Trump tried to fire Mueller in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The man made a career out of firing people. Is it any wonder he would talk about it? Fact: He did not fire him. Nothing else matters related to this discussion. He was not forced not to fire him. He could have fired him if he wanted to. It would have been a serious mistake, but he could have done it.

The man is bad at firing people. He's known to be terrible at it. McGahn seems to have known this, too.

But generally, yes, attempt is considered to be just as bad as the crime.

If you are thinking about firing an employee, should you be fired for considering it?
If you are thinking about speeding, should you get a ticket for contemplating it?

He didn't "think" about it. He actually ordered it and the WH Counsel refused the order.

[Anonymous]

If you are thinking about firing an employee, should you be fired for considering it?
If you are thinking about speeding, should you get a ticket for contemplating it?

No, of course not. Thinking a bad thought is not a crime. But the law says that when you ACT on that thought, you are committing a crime, even if you don’t succeed in completing what you attempted. Examples ...

If you think about killing someone, no crime. But if you fire the bullet, that’s a crime even if you miss.

If you think about robbing a bank, no crime. But if you show up with a mask, a gun, and a getaway car, that’s a crime even if you’re arrested at the door.

If you want to kill your boss, no crime. But if you hire a hitman, that’s a crime even if the hitman refuses to pull the trigger.

If you want to disrupt a FBI investigation, no crime. But if order your employee to fire the head of the investigation, that’s a crime even if the employee refuses to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The man made a career out of firing people. Is it any wonder he would talk about it? Fact: He did not fire him. Nothing else matters related to this discussion. He was not forced not to fire him. He could have fired him if he wanted to. It would have been a serious mistake, but he could have done it.

The man is bad at firing people. He's known to be terrible at it. McGahn seems to have known this, too.

But generally, yes, attempt is considered to be just as bad as the crime.

If you are thinking about firing an employee, should you be fired for considering it?
If you are thinking about speeding, should you get a ticket for contemplating it?

He didn't "think" about it. He actually ordered it and the WH Counsel refused the order.

That is what 'sources' are saying. In fact, there is no proof of that. That's been the problem all along with liberal accusations. There is no proof then you all get so disappointed that there is no legal action on rumor. Meanwhile, there are texts from FBI agents naming names that you all dismiss as lies, and focus on spy novel fiction.

DCUM is not a court of law. Sources say that Mueller has known all of this for months.

Why do you think he wants to talk to Trump? Not just a perjury trap because Trump is incapable of speaking without lying, but because there were crimes committed. And the accused should get a chance to speak.

Your answer lies there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you are thinking about firing an employee, should you be fired for considering it?
If you are thinking about speeding, should you get a ticket for contemplating it?

No, of course not. Thinking a bad thought is not a crime. But the law says that when you ACT on that thought, you are committing a crime, even if you don’t succeed in completing what you attempted. Examples ...

If you think about killing someone, no crime. But if you fire the bullet, that’s a crime even if you miss.

If you think about robbing a bank, no crime. But if you show up with a mask, a gun, and a getaway car, that’s a crime even if you’re arrested at the door.

If you want to kill your boss, no crime. But if you hire a hitman, that’s a crime even if the hitman refuses to pull the trigger.

If you want to disrupt a FBI investigation, no crime. But if order your employee to fire the head of the investigation, that’s a crime even if the employee refuses to do it.

Not if the person has firing power and the employee 'ordered' says not a good idea because it would smell bad politically, even if it's the right thing to do, and the person agrees.

You are comparing attempts at actual crimes - hiring a hit man, showing up to rob a bank, and firing a bullet at someone - with something the President has the legal right to do.

Per fact-check:

Q: Can President Donald Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?

A: Not directly. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the DAG, or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The man made a career out of firing people. Is it any wonder he would talk about it? Fact: He did not fire him. Nothing else matters related to this discussion. He was not forced not to fire him. He could have fired him if he wanted to. It would have been a serious mistake, but he could have done it.

