Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Doubt many of them even realize the difference anymore.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Your norm busting president sets new precedents every day.

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Doubt many of them even realize the difference anymore.

---

Agreed. I think the emotion of pure hatred overrides rationality for most.

If they wanted the real answer they just have to ask ONE question of Mueller:

Was there enough evidence to indict Trump if it was constitutionally permitted to indict a sitting president?
It's that simple. It's a yes or no question. If he can't answer yes to that question then the answer is no.

The fact of the matter is that his job was to make a determination: the fact that he could not make a determination means that there wasn't enough evidence.

Obstructing an investigation that finds no evidence of any crime is also a pretty rich allegation. Especially when the obstruction allegations are actions that were never taken nor followed up on.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi

TMWISH said:

---

Mueller isn't saying he is guilty. He is saying he has evidence a crime was committed, but he cannot indict a sitting president. We cannot know he is guilty unless he has a trial.

---

Then why doesn't he just say that?

JXL said:

---

TMWISH said:

---

Mueller isn't saying he is guilty. He is saying he has evidence a crime was committed, but he cannot indict a sitting president. We cannot know he is guilty unless he has a trial.

---

Then why doesn't he just say that?

---

He said he couldn't per department policy.

TMWISH said:

---

I usually just browse, but I started commenting because damn the lies about this need to stop. I am flatly embarrassed BU alums are so easily taken in by propaganda like Barrs summary when an actual conservative who has nothing to gain is telling you what he found.

---

Preach it brother

tommie said:

---

JXL said:

---

TMWISH said:

---

Mueller isn't saying he is guilty. He is saying he has evidence a crime was committed, but he cannot indict a sitting president. We cannot know he is guilty unless he has a trial.

---

Then why doesn't he just say that?

---

He said he couldn't per department policy.

---

That, and that it's not fair to accuse somebody outside a forum where they cannot mount a defense. The ball is in Congress' court and the political makeup of the Senate means the House is unlikely to even start.

Let's go Democrats! Mueller said to impeach. Let's do this!!! Let's get this circus started for all the world to see. Popcorn ready!

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

Then just do it! Start the impeachment proceedings. **** or get off the pot!

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

There was no legal basis for his lack of position on obstruction. Trump did not commit a crime, or he would have said he did, just like he did with collusion/conspiracy. Trumps actions during the investigation were sometimes questionable because there was no underlying crime and he was frustrated and Mueller outlines that in such a manner as to make a case for impeachment because there was no legal guilt of obstruction. According to the DOJ rules "the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel." Mueller did not do that. He violated that standard plain and simple on obstruction. Secondly, he told Barr and two others the the OLC rule that says you can not indict a president was not the reason he didn't make a decision. Then, in his speech he said otherwise. Then, right after his speech, his office made a statement saying Barr's memo and understand was correct. So which is it?!? He played politics sadly

The evidence used to start the investigation and obtain FISA warrants was tainted (paid for by dems, supplied by Russia) the IC knew it was and still used it, lying to FISA courts. Much of this will be revealed in the near future stay tuned.

Because of the tainted evidence and falsified warrants, Mueller had to play by the book. Mueller knew the investigation into Russia collusion was garbage when he started, he could not generate evidence, the investigation was dirty enough, so he expanded the scope very wide hoping to stumble upon something. With an army of partisan democrat lawyers poking through every aspect of Trumps life nothing could be found on Trump himself, no collusion with Russia, no campaign violations, nothing. Those caught up in Muller's net were for crimes committed years ago and totally unrelated to Trump, the hope was someone, anyone would at least LIE and testify under pressure.. They targeted who they felt were weak links; Manafort, Cohen, etc.. Cohen tried to save himself, but nothing was there, all lies.

In short; Mueller did not accuse Trump of anything because it would have been shot full of holes very quickly by Trumps lawyers. Furthermore, Trump knew he did nothing wrong that is why he continued his brazen tweets. His concern with the investigation was not wrongdoing rather how it would impact his ability to perform his duties as President.

I suggest you read up on the origination's of the dossier used to obtain FISA warrants, used to start the Mueller investigation and make your own decision, or just stay tuned because it will all be declassified soon and the truth will be known to all Americans. A coup was organized against an elected President by the IC including Obama, it failed, it will be exposed. Those responsible will probably never face trial because the law of the land is selectively applied; Clinton server investigation reclassified as poor judgement, Jussie clearly enough evidence for trial, yet all charges dropped after an Obama aid call to the Chicago DA, meanwhile FBI and CNN raid Roger Stone's house with swat and helicopters at 4AM...

Hell of a slip...

HuMcK said:

---

Hell of a slip...

---

You know that was a slip and he didn't mean it that way.

But please tell us how Russia elected Trump? Did they make Hillary the dumbest most corrupt candidate in history?

tommie said:

---

JXL said:

---

TMWISH said:

---

Mueller isn't saying he is guilty. He is saying he has evidence a crime was committed, but he cannot indict a sitting president. We cannot know he is guilty unless he has a trial.

---

Then why doesn't he just say that?

---

He said he couldn't per department policy.

---

Which was a lie.

