I have a few thoughts on this. One I take issue with the wording the NYT used that Trump “demanded” he be fired and council “threatened” to resign. As if it was some Saturday night massacre moment where Trump was fuming and a subordinate threatened to quit. A few paragraphs later the details are laid out make it sound like it was just a simple conversation where the lawyer advised him not to for optics reasonings, but still threatened to quit (to the president’s face) if he went through with it. CNN is reporting he never mentioned quitting to the president and only suggested he would later on to colleagues. The big issue of f what constitutes a big deal is muddied by the MSM naked bias against him. If you take the glass half empty analogy in the current climate you get half full , half empty, and the media’s take, dihydrogen monoxide is a deadly chemical that is a leading cause of infant death. I don’t know why it’s even legal for the president to fire an independent counsel in the first place, which as the leaders of the executive branch he can, but it seems there would be absolutely no situation where it wouldn’t be deemed an obstruction of justice. Seems like the president has enough people around him that have convinced him so far that it’d be a terrible idea. Edit: Put another way, despising the man aside. How is a conversation that went nowhere as far as actual firing actually inhibit Meullers ability to perform the investigation at all? Why is this some huge bombshell? Is it really a mountain or a mole hill? I’m sure Clinton talked about it with counsel about firing Ken Starr did that matter? He actionably lied under oath so he tangibly did something to obstruct justice.
However, if you were to bet FOR the accuracy of every report Trump labeled “fake news!!!”... you’d be a millionaire in about three weeks.
I'm not asking to defend Trump, I'm asking because I don't know - I don't know how to ask without it sounding like I'm defending Trump. Is threatening to fire him obstructing justice just as much as actually firing him? Like, is wanting to fire Mueller illegal? Isn't that McGahn's role, to give him legal advice about whether or not something is legal? If Trump says, "hey, Mueller has all sorts of conflicts and is out to get me. I should fire him" and then McGahn says, "no, don't do that. You can't legally do it, and it would be a terrible political move." And, then Trump says, "but I want to do it and I think I can do it." McGahn follows with, "if you're not going to take my legal advice, then I might as well just quit." Ultimately, Trump doesn't fire Mueller (or can't). I mean, isn't that what is supposed to happen and why he has counsel? I can't imagine that Trump is the first president that's needed legal advice to keep him from doing something he isn't supposed to do.
The thing is, we're in a weird area in between "wanting to fire Mueller" and "firing Mueller" because he actually gave the order to fire Mueller but was essentially defied by the person he gave the order to. The closest analogy I can think of is a mob boss putting a hit on someone, and the Capo who was supposed to carry it out saying "fuck you Don, I ain't doin it."
I’m not sure if the desire to fire Mueller is actually obstruction. I think the point of that article is to show where Trump’s mind is at and what he’s willing to do. Because he is profoundly stupid. I think that doing anything to attempt to hinder or derail the investigation is obstruction. Like firing Comey. Or pressuring Sessions not to recuse. Asking Comey to let Flynn go. Pressuring Wray to fire McCabe. Trump may not be thinking of all of the elements required to meet the legal definition of obstruction. But you don’t have to do that to commit the crime. You just have to want to do an act to attempt to inhibit the investigation. Anyone who says that doing those acts is merely trying to defend ones self is being intellectually dishonest.
It’s a long tweet thread, but this sorta clarifies what obstruction is and how it might be applied to trump. https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/956907272143327233
Putting aside the question whether Trump colluded with the Russians for the moment, and focusing just on the Russian activities and the administration's response, we just learned the following: https://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/dutc...ssia-s-interference-in-us-elections~a4561913/ tl;dr: The Dutch equivalent of the CIA penetrated the computer network of a university building in Moscow in 2014. They quickly realized this building contained the workplace of Cozy Bear. They gained access to the uninterrupted video feed of the building's security cameras and were able to track every individual who entered or exited the Cozy Bear room. They identify members of Russia's security and intelligence services. They confirm that Cozy bear works under the directive of the Russian SVR. They share knowledge with the NSA and assist in fending off a Russian attack on the State Department's network, although not before the Russians fire off an ultimately successful phishing email from within the network. The success of this phishing is identified and relayed to the Americans by the Dutch. The Dutch witness Russian attacks on the Democratic party in real time. This information is relayed to the Americans. So aside from the fact that the Dutch are the Peeping Toms we all suspected them to be, of what significance is this? The most important thing it means is that all of the Trump administration's "well it could be anyone" bullshit is not just untrue, it is a deliberate lie, and combined with a refusal to protect US interests against Russian aggression, a violation of the oath of office. It is an impeachable offense. The Republicans have tried to position it like the only information we have tying the Russians to the hacking efforts is a post-hoc analysis by CrowdStrike (which they have worked hard to discredit) but the truth is that we have had a friendly government literally watching Russians do it, and relaying us information about it since at least 2015. Furthermore, the Republican effort to discredit the conclusion that it was the Russians, and their aggressive attacks on the Intelligence Community in the pursuit of that goal, have forced the American IC to defend themselves publicly and politically, which involved oblique references to this Dutch operation. This has angered the Dutch and made them less cooperative in intelligence matters, especially in addition to their concerns about the trustworthiness of the Trump administration.