The man is bad at firing people. He's known to be terrible at it. McGahn seems to have known this, too.

But generally, yes, attempt is considered to be just as bad as the crime.

If you are thinking about firing an employee, should you be fired for considering it?
If you are thinking about speeding, should you get a ticket for contemplating it?

He didn't "think" about it. He actually ordered it and the WH Counsel refused the order.

Well duh...Trump doesn’t think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you are thinking about firing an employee, should you be fired for considering it?
If you are thinking about speeding, should you get a ticket for contemplating it?

No, of course not. Thinking a bad thought is not a crime. But the law says that when you ACT on that thought, you are committing a crime, even if you don’t succeed in completing what you attempted. Examples ...

If you think about killing someone, no crime. But if you fire the bullet, that’s a crime even if you miss.

If you think about robbing a bank, no crime. But if you show up with a mask, a gun, and a getaway car, that’s a crime even if you’re arrested at the door.

If you want to kill your boss, no crime. But if you hire a hitman, that’s a crime even if the hitman refuses to pull the trigger.

If you want to disrupt a FBI investigation, no crime. But if order your employee to fire the head of the investigation, that’s a crime even if the employee refuses to do it.

Not if the person has firing power and the employee 'ordered' says not a good idea because it would smell bad politically, even if it's the right thing to do, and the person agrees.

You are comparing attempts at actual crimes - hiring a hit man, showing up to rob a bank, and firing a bullet at someone - with something the President has the legal right to do.

Per fact-check:

Q: Can President Donald Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?

A: Not directly. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the DAG, or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself.

Been watching Judge Judy again?

[Anonymous]

Per fact-check:
Q: Can President Donald Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?
A: Not directly. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the DAG, or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself.

Let's make sure your views on this are crystal clear. Let's pretend Mueller finds Trump's secret video diary, where Trump says ... "Hi Diary, it's Donald. I'm getting worried now that Mueller is getting close to figuring some of the criminal activity I've been involved in over the years, so I need to figure out a way to block his investigation. I'll start by getting Don McGahn and Jeff Sessions to just fire Mueller. If that doesn't work, I'll take more direct action. I just need to stop that investigation!" A FBI forensics team verifies beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's really Trump on the video.

In that completely over-the-top situation, would you STILL say there's no crime in firing Mueller because Trump has an absolute right to fire the Special Counsel?

I'm just trying to figure out if you think there are any limits at all. Can you give a straight answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Per fact-check:
Q: Can President Donald Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?
A: Not directly. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the DAG, or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself.

Let's make sure your views on this are crystal clear. Let's pretend Mueller finds Trump's secret video diary, where Trump says ... "Hi Diary, it's Donald. I'm getting worried now that Mueller is getting close to figuring some of the criminal activity I've been involved in over the years, so I need to figure out a way to block his investigation. I'll start by getting Don McGahn and Jeff Sessions to just fire Mueller. If that doesn't work, I'll take more direct action. I just need to stop that investigation!" A FBI forensics team verifies beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's really Trump on the video.

In that completely over-the-top situation, would you STILL say there's no crime in firing Mueller because Trump has an absolute right to fire the Special Counsel?

I'm just trying to figure out if you think there are any limits at all. Can you give a straight answer?

We don’t have to pretend. We found Strzok and Page’s secret diary and the truth is ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Per fact-check:
Q: Can President Donald Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?
A: Not directly. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the DAG, or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself.

Let's make sure your views on this are crystal clear. Let's pretend Mueller finds Trump's secret video diary, where Trump says ... "Hi Diary, it's Donald. I'm getting worried now that Mueller is getting close to figuring some of the criminal activity I've been involved in over the years, so I need to figure out a way to block his investigation. I'll start by getting Don McGahn and Jeff Sessions to just fire Mueller. If that doesn't work, I'll take more direct action. I just need to stop that investigation!" A FBI forensics team verifies beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's really Trump on the video.

In that completely over-the-top situation, would you STILL say there's no crime in firing Mueller because Trump has an absolute right to fire the Special Counsel?