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

Mueller was just riding the gravy train

Sam Lowry said:

---

tommie said:

---

JXL said:

---

TMWISH said:

---

Mueller isn't saying he is guilty. He is saying he has evidence a crime was committed, but he cannot indict a sitting president. We cannot know he is guilty unless he has a trial.

---

Then why doesn't he just say that?

---

He said he couldn't per department policy.

---

Which was a lie.

---

More to the point, it contradicted statements Mueller made in front of multiple witnesses.

Trump is winning. The left had to trot out Mueller to keep the impeachment fire burning because Pelosi attempted to stamp it out and most money to the democrats is coming in from the extreme left. If the House dems impeach resulting in Republicans winning back the House and/or when the declassified FISA materials see daylight implicating corruption at the highest levels of the Obama administration....either way it's a big win for Trump. Mueller was their last pathetic stand.

they never run out of cockroaches ...

This entire fraud summed up in a simple story:

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

---

There wasn't a need to obstruct in the first place. Trump had plenty of excellent reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with Russian boogeymen. Essentially what we are aiming for is to legalize "obstruction" that isn't obstruction (which is already legal in cases that don't involve POTUS).

Humck...it's game over buddy.

You're done. The resistance has lost. There will be no removal of the President. Impeach only helps him.

Now pay attention to the investigation of the investigators.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/30/mueller-ruins-hannitys-parade-deception/?utm_term=.fc80b4040bca&wpisrc=nl_popns_05232019_t&wpmm=1

On Wednesday night, Fox News host Sean Hannity savaged special counsel Robert S. Mueller III for his statement earlier in the day on the findings of his nearly two-year investigation. "Now, today, he officially resigned from the Office of Special Counsel but not before showing the world, of course, what we already know on this program, his partisan hackery true colors, if you will," said Hannity, in his typical spitfire delivery.

That particular attack from Hannity appears to stem from a specific comment of Mueller's: Referring to a legal opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Mueller explained how his team handled findings about Trump's possible obstruction of justice. "The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," said Mueller. Quite a few people have interpreted that statement as an endorsement of congressional impeachment proceedings.

"You have career bureaucrat, nothing more than a Trump-hating partisan, who is now all but cheering for impeachment based on nothing," said Hannity of Mueller, a Republican.

Another pointed remark from the special counsel also appeared to irk the Fox News host: "If we had had the confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not however make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime," said Mueller on Wednesday. Riffing and ripping, Hannity decided to assert his all-encompassing expertise and wisdom: "Number one, Mr. Mueller doesn't know the law. He's basically full of crap, and the special counsel's regulations, they are very clear," said Hannity.

Guest Alan Dershowitz also opined on Mueller's we-would-have-said-so remark. "That was absolutely inappropriate for him to say," said the Harvard Law professor.

Thing is, Mueller had already said as much in his report, which hit the public realm more than a month before his statement. Here's the relevant passage from Volume II of the report: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment." As far as the supposed incitement to impeachment, the Mueller report had already cited the OLC opinion.

And yet! When Mueller's report was released (with redactions) on April 18, Hannity went on air with these words, among many others: "We begin tonight with a Fox News alert. The witch hunt is officially over. The Mueller report is out. And the president of the United States has been totally and completely vindicated," said Hannity on that night. More: "Tonight, thankfully, for the sake of this country, truth has prevailed. As the president's attorneys put it, quote: This vindication of the president is an important step forward for the country and a strong reminder that this type of abuse must never be permitted to occur again."

The "truth" that prevailed in the Mueller report on April 18, of course, is the same "truth" that prevailed in Mueller's Wednesday appearance. As the special counsel stated, his report is his testimony; if he were forced to testify before Congress, he would not say anything that went beyond his written findings. Which is to say, the quotes that so angered Hannity and his guests on Wednesday have been part of the public record for nearly five weeks.

So what happened? Television happened: Mueller stood before the cameras and summarized his findings. The affair was covered by every media outlet of consequence. It was such an event that the major cable news networks speculated about it for more than an hour before it happened. They couldn't talk about anything else, even though it hadn't even happened yet.

This very spectacle the special counsel, in his first public remarks on the investigation forced Hannity and many others to reckon with the Mueller team's actual findings. As opposed to the findings that Hannity had been announcing to his viewers in the intervening weeks:

• On May 2: "The witch hunt is done. Mueller has gone home. No collusion, no obstruction."
• On May 22: "We now have four separate investigations that have all cleared President Trump of the spurious charges leveled against him and his campaign. No collusion, fact. No obstruction, fact."
• On May 27: "Now, the truth has been laid bare for all to see. No collusion. No obstruction. No truth to the lies that have been peddled daily."

Folks who place trust in Hannity and there are many might have been confused, accordingly, upon hearing Mueller state, "If we had had the confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." So Hannity had to reassure his fans: Mueller doesn't know what he's talking about.

Some other precincts of Fox News reported honestly on Mueller's appearance, including anchor Bret Baier and judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano. As Quinta Jurecic notes in the Atlantic, however, the news value of Wednesday lay not in the information which has been around for weeks but rather in the step taken by Mueller to highlight it.

