Yeah intent to obstruct should qualify as reason for impeachment. If it was a democratic president who did it you'd all be over him like flies on meat

I think it would be a great parlor game to play with Trumpettes, "What if Obama...?" then fill in just about anything Trump says or does.

It's a very good litmus test to check biases for sure.

---

I'll play, what if OBAMA had his campaign targeted infiltrated and surveilled by the Bush administration?

I'll wait

---

I'll play, what if OBAMA had his campaign targeted infiltrated and surveilled by the Bush administration?

I'll wait

You mean War Criminal Barack Obama and War Criminal George Bush?

---

I'll play, what if OBAMA had his campaign targeted infiltrated and surveilled by the Bush administration?

I'll wait

Did Obama hire an unregistered foreign agent as his campaign manager in this scenario? were prominent Ukrainian scholars and journalists blaming that campaign manager for their civil War?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I get what you are saying but now you enter an interpretation issue and I blame Mueller for that. Was there intent? Did an action occur? Did the action obstruct a process? It becomes dangerous from a crime perspective. In any case, the bread crumb report was expected and planned for by the Dems. This will just carry on until elections and still nothing will come of it.

-Arrest that guy because he looks like a rapist and talks like a rapist.
-Arrest that dude because he was going to drive drunk last night but didn't actually.

This is why I need to find time to sit down and read the thing, at least the sections that both sides have latched onto. In my mind, telling someone to take an action that would obstruct an investigation is the same as obstructing justice, whether that person carries out your request or not. Is that really what the report says, and if so, what corroboration is there for it? A thinly-veiled suggestion that the President directed others to obstruct justice in an investigation of himself is a heavy hammer to drop without corroboration from multiple people who saw it happen.

What action would have obstructed the investigation if carried out? Letting Flynn off the hook? Asking NSA for evidence? Neither of those actions are obstruction except in the wet dreams of the anti-Trumpers.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This is why I need to find time to sit down and read the thing, at least the sections that both sides have latched onto. In my mind, telling someone to take an action that would obstruct an investigation is the same as obstructing justice, whether that person carries out your request or not. Is that really what the report says, and if so, what corroboration is there for it? A thinly-veiled suggestion that the President directed others to obstruct justice in an investigation of himself is a heavy hammer to drop without corroboration from multiple people who saw it happen.

What action would have obstructed the investigation if carried out? Letting Flynn off the hook? Asking NSA for evidence? Neither of those actions are obstruction except in the wet dreams of the anti-Trumpers.

Telling Don McGahn to fire Mueller, for one. That's what got Nixon thrown out the door.

As for the rest, it's a series of actions that by themselves wouldn't merit more than a second glance. When put together and when they're surrounding an active investigation of the President, some of them start to look like intent to obstruct. Firing Comey isn't obstruction unless it was specifically because of the Russia investigation, and I've yet to see any proof that it was. The President telling the intelligence community to release statements supporting him, well, that's shady. Constantly attacking the people investigating you in a very public forum, well, that's also shady. If this were an isolated incident, that'd be one thing, but this is a President who, by the looks of things, was actively trying to interfere with an ongoing investigation of himself. I'm not going to jump on a table and shout impeachment because all we have here is a series of events that, like I said, taken out of context are just a President being a President (aside from ordering McGahn to fire Mueller, that's big). I will say that both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees should independently continue investigations solely along the obstruction path. I don't care what letter appears in parentheses after a President's name, if there's clear evidence that he was attempting to bring an end to an investigation of himself and his closest advisers, then there must be serious repercussions. We might as well not have a justice system if that is what happened and people aren't held accountable for it.

---

What action would have obstructed the investigation if carried out? Letting Flynn off the hook? Asking NSA for evidence? Neither of those actions are obstruction except in the wet dreams of the anti-Trumpers.

Telling Don McGahn to fire Mueller, for one. That's what got Nixon thrown out the door.