I'm just trying to figure out if you think there are any limits at all. Can you give a straight answer?

We don’t have to pretend. We found Strzok and Page’s secret diary and the truth is ugly.

I dunno. I'm a lawyer and we're trained not to put our notes into files, because just about any notes will be used against you. That also includes texts, of course, but texts are not usually a worry about ending up in a file.

I think you're making a bit much of a bunch of stupid texts. Not everyone is as professional or as smart as they could be -- that doesn't somehow negate their investigations or other investigations.

[Anonymous]

Where’s that straight answer???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where’s that straight answer???

The question was a made up fantasy and you expect a straight answer to fantasy? Give me fact and you'll get a straight answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Per fact-check:
Q: Can President Donald Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?
A: Not directly. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the DAG, or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself.

Let's make sure your views on this are crystal clear. Let's pretend Mueller finds Trump's secret video diary, where Trump says ... "Hi Diary, it's Donald. I'm getting worried now that Mueller is getting close to figuring some of the criminal activity I've been involved in over the years, so I need to figure out a way to block his investigation. I'll start by getting Don McGahn and Jeff Sessions to just fire Mueller. If that doesn't work, I'll take more direct action. I just need to stop that investigation!" A FBI forensics team verifies beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's really Trump on the video.

In that completely over-the-top situation, would you STILL say there's no crime in firing Mueller because Trump has an absolute right to fire the Special Counsel?

I'm just trying to figure out if you think there are any limits at all. Can you give a straight answer?

We don’t have to pretend. We found Strzok and Page’s secret diary and the truth is ugly.

I dunno. I'm a lawyer and we're trained not to put our notes into files, because just about any notes will be used against you. That also includes texts, of course, but texts are not usually a worry about ending up in a file.

I think you're making a bit much of a bunch of stupid texts. Not everyone is as professional or as smart as they could be -- that doesn't somehow negate their investigations or other investigations.

They are not just a bunch of 'stupid texts'. They name names and talk of how they manipulated their own investigations to favor one Presidential candidate over another, amongst other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s that straight answer???

The question was a made up fantasy and you expect a straight answer to fantasy? Give me fact and you'll get a straight answer.

Yeah, it's made up fantasy because I don't want to bicker with you over facts. We both know there's no video diary. But even if there were, you'd still say it's not enough, wouldn't you?

[Anonymous]

Lock him up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Per fact-check:
Q: Can President Donald Trump fire special counsel Robert Mueller?
A: Not directly. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the DAG, or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself.

Let's make sure your views on this are crystal clear. Let's pretend Mueller finds Trump's secret video diary, where Trump says ... "Hi Diary, it's Donald. I'm getting worried now that Mueller is getting close to figuring some of the criminal activity I've been involved in over the years, so I need to figure out a way to block his investigation. I'll start by getting Don McGahn and Jeff Sessions to just fire Mueller. If that doesn't work, I'll take more direct action. I just need to stop that investigation!" A FBI forensics team verifies beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's really Trump on the video.

In that completely over-the-top situation, would you STILL say there's no crime in firing Mueller because Trump has an absolute right to fire the Special Counsel?

I'm just trying to figure out if you think there are any limits at all. Can you give a straight answer?

We don’t have to pretend. We found Strzok and Page’s secret diary and the truth is ugly.

I dunno. I'm a lawyer and we're trained not to put our notes into files, because just about any notes will be used against you. That also includes texts, of course, but texts are not usually a worry about ending up in a file.

I think you're making a bit much of a bunch of stupid texts. Not everyone is as professional or as smart as they could be -- that doesn't somehow negate their investigations or other investigations.

They are not just a bunch of 'stupid texts'. They name names and talk of how they manipulated their own investigations to favor one Presidential candidate over another, amongst other things.

No, it has not been proven that they contain any such thing. They contain snarky comments and jokes like the "secret society" and the names they name and direct their contempt at also include Eric Holder, the Clintons and Bernie Sanders which pretty much torpedos the whole partisanship angle.