I see what you're saying, but I KNOW that ordering someone to be killed is against the law. If he wanted to fire Meuller, why did he give an order to an attorney, instead of just telling Mueller "you're fi-uhd"? Or, is the Times saying that's what he did, and McGahn said, haha, no he was kidding, and then told Trump you can't do that?
Trump can't directly fire Mueller; at least that's what the actual legal battle would be about. Technically, the only person that can fire Mueller would be Rosenstein, since he was the one who appointed the special counsel in the first place. What Trump could do would be to fire Rosenstein and then ask his replacement to fire Mueller, and if that person refused, wash and repeat. That's what Nixon did in what is now known as the Saturday Night Massacre that ultimately led to his impeachment.
If this is all true and it did in fact occur in 2014/2015, why is this now a problem for Trump? Why didn't Obama take action or provide this information to the public while he was in office? Are we saying that Obama failed in his duties and should have been impeached as well?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ity/obama-putin-election-hacking/?tid=a_mcntx https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html The complete pieces give context, but the upshot is that the Republicans aggressively blocked those efforts: Now personally I think Obama made a grave mistake here. He was of the belief that Clinton would win the election, and then the Clinton administration could address the Russian question without the Republicans being able to claim it was an effort to sway the election. He should have taken the threat that Russia and the Republicans posed more seriously and played hardball. But hindsight is 20/20.
You haven’t noticed every single story results in “fucking trump needs to be impeached”? It’s been happening since last November.
Ever notice how every story about USA Gymnastics results in "people need to be removed"? An unavoidable conclusion doesn't change.
My personal fear is that American politics will never be normal again. And by normal, I mean boring. There was a time when I could go a week without thinking about the president or some scandal or whatever. I feel because the effort is so hard right now against Trump and the GOP(not that it’s unwarranted), when the powers do eventually change, the GOP is going to treat every future democrat the way they treated Obama, except the ultimate goal will be to try and impeach every president from here on out.
It is idiotic partisanship and it isn't going to stop. People are sour that their team didn't win and won't shut the fuck up about it. If Hillary had won nobody would be talking about it and we certainly wouldn't be poking Russia about it either because it was clearly small-time bullshit, otherwise it would've been addressed by the previous President when the Government was informed.
Do you honestly think if Hillary had won, she would enjoy a moments peace as president? You don’t think there would be constant attempts at getting her out of office? I honestly don’t think the animosity towards trump is based on Hillary supporters being sore losers. I think it’s the naked corruption being played out daily and no one gives a shit anymore. Or the blatant lies being perpetrated by any and everyone in the administration. Or the clear attempts at tearing down anything good in our country. The EPA? Let’s put someone in charge who wants to dismantle it and denies climate science. Attorney general? Let’s put someone there who has such a morally bankrupt past, he couldn’t even get confirmed as a judge. Secretary of State? Let’s put the CEO of Exxon Mobil in there who has business in Russia. Peace in the Middle East? Send in the bar mitzvah boy. It’s tiresome even trying to keep track of everything. Not even mentioning him making money off his own business while sitting as president. Or spending 1/3 of time golfing while criticizing each time Obama set foot on a course. I honestly couldn’t give a shit about Hillary anymore. And I hope she stays permanently away from politics.
As I said, it's partisan bullshit and it isn't going to stop. The did it to W, they did it to Obama, they're doing it to Trump now. They would have done it to Hillary as well. The point was that trying to claim that Obama sat on his hands because he thought Hillary would win and she would deal with it is bullshit. Nobody did anything because it didn't and doesn't matter, if it did, it would have been fixed long ago. So, trying to claim inaction now is an impeachable offense in this case is idiotic. What are the big scandals and rampant corruption that are going on? Seriously. I haven't heard about border patrol agents being murdered by weapons handed over to gun runners across the border yet or Ambassadors being killed due to negligence. Look, the point is that ALL of this and people's reaction to specific events is partisan bullshit.
How would you have reacted if a month or so before the election, Obama went on TV or something and started accusing the Trump campaign of everything they are accused of now? Do you think it would have played out well with the GOP? How did you feel when Comey went on tv and made that statement about Hillary’s emails 2 weeks before the election? There was no good options for him and you know it.
For one thing, it’s about the appearance of impropriety. If it even looks bad, it is bad and that is the standard that even I’m held to at my state job. It doesn’t have to be something as blatant as handing weapons over. Not divesting from him businesses are the first thing that comes to mind.