Why did President Trump change his mind?

Trump said:

Look, Article II, I would be allowed to fire Robert Mueller. Assuming I did all of the things, I said I want to fire him. Number one, I didn’t. He wasn’t fired. Number one, very importantly, but more importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want. Article II would allow me to fire him. I wasn’t going to fire him. You know why — because I watched Richard Nixon firing everybody, and that didn’t work out too well

As it applies to firing Mueller,yes, he could do whatever he wanted.

 

He also said this with regards to bribery/extortion. He said he was innocent, but that he'd be able to do that anyway because Article II gives him the authority to do whatever he wants. It's been a common theme. I have yet to see him acknowledge any limitation on his Presidential powers.

 

If people don't realize that Trump's MO in negotiation is to start with the ridiculous ,,, it's not Trump's fault. Cyrus Vance XXXXX blew it ,,, and because he blew it, Trump's tax returns will not be public in time for the election, denying the wet dreams of House Democrats and NYC radical Democrat prosecutors. Once again, Trump outmaneuvered Wile E Coyote.

 

I don't think he changed his mind. He was just doing his usual lying.

That's what his base likes the most about tRUMP, the impeached prez, his constant lying.

 

Trump does, indeed, frequently engage in or threaten lawsuits that he can't win in order to try to run out the clock our outspend his rivals. He's been particularly fond of using the later tactic in order to try to strip people of their First Amendment rights, though without any success.

 

I think there is a massive amount of Americans who do not want Trump to simply skate.

 

Apparently SCOTUS disagrees

 

Skate on what? The only crime he has been convicted of is winning the 2016 election by outsmarting and out working the geniuses.

 

I don't think it was a change of mind either. He had no intention - from the beginning - to release them. When the left cried foul, his supporters talked up the audit. Then, he said he wouldn't release them and his followers questioned the importance of them. They said they weren't legally required. He has an army of 'yes men' ready to defend his every action and he knows it. So he doesn't need to tell the truth or follow laws - he knows he will continue to have the support of that army.

 

Which First Amendment rights has he tried to strip from whom? Be specific. Trump's fidelity to the Constitution is unparalleled in recent history.

 

"We'll see if Cyrus Vance will continue to pursue Trump's tax returns knowing the election will be in the rear view mirror by the time he sees them." That was the quote to which I replied. My belief is that there are a majority of Americans who will not simply forget when he's out of office. They don't want to see the wealthy get away with crimes, simply because they are wealthy. They don't want to see police get away with crimes, simply because they are police. And they certainly don't want to see Trump get away with crimes, simply because he's out of office.

 

He sued someone for calling his building plan ugly. He lost. He threatened to sue a business if they didn't fire an employee who (correctly) criticized his business practices in Atlanta and predicted that Taj Mahal would fail; the employee sued Trump for this violation of his First Amendment rights and won. Then there was a guy who wrote a book saying that Trump might not be as rich as he says he is and that he sometimes lies about his wealth and his business deals. Trump sued and got absolutely torn to pieces during discovery, forced to testify over 30 times that he and/or his representatives had, in fact, frequently lied about his wealth and his business deals . . . and that his legal argument was based on the idea that the author should have been forced to report only what Trump told him (unaudited) that his wealth was . . . a number that Trump had to admit during discovery was based solely on his own feelings, not facts.

Let that sink in. Trump was literally trying making the argument that it should be illegal to report something other than his personal fantasies.

Lol, for a second I though you were serious. Thanks for clarifying that you aren't. This is, by far, the funniest thing I've read on the forums. Ever.

 

Did he spy on millions of Americans without a warrant? If private citizen Trump thought that he was slandered, he should have access to the courts as anyone else does to correct the record. Tort law is flawed, allows MSM to continually slander famous people and gives their victims zero recourse. I don't thinkanyone should get a pass. Everyone should have the freedom to say what they want as long as they are willing to pay damages if they spread damaging untruths.

 

I don't think so. I said what I think above.

 

´ ~ I think the expression "Pissing in the wind " applies here. Trump did this on principle and is playing the media - as usual. Hillary won't reveal emails - Trump does not reveal tax returns.
I expect his returns to show a lot of profit & loss like most land developers. He borrowed and leveraged in order to recover from the 1990's real estate crash. Boring stuff that media will spin and concoct into slander , conjecture and defamation. Maybe Democrats will hire Christopher Steele to use the information to create another fake dossier ?
Like when Rachel Maddow cheered - "I have Trump's tax returns ! " another nothing.

 

You can't change what you don't have...

Because he said what he needed to at the time and then went back on it when he realized that his supporters don't care as long as he works to ban abortion. Of course any republican president can do that, so I still can't explain why people think he somehow was any better/different, but people are dumb.

 

One man shared an aesthetic opinion and the other two spoke the factual truth. You shouldn't be able to sue someone for exercising their First Amendment rights just because the truth or their opinion hurt your feelings.

 

No it doesn't. The president could fire or dismiss a person appointed by the assistant AG. The president runs the Executive Branch

 

Where do you get that Trump could get away with bribery and extortion from? Trump was citing 2nd Amendment as it applies to dismissing Mueller.

 

In that instance, yes. This is not the only time he has claimed that Article II lets him do whatever he wants as president.

 

Within the context of his statement, which in this case was the firing or dismisal of anyone appointed within the executive branch by someone Trump appointed. For example, being able to fire anyone that the Deputy AG might appoint.

Trump was not saying "Oh, well you know, that there Article Two allows me to be a full-on dictator, and I can do anything I like, don't cha know."

 

That's not what SCOTUS ruled on

 

That depends on the intent. He can't do so, for example, with the intent to obstruct justice.

Despite Trump's claims to the contrary, Article II does not give him permission to act with corrupt intent.