FBI in Disarray, Again?

Hence…

Hildawg

Do you really have that bad of memory? You’ve been using that with me since I first started posting here, I didn’t support her then and that has never changed. I believe the Clintons are about as dirty as the Trumps and want them nowhere near DC. You however seem to be giving one of them a pass.

4 Likes

The president at any time could have just fired Mueller.

Sorta like a baker can just say “I can not make that for you” and there wouldn’t be an issue.

The problem is the intent. And Trump showed his INTENT over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

1 Like

LOTS of broadbrushing dropping from Trump supporters since the Mueller report (not the Barr summary) dropped.

The Republicans used to be Pro-FBI before Trump became President. Now Republicans consider the FBI mostly a bad organization.

Not at all. It is full of bad actors though. That much is clear.

If that were literally all there were to it, sure. But that’s not all that happened.

:rofl: you’re more worried about intent than results?

Yes, it is. He told them to do stuff. They refused. That’s the story you’re telling.

I’m not worried about either.

Attempt to commit a crime is very often a crime. That’s the point I’m making, and nothing else.

"Attempted " is a crime.

What did he tell “them” to do?

Who is “them”?

Why, specifically did he tell “them” do it?

I’m not a republican.

What events in his history do you have in mind?

Attempt or intent? You’re worried more about intent than results. With politicians. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Let me help you: Will to Power. Every single one of them. All the time. Same with bureaucrats.

Fire people.

Cause they were aggravating him.

very often. Except in this case, where it clearly isn’t.

Attempting to commit a crime demonstrates an intent to commit a crime, even if you are not successful at committing the crime.

Aggravating him? How?

In your legal opinion.

No, it doesn’t. In the report.

He attempted to fire them, not commit a crime.