Propagating misinformation, as it turns out, is a complicated business. To properly air the "no collusion" mantra, Hannity has to hype the Mueller probe's investigative thoroughness. To properly air the "no obstruction" mantra, Hannity must simultaneously aver that Mueller is "basically full of crap." It's one of the luxuries of Hannity's bubbled existence at Fox News that he will never be forced to choose between the two.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

---

There wasn't a need to obstruct in the first place. Trump had plenty of excellent reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with Russian boogeymen. Essentially what we are aiming for is to legalize "obstruction" that isn't obstruction (which is already legal in cases that don't involve POTUS).

---

You sure about that? Mueller thinks otherwise.

Mueller's report, Part 2, pg 76: "[E]vidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

---

There wasn't a need to obstruct in the first place. Trump had plenty of excellent reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with Russian boogeymen. Essentially what we are aiming for is to legalize "obstruction" that isn't obstruction (which is already legal in cases that don't involve POTUS).

---

You sure about that? Mueller thinks otherwise.

Mueller's report, Part 2, pg 76: "[E]vidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."

---

1. Because a sitting President cannot be referred or determined to have have committed criminal acts by the DOJ or anyone in the Executive Branch. Trump is their boss DOJ is simply unable to proceed down any criminal determination regards POTUS.It's legally impossible and unconstitutional for them to do so.

2. Whichever way you slice the Obstruction case it could only ever be resolved by Congress (ie impeachment). The fact that DOJ ever involved itself in the Obstruction case at all is something that will be dealt with in another forum see 3. below. So, let me repeat the case of Trump obstructing justice can only ever be pursued by congress.

3. Which brings us to the person commencing the Obstruction case against POTUS Trump Andy McCabe. McCabe has knowingly caused a Constitutional crisis by his actions in commencing the obstruction case. Look at the 2 years of secrecy impeding the actions of the President and the wholly unsatisfactory resolution to Muellers report. It all lies at the feet of Andy McCabe.

4. If Congress holds impeachment hearings Trump gets to table millions of pages of evidence proving the basis of Mueller's report is false and fake intel that was criminally injected into the US Intel and FBI. Trump also tables evidence that many of those in Congress currently hearing the Impeachment know the evidence is false.

Checkmate!
Bring on impeachment I say.

That statement only proves the political bias of Mueller's report.

His job was to interview witnesses, examine evidence, and provide a report based on that evidence and testimony.

Guesswork and assumptions about what additional investigation might produce is completely out of line for an investigator.

And if the subject had been President Obama instead of President Trump, you'd be the first here to say so.

Quote:

---

While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it.

We are investigating you for robbing the Chase bank on 5th and Main. Our investigation later determined the bank was never robbed, however we are charging you with obstruction of justice for denying you robbed the bank.


-The Deep State

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great lefties... let's set another new precedent that subjective interpretations are equivalent to strong statements or facts which is what every single one of you is doing.

---

Do you even understand or care what kind of precedent you're advocating for?

The Republican view right now is seemingly that A) obstruction of an investigation by POTUS is not a crime "if he believes he did nothing wrong", as if every criminal ever doesn't proclaim "I didn't do it", B) since POTUS cannot be charged he also should not ever be investigated, and a little bit of C) any investigation of Trump by persons other than loyal Republicans (even though Mueller and Comey were Republicans...) is inherently invalid and possibly a crime against the State.

I swear, Trump supporters seem to spend a majority of their time and energy arguing for why laws shouldn't apply to Trump for various reasons. Sometimes I wish y'all would just cut through the bull and admit that what you really want is a King Trump that stands above the law.

---

That is not the Republican view. Some actions, like lying to investigators, are inherently wrong. Others, like firing an FBI director, are perfectly legitimate in themselves. If you want to build an obstruction case on the latter sort of conduct, that's when there needs to be some validity to the underlying allegations.

---

Firing Comey is one thing, asking him to lay off investigating someone and then firing him after he didn't comply is something else. Dangling pardons to buy the silence of a witness (which apparently was successful as pertains to Manafort, and less so with Flynn) is also potentially an obstructive act. Ordering minions to "take control" of an investigation that threatens his interests is also extremely questionable.

Essentially what y'all are aiming for is to legalize obstruction that is successful. With this brand new standard where you have to prove an underlying crime to charge obstruction (which DoJ is currently not adhering to in cases that don't involve POTUS btw), there is almost no downside to obstructing investigations as long as you make sure it can't find what it was looking for. Nevermind that there shouldn't even be a need to obstruct in the first place is one truly believed there isn't any wrongdoing to find...

---

There wasn't a need to obstruct in the first place. Trump had plenty of excellent reasons to fire Comey that had nothing to do with Russian boogeymen. Essentially what we are aiming for is to legalize "obstruction" that isn't obstruction (which is already legal in cases that don't involve POTUS).

---

You sure about that? Mueller thinks otherwise.

Mueller's report, Part 2, pg 76: "[E]vidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns."

---

It's impossible to say what Mueller thinks based on a sentence as vague and speculative as that one. His job wasn't to publish 200 pages of innuendo. If he thought the evidence supported an obstruction charge, he should have said so.