As for the rest, it's a series of actions that by themselves wouldn't merit more than a second glance. When put together and when they're surrounding an active investigation of the President, some of them start to look like intent to obstruct. Firing Comey isn't obstruction unless it was specifically because of the Russia investigation, and I've yet to see any proof that it was. The President telling the intelligence community to release statements supporting him, well, that's shady. Constantly attacking the people investigating you in a very public forum, well, that's also shady. If this were an isolated incident, that'd be one thing, but this is a President who, by the looks of things, was actively trying to interfere with an ongoing investigation of himself. I'm not going to jump on a table and shout impeachment because all we have here is a series of events that, like I said, taken out of context are just a President being a President (aside from ordering McGahn to fire Mueller, that's big). I will say that both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees should independently continue investigations solely along the obstruction path. I don't care what letter appears in parentheses after a President's name, if there's clear evidence that he was attempting to bring an end to an investigation of himself and his closest advisers, then there must be serious repercussions. We might as well not have a justice system if that is what happened and people aren't held accountable for it.

Telling who to fire Mueller? Mueller was under Sessions and Rosenstein, not Don McGahn or anybody else I've never heard of.

Asking for supporting evidence is shady? Asking to end an investigation that has no basis in fact is deserving of "serious repercussions"?

The rest of your statement is a real stretch. Are you suggesting that complaining about a false charge or the people claiming it is a crime? That would mean that every innocent defendant would be committing a crime by defending himself.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I'll play, what if OBAMA had his campaign targeted infiltrated and surveilled by the Bush administration?

I'll wait

Did Obama hire an unregistered foreign agent as his campaign manager in this scenario? were prominent Ukrainian scholars and journalists blaming that campaign manager for their civil War?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...rats%3famp

Lol.

---

Yeah intent to obstruct should qualify as reason for impeachment. If it was a democratic president who did it you'd all be over him like flies on meat

I think it would be a great parlor game to play with Trumpettes, "What if Obama...?" then fill in just about anything Trump says or does.

That's a fantastic idea if applied both ways.  We certainly would not be as divided as we are now had we all been doing this for the past 20 years.

---

I'll play, what if OBAMA had his campaign targeted infiltrated and surveilled by the Bush administration?

I'll wait

Did Obama hire an unregistered foreign agent as his campaign manager in this scenario? were prominent Ukrainian scholars and journalists blaming that campaign manager for their civil War?

You are not playing the game correctly.  But you knew that when you posted this.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I think it would be a great parlor game to play with Trumpettes, "What if Obama...?" then fill in just about anything Trump says or does.

That's a fantastic idea if applied both ways.  We certainly would not be as divided as we are now had we all been doing this for the past 20 years.

What? Don't you remember when the mainstream media published photos of children being held in cages during the Obama presidency?

Oh right, they weren't published until Trump was president, and Trump was blamed for the actions during the Obama years.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Its extremely hard to demonstrate corrupt intent for obstruction when there was no underlying crime.

Firing Mueller/Comey for explicitly political purposes is not obstruction of justice. Firing either because he knows the whole investigation is pointless and he did nothing wrong is not obstruction. You would have to show that the president took these actions solely to obstruct the investigation from reaching a likely conclusion that would cause him legal exposure. It's hard to demonstrate that when the bulk of the report focuses on the fact that the investigation was in fact a waste of a few tens of millions of dollars.

---

That's a fantastic idea if applied both ways.  We certainly would not be as divided as we are now had we all been doing this for the past 20 years.

What? Don't you remember when the mainstream media published photos of children being held in cages during the Obama presidency?

Oh right, they weren't published until Trump was president, and Trump was blamed for the actions during the Obama years.

Exactly why I love RJ's proposal.  If one is honest with oneself we'd all be Libertarian's by now, or at least no longer r's and d's.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

That's a fantastic idea if applied both ways.  We certainly would not be as divided as we are now had we all been doing this for the past 20 years.

What? Don't you remember when the mainstream media published photos of children being held in cages during the Obama presidency?

Oh right, they weren't published until Trump was president, and Trump was blamed for the actions during the Obama years

Briefly, until the mistake was noted and retractions were made. That mistake did not mean they are not kept in cages now.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

What? Don't you remember when the mainstream media published photos of children being held in cages during the Obama presidency?

Oh right, they weren't published until Trump was president, and Trump was blamed for the actions during the Obama years.

Exactly why I love RJ's proposal.  If one is honest with oneself we'd all be Libertarian's by now, or at least no longer r's and d's.

