Depends on why he's firing him.
Obstruction, actually. Typos suck.
But BK just exposed himself as someone who did NOT read the report if he believes Volume II is the Collusion section. <Lmaoo>
Toughest president on russia. Its true. Also whoever is the dem nominee fully expect they try something like 2016 again by a foreign government or even our own. it's part of the strategy now.What a joke he is.
Incorrect There is a reason the founders gave the legislative branch the power to remove a sitting president.
There is nothing to stop a president from being charged upon leaving office
My gosh, it's about interfering with a legally authorized INVESTIGATION, regardless of if there's any crimes.
Think about this. Law enforcement is investigating a missing person report and, based upon an erroneous assumption/evidence, believes Person A is responsible for either kidnapping or murdering the missing person. An investigation is opened into Person A.
Person A is in fact in no way responsible for the missing person. In reality, the missing person eloped to wherever without telling anyone. There is actually no crime committed by anyone, law enforcement is simply dead wrong. Person A is not allowed to interfere with law enforcement's investigation even though the investigation is over a matter where, in fact, no crime occurred. If Person A interferes in the investigation he is guilty of obstruction of justice.
The fact that you can't see why this is so is crazy. Just because there is no underlying crime at all, by anyone, does not mean you can interfere with the investigation. Gabish?!?
I use Opera browser when on mobile....has a built-in popup blocker so no more redirects!Yes, it was a buffonish typo/mistake. However, it was fairly obvious I was referring to obstruction since I bolded it in his post and referenced multiple different pages referring to obstruction. Moreover, we've been spending pages and pages debating obstruction, not collusion.
I blame the mobile site for constantly re-directing me to spam and then having to retrieve my half written replies in angered haste, preventing me from always proofreading what I wrote. Sad!!!!
You've touched on a pretty key issue for OOJ cases. That's what the "corrupt purpose" inquiry is ordinarily about. There are a lot of actions that can be legal under most circumstances but are illegal under others. Motive can play a role in that. It's ok for me to fire someone. It's not ok for me to fire someone for being Jewish/christian/black/male/female/etc.Depends on why he's firing him.
Can't wait to see what kind of spiels he goes on this time around. With all the scrutiny he shouldn't be able to get away with half the stuff he did the last time. I just can't help imagining him doing it again. "Russia if you can hear me...."What a joke he is.
Denial? Cognitive dissonance?I completely agree. I also believe there's ample evidence, as shown in the Mueller report, that Trump's intent was to thwart the investigation. I honestly can't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
No one has argued what you are saying. Christ dude.
This all started when u went full tilt on me posting..............MOST prosecutors would not touch Trump or anyone here.
Now feel free to keep arguing with yourself or the imaginary posters you see disagreeing
Plenty in this thread have argued that you can't have obstruction without an underlying crime....pretty sure you're one of them.No one has argued what you are saying. Christ dude.
This all started when u went full tilt on me posting..............MOST prosecutors would not touch Trump or anyone here.
Now feel free to keep arguing with yourself or the imaginary posters you see disagreeing
That's one view of it, but it certainly isn't the legal consensus. Does the Statute of Limitations toll while in office? If not, Trump would be unable to be charged with obstruction at all if he wins a second term.
There is no legal clearity on this issue.
Plenty in this thread have argued that you can't have obstruction without an underlying crime....pretty sure you're one of them.
Well, I think it's clearly not true that most prosecutors would not pursue charges against John Doe in the same situation. They take obstruction of legal investigations very seriously.
Nope. The argument is it likely would not be prosecuted
Try to keep up skippy
You are arguing something different. You are being asked to give an example of an obstruction case where the accused was CLEARED of the underlying charge
Lol, predictable but still surreal.
Lol, predictable but still surreal.
That's why i asked for an example. For which you brought up 2 iinstances where a distinct underlying crime was committed