Obama made a mistake when he decided the country was not best served......

Efforts to fire Mueller.
Efforts to curtail Mueller.
Order to McGahn to deny attempt to fire Mueller.
Conduct toward Manafort cooperation.

Those are the 4 initiatives to obstruct that Mueller explains have met the legal criteria to establish the law was broken.

Here's one...............

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

 

I wouldn't call "failed attempts" to do something that he was fully legally allowed to do far, far from an impeachable offense.

 

Hillary and a bunch of other Democrats voted for the use of force in Iraq.

 

A failed attempt to obstruct justice is just as illegal as a failed attempt to rob a bank.

Mueller carefully explains the difference between acts within Don's authority (firing Comey) and acts within his authority meeting the legal requirement to obstruct the investigation/justice (firing Comey).

 

And a failed attempt to commit murder gets you about 5 years in prison as opposed to life if you are successful. Let's say President Trump had done none of those things you listed in post #51.

You would still believe he should be impeached and removed from office wouldn't you?

Be honest.

 

Trumpists should memorize this line in order to save themselves from further embarrassment.

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the prez did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

 

Can you please then clearly quote me that line....and cite the page.

 

Just to clarify, the obstructive act mentioned in post 51 is only one of 4 meeting all the requisite elements of an illegal act. Namely, an obstructive act, the nexus, and the intent..........all as defined by Mueller in the report.

There are 10 acts altogether, some (4) having all 3 elements of obstruction and others that don't.

So........would you like to re-phrase the question?

 

See post 43.

 

Its called cutting off your nose to spite your face, dems are pro's at self inflicted torture

 

Astonishing, nah, I would say right on Par!

 

Astounding how things are read that don't exist..

 

That's because the blogger is the handler, and the Bloggers propaganda is always better then the truth

 

Only uber gullible Trumpists believe applying the rule of law to the Outlaw-in-Chief is being pursued because of Don's EC win. There are larger things at stake.

 

What would you know about the truth? Please proceed with any factual refutation of the Lawfare article you'd like to make. Oh......wait.........you can't make any.

Anything else?

 

No gullible would be a person that reads a report and then is so unhappy with it they purposely embrace some fanatics blog simply because it reads better then the original data

 

Nothing if I took your post to heart, "Polly wanna Cracker"

 

What things are "larger" than attempting to overturn the results of a national election? And remember when the impeachment of Clinton occurred Clinton supporters routinely referred to it as an "attempt to overturn the result of the 1996 election".

 

See he's resorted to what he imagines are "cunning" ad homs. He had the audacity to present TalkingPointsMemo spin as confirmation (bias) of his blogger's spin.

 

Did Trumpists know on pages 17-18 of Vol. II Mueller reveals the Trump campaign reacted happily to the beginning of the hacked info dumps and began to form a strategy around future releases of hacked info by the Russians, through Wikileaks. And that a few days later Don said it "was crazy" to suggest the leaks were being done to help him while denying he had any business deals with Russia?
What do Trumpists think about such behavior? Is it befitting a presidential candidate?

 

How can someone obstruct in an investigation of a crime that never happened. ?

There was no collusion with Russia.

Since there was no collusion what were they investigating ?

Obvious a witch hunt being used as a therapy for TDS.

 

Interesting phrasing. Is that what Repubs did when they tried to impeach Clinton?

 

You never sited the page numbers where he did that in that post....please try again....

 

You didn't read that entire post did you

 

That the democrats would have done the same thing.