Come on in, the water is fine!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

---

Did Obama hire an unregistered foreign agent as his campaign manager in this scenario? were prominent Ukrainian scholars and journalists blaming that campaign manager for their civil War?

You are not playing the game correctly.  But you knew that when you posted this.

I don't get invited to many parlors for games.  "You're so nice. I'm not good, I'm not nice, I'm just right." -Sondheim

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Telling Don McGahn to fire Mueller, for one. That's what got Nixon thrown out the door.

As for the rest, it's a series of actions that by themselves wouldn't merit more than a second glance. When put together and when they're surrounding an active investigation of the President, some of them start to look like intent to obstruct. Firing Comey isn't obstruction unless it was specifically because of the Russia investigation, and I've yet to see any proof that it was. The President telling the intelligence community to release statements supporting him, well, that's shady. Constantly attacking the people investigating you in a very public forum, well, that's also shady. If this were an isolated incident, that'd be one thing, but this is a President who, by the looks of things, was actively trying to interfere with an ongoing investigation of himself. I'm not going to jump on a table and shout impeachment because all we have here is a series of events that, like I said, taken out of context are just a President being a President (aside from ordering McGahn to fire Mueller, that's big). I will say that both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees should independently continue investigations solely along the obstruction path. I don't care what letter appears in parentheses after a President's name, if there's clear evidence that he was attempting to bring an end to an investigation of himself and his closest advisers, then there must be serious repercussions. We might as well not have a justice system if that is what happened and people aren't held accountable for it.

Telling who to fire Mueller? Mueller was under Sessions and Rosenstein, not Don McGahn or anybody else I've never heard of.

Asking for supporting evidence is shady? Asking to end an investigation that has no basis in fact is deserving of "serious repercussions"?

The rest of your statement is a real stretch. Are you suggesting that complaining about a false charge or the people claiming it is a crime? That would mean that every innocent defendant would be committing a crime by defending himself.

1. Being an idiot does not excuse Trump from telling his White House counsel to ensure the firing of the special counsel sent to investigate him.
2. He wasn't "asking for supporting evidence". He was asking intelligence community officials to put out statements saying that he was not linked to Russia.
3. Let's say I'm the King of France. Let's assume that I've been named as a person of interest in the burning of the Notre Dame because my own personal construction company stood to gain a massive contract for its rebuilding. I know that's ridiculous, and in fact it's a false allegation. If I go visit the lead inspector and tell him that I'd like him to "lift the cloud", isn't that interfering with the investigation? If I call my chief of staff and tell him to fire the lead inspector, how am I not obstructing that investigation? Obstruction is obstruction, regardless of whether there was actually a crime at the bottom of the rabbit hole.

The obstruction of justice side of things should be further explored. Nothing else that I've seen so far merits a second thought, but if a President tried to use his own power to short-circuit an investigation into himself, I don't know of a planet out there where that's not a problem.

---

Dear God, fools still aren't in denial over this are they?

It's finished.

The only thing left is reconciliation.

If you have animosity or anger, the productive use of it is to direct it towards those in the media and/or friends and family who lied to you the last two years.

The truth, on the other hand, shall set you free.

Reality can hit like a sledgehammer, if you stray from it too long.

It can come back with a vengeance, when accepted.

To continue to deny the truth, is a path to insanity.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Telling who to fire Mueller? Mueller was under Sessions and Rosenstein, not Don McGahn or anybody else I've never heard of.

Asking for supporting evidence is shady? Asking to end an investigation that has no basis in fact is deserving of "serious repercussions"?

The rest of your statement is a real stretch. Are you suggesting that complaining about a false charge or the people claiming it is a crime? That would mean that every innocent defendant would be committing a crime by defending himself.

1. Being an idiot does not excuse Trump from telling his White House counsel to ensure the firing of the special counsel sent to investigate him.
2. He wasn't "asking for supporting evidence". He was asking intelligence community officials to put out statements saying that he was not linked to Russia.
3. Let's say I'm the King of France. Let's assume that I've been named as a person of interest in the burning of the Notre Dame because my own personal construction company stood to gain a massive contract for its rebuilding. I know that's ridiculous, and in fact it's a false allegation. If I go visit the lead inspector and tell him that I'd like him to "lift the cloud", isn't that interfering with the investigation? If I call my chief of staff and tell him to fire the lead inspector, how am I not obstructing that investigation? Obstruction is obstruction, regardless of whether there was actually a crime at the bottom of the rabbit hole.

