funny, you’re now attacking Mueller for not doing something that you almost certainly would have howled in protest over had he done so just a few weeks ago. That is, when you’re not peddling the Nunes myth,

 

That one is a much tougher call than Section E... I'm on the fence on that one myself... In my spreadsheet, I call that OOJ lite.

In and of itself, possibly not, but when you pair it with Section B, the original (clear) OOJ in Volume 2, Comey asked to "let Flynn go", I think you could make the case the 2 events combined could be considered as one example of OOJ.

 

You didn't watch his speech?

 

per the report, he did, but he thought Trump was too stupid to realize it was a crime, and he failed to get anything from it, so he did not pursue it, it's the cover up and obstruction that often gets them

Nixon did not break into the DNC either, but he tried to cover it up and obstruct

you logic is like saying Hillary or the Trump kids did not use personal email cause they did not indict.... they are not the same thing, intent also plays a part

 

How was Comey's firing different than Mueller's not-firing.

The process, I mean.

Did Trump ever discuss the possibility of firing Mueller with counsel before firing him?

 

So your theory is that Trump was too "stupid" to realize it was a crime, but decided to cover up something he didn't think was a crime, and despite Trump being "stupid", Mueller and every Democrat in Congress couldn't find what he hid.

 

the investigators put tracking devices in the guns, it was an investigation gone bad as the batteries died before they moved the guns... that is not Obama's fault

be like attacking under cover cops for doing all the failed things they do in order to catch the bad guys, sometimes something that sounds like it shoudl work... doesn't

no crime was committed there, just a investigation gone bad, some times the good guys lose

 

You're conflating two separate instances. You're conflating the instance where Trump asked McGhan to remove Mueller, and the instance where he asked McGhan to refute the NYT report.

Wherein the instance of Trump asking McGhan to remove Mueller, I argue that there's a lack of intent and follow through, because the removal obviously didn't occur. You can argue he wanted to all you want, but you're not going to convince a jury that there was intent and follow through, crucial in criminal law.

And in the case of asking him to refute the report, though obviously a lie, it wasn't a lie at Special Counsel Mueller, it wasn't changing McGhan's testimony to Mueller, it was a futile attempt at covering up the report(which as stated, was a LEAK from the so-called secretive, we won't leak special counsel.)

Lying to the media, is not a criminal offense or an obstructive event.

 

Then why don’t Mueller strap a a set on & face the music?

He just milked the Tax payers for every penny & came up empty.

He couldn’t even give the left a “more likely than not” conclusion.

 

On Comey, while I believe the primary purpose of firing him was to stop the investigation, or get Trumps name out of it, Comey had a lot of responsibilities outside of the Russia investigation and Trump did have the authority to fire him

Mueller had one basic job, which was completely tied to the Trump campaign, so there was no other possible explanation why Trump wanted him removed.

Trump talked with "counsel" and aides on removing Mueller beforehand... and knew it was not sanctioned by anybody for legit cause.

 

So since we now know that there was no Russian collusion between the Trump campaign, or any American, and Russia....where does this leave your theory on not-firing Mueller.

 

those people were taken off the investigation when Mueller became aware of it, doesn't mean Trump is off the hook, your looking for technicalities

I woudl guess if we went through all the tweets and emails of all the investigators for Hillary, some were strong Trump supporters too, may have even said "Lock her up!"

Republicans in Congress said early on they were gonna make Obama a one term President, then they investigated his administration

 

You're asking the wrong question. Its not a question of did the President order Mueller to be fired? Because he did and he had the power to do so as the SC was appointed by the AG which is part of the Executive Branch and thus serves at the pleasure of the President.

The question you need to ask is does the act of firing the SC constitute obstruction? The answer is no because this act alone is appropriate per the execution of the Presidency. It would the intent behind the act that would satisfy a charge of obstruction but intent has to be proven and any lawyer will tell you that proving intent is one of the most difficult things to do.

This becomes even more clouded because the act of firing the SC never happened. President Trump ordered counsel to instruct the AG to terminate the SC. Counsel did its job and informed the President this would pose a risk to the legal standing of the Presidency - keep in mind that the act of firing the SC alone would not have been a crime in itself. The firing never happened so all that is left is the President giving and then retracting an order. This also is not a crime. So now we have to move yet another rung down the ladder and try to claim that the act of issuing an order that was then retracted after closer examination is obstruction. But again that act simply doesn't meet the definition of obstruction without the scope of intent, which was never examined.

Look at how many hops down into obscurity this goes and you can see why honest legal professionals are shaking their heads at this politically motivated and completely unjustified attack. This would never stand up in court but clearly can thrive in Congress, a place where facts and the law often do not matter.