Psst, he’s allowed to fire anyone in the executive branch he wants to fire. It wouldn’t have slowed the investigation if he had. In fact, it would probably have ended up putting it where it belongs, in a congressional impeachment hearing if he had. The constitutional mechanism to address Presidential law breaking is impeachment, not prosecution. Prosecution comes after impeachment, not before.
He wanted to fire the special prosecutor and lie about the reason for firing him, like he did with Comey and hopefully install someone who he knows he could control. It doesn’t matter whether or not his hair brained scheme would have worked, it’s clear that he’s uncomfortable having anyone other than loyalists and yes men in positions of power.
If you are fine with such corruption, then great.
What was the special prosecutor investigating again? Oh right, collusion that never happened. He should have been fired. And so should the people who orchestrated his appointment. And after they were fired, tried and convicted.
2 Likes
Nowhere in the report does it say that Trump didn’t collude with the Russians. What is it does say is that several of Trump’s associates have Russian connections, met up with the Russians to request information, lied about it and attempted to cover it up. It also says that the Russian government did everything in their power to help Trump get elected.
“Putin won.”
You really should read the report before posting stuff like this. Mueller explains clearly how POTUS can obstruct justice while exercising his Article II powers.
Sessions was a mistake. Trump should have fired him as soon as he recused himself of taking major positions on the most important issues connected to his job.
I don’t remember one Dem in this board complaining that Holder and Lynch were loyalists to Obama and should be removed for a more neutral official.
The fact is Barr is acting as the AG, not as a defense lawyer because he is the Attorney General, whether you like it or not. The decision by the DOJ has been made. You can take the word of the AG or the street person you find wandering around your alley. Only one has the official authority to decide if the federal government will determine who has committed a crime.
I can rehash Whitewater and whether the Clintons were guilty or not, but I choose not to waste my time.
And I have said several times that if Pelosi wants to keep dwelling on how in her “impartial” opinion she thinks Trump has committed a high crime and misdemeanor then she should have the guts to go ahead and impeach.
But he doesn’t say Trump did obstruct justice, did he? You really should read the report.
Barr did not conduct the investigation. All he did was read it, like you and I can read it. Trump specifically was looking for an attorney general who would protect him and hired one.
You can bring up whitewater or the Clintons or Obama because deflection is the name of the game.
You’re going to totally ignore all the evidence that shows that Russia helped the Trump organization and all of the evidence that shows the Trump organization not only welcomed Russia’s help, but sought it out and all the evidence Trump and company continually lied about it because you have absolutely no problem with supporting corruption.
I agree that Nancy should have the guts to impeach. Once you get these people under oath, the more the public will get to hear the truth. Just like Sarah Sanders… she lied about why Comey was fired, told the truth to investigators and then lied about why she lied when no longer under oath.
Having all the people involved forced to tell the truth or go to jail will in public hearings will be the destruction of the Trump presidency.
1 Like
Nobody ignored it. Mueller decided Trump did not conspire with Russia. You can’t impeach him for what Russia did or because someone who worked for him committed perjury.
Barr applied his legal opinion to the facts Mueller listed. In the case of obstruction, he did this because Mueller failed to take on the responsibility.
Again, whether you like it or not he is the AG. You can read it and apply what you consider the legal ramifications are. When he does it, it determines what the official position of the DOJ is. See the difference?
Are you still shocked that Trump didn’t appoint a never Trumper as AG?
He doesn’t “say” Trump committed obstruction because he can’t indict him, so Trump can’t defend himself from an accusation that won’t be adjudicated. He lays out the facts of each offense for another entity (Congress or a post-presidency prosecutor) to proceed or not.
This has been explained clearly and frequently in this forum since the report was released. It’s in there - you’re just refusing to see it.
The “lemmings” are the ones with the made-up talking points and concocted “trump hate” to promote their martyrdom. #factsmatter
Happy Easter.
So you’re telling me if I handpick my own prosecutor and the person that I picked to judge whether or not I’m guilty of a crime says that I’m not guilty of a crime… it’s case closed, end of the story, no need for further discussion?
I mean, I know you know how absurd your argument is, but I suppose that’s not going to stop you from making it.
1 Like
(Spits water out)
Hahahahahahahahaha
I thought you were one of the the cons with their head on straight… after reading this garbage… I have reconsidered my position.
Law and Order my ass
This has been explained clearly and frequently in this forum…true. However, it has not been stated in the report itself and Barr has explained that he specifically asked Mueller if he would have recommended indicting Trump but for the DOJ policy to indict a sitting President and Mueller said that no, he would not have recommended indicting Trump.
So explain it some more…it still wont make your statement accurate.
It is case closed because there is no one left to charge him on that accusation of obstruction.
We just spent millions to have Mueller tell us if Trump committed a crime and he did not say that Trump committed a crime.
The only recourse left after both the Senate and DOJ found no crime is the political recourse of impeachment.
That…and people writing a lot of rants to online forums.
We all know the next stage is impeachment and we also know that the chances that the DOJ would have indicted Trump are next to impossible (especially when you hire someone who believes that the president is above the law to make that decision…a person so totally compromised that he would mislead the entire country about the contents of the report).
If Democrats have the guts to do what’s right, I’ll enjoy watching republicans come up with every excuse in the book to justify corruption as the impeachment proceedings begin.
We agree on one thing, not if but when will Obama be locked up.
Do you really think impeaching Trump with prevent Obama from going to jail for spying?
Nice non-sequitur
Is obstruction of injustice a crime?
1 Like