The obstruction of justice side of things should be further explored. Nothing else that I've seen so far merits a second thought, but if a President tried to use his own power to short-circuit an investigation into himself, I don't know of a planet out there where that's not a problem.

No.  That's not obstruction of justice.  Your not interfering with the investigation for a corrupt reason.  In order for a chief executive to obstruct justice he would have to order the destruction of evidence or perjury, not exercise his article 2 constitutional authority as the head of the executive branch.  Firing Mueller would have been a political misstep but not criminal conspiracy.

Moreover, the special counsel was illegal to start with.  The appointing officer (Rod Rosenstein) would be a material witness to any investigation of obstruction of justice (because of his direct involvement in firing comey).  That means he would have had to resign (not just recuse because I don't think anyone at doj had another senate confirmed position with authority to appoint special counsel) and let the next person review the fact pattern.  The special counsel was ineligible because the day before his appointment he was rejected by Trump for his old job as FBI director.  The probe should have been ended before we started torturing potential witnesses for them to flip on the president.

---

1. Being an idiot does not excuse Trump from telling his White House counsel to ensure the firing of the special counsel sent to investigate him.
2. He wasn't "asking for supporting evidence". He was asking intelligence community officials to put out statements saying that he was not linked to Russia.
3. Let's say I'm the King of France. Let's assume that I've been named as a person of interest in the burning of the Notre Dame because my own personal construction company stood to gain a massive contract for its rebuilding. I know that's ridiculous, and in fact it's a false allegation. If I go visit the lead inspector and tell him that I'd like him to "lift the cloud", isn't that interfering with the investigation? If I call my chief of staff and tell him to fire the lead inspector, how am I not obstructing that investigation? Obstruction is obstruction, regardless of whether there was actually a crime at the bottom of the rabbit hole.

The obstruction of justice side of things should be further explored. Nothing else that I've seen so far merits a second thought, but if a President tried to use his own power to short-circuit an investigation into himself, I don't know of a planet out there where that's not a problem.

No.  That's not obstruction of justice.  Your not interfering with the investigation for a corrupt reason.  In order for a chief executive to obstruct justice he would have to order the destruction of evidence or perjury, not exercise his article 2 constitutional authority as the head of the executive branch.  Firing Mueller would have been a political misstep but not criminal conspiracy.

Moreover, the special counsel was illegal to start with.  The appointing officer (Rod Rosenstein) would be a material witness to any investigation of obstruction of justice (because of his direct involvement in firing comey).  That means he would have had to resign (not just recuse because I don't think anyone at doj had another senate confirmed position with authority to appoint special counsel) and let the next person review the fact pattern.  The special counsel was ineligible because the day before his appointment he was rejected by Trump for his old job as FBI director.  The probe should have been ended before we started torturing potential witnesses for them to flip on the president.

LukeSkywalkerAmazingEverythingYouJustSaidisWrong.gif
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
"The President is not above the Law."

---

Dear God, fools still aren't in denial over this are they?

It's finished.

The only thing left is reconciliation.

If you have animosity or anger, the productive use of it is to direct it towards those in the media and/or friends and family who lied to you the last two years.

The truth, on the other hand, shall set you free.

Reality can hit like a sledgehammer, if you stray from it too long.

It can come back with a vengeance, when accepted.

To continue to deny the truth, is a path to insanity.

No one should expect to get more reconciliation than they give. 
Folks in this country are still mad about Vietnam.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Dear God, fools still aren't in denial over this are they?

It's finished.

The only thing left is reconciliation.

If you have animosity or anger, the productive use of it is to direct it towards those in the media and/or friends and family who lied to you the last two years.

The truth, on the other hand, shall set you free.

Reality can hit like a sledgehammer, if you stray from it too long.

It can come back with a vengeance, when accepted.

To continue to deny the truth, is a path to insanity.

Thank you Joel Osteen

---