Considering the fact he has access to all of the information and evidence, especially secret and/or confidential information that the public will never have access to, I’d say his opinion is WAY more conclusive than your opinion or my opinion.
Coming from one of the boards biggest breadcrumb following conspiracy theorists makes this post deliciously ironic in so many ways. Thanks for the morning chuckle Spidey.
If Donald Trump set the world ablaze in a nuclear holocaust, his supporters would be rummaging through the ash piles explaining why Trump was right to do it.
(Donald, of course, would be below ground in his posh bunker living it up, probably descrying the loser rats above who never made enough of themselves to afford their own bunkers).
No. His bias in being determined to get something, anything on Trump outways all that. And you don’t impeach a President based on secret information. He has to put up or shut up.
I don’t really care if Mueller concludes that Donald Trump has obstructed justice. I am more concerned with whether Donald Trump has obstructed justice.
Remember when Trump was meeting with Kisliak and a reporter asked the russian if he heard Comey had been fired, and he was all like, 'No? really?" over exaggerated, as if to say ‘you don’t think I didn’t know that?’ That always made me think Putin told trump to fire Comey.
There is no point in doing a lot of hypotheticals to find some point at which it would be obstruction. Lets find out 1) if there were facts that could be interpreted as obstruction and 2) if there was obstruction, then was it sufficient for impeachment.
Remember, Clinton was guilty of perjury (debarred from Arkansas over it) and that is per se obstruction…but Congress did not find it bad enough for impeachment.
Sure there’s a point. It’s testing the limits of your theory. Also it’s for consistency. I think you might be afraid to weigh in because you are worried what I suggested may be close to what actually happened.