towermonkey wrote: Trump is in charge of the Executive branch and the DoJ. If he wanted Mueller fires, he could have fired him. At any time. He didn’t. Trying to criminalize thought is stupid but who is surprised?
Are you posting from an alternate reality in which the idiot king didn't tell McGahn to fire Mueller?
towermonkey wrote: Trump is in charge of the Executive branch and the DoJ. If he wanted Mueller fires, he could have fired him. At any time. He didn’t. Trying to criminalize thought is stupid but who is surprised?
100% accurate but some people can't handle the truth. Trump had the authority to fire that POS Comey and the left flipped out and said that was obstruction, so Trump learned how to play their stupid game.
But again, Brandon and the rest of the left won't say that Hillary should be charged with real obstruction of justice because that's how hypocrites work.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
The question isn't whether the idiot king could have fired Mueller, it's if doing so would have been obstruction of justice. That's the whole rule of law and not of men concept that the sheep don't understand. Not only did the idiot king tell McGahn to fire Mueller, but he refused to be interviewed and gave written responses that were inadequate. So, no, he did not fully cooperate with the investigation.
Oh, interesting. So Mueller was fired? I somehow missed that. Giving written responses was the only way to avoid the Mueller/ Weissman perjury trap they were trying to set. Those scumbags are famous for it-entrapping innocent people by tripping them up over some stupid detail half remembered.
Damn, son. The question was whether or not the idiot king fully cooperated with Mueller. The answer is no, partially because he attempted to have him fired by one of his many former minions.
Brandon wrote: Damn, son. The question was whether or not the idiot king fully cooperated with Mueller. The answer is no, partially because he attempted to have him fired by one of his many former minions.
Did you get this news from the same sources that have been peddling the collusion falsehood for the last few years? The OP was asking who can you trust and you fell hook, line, and sinker for the Putin is a puppet master to Trump and they worked together to defeat Hillary Clinton. Fooled again.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
LOL, a perjury trap. You know how to avoid that? It's really easy - you tell the truth. Something Trump has a really hard time with,
we know (10,000 in 2 years, sad), but it's how it works.
No, he has not cooperated with the investigation. As detailed in the SCO's report, thanks to several people they interviewed either lying to them (Manafort) or refusing to turn over documentation, they said that they were unable to conclude their investigation fully. Trump is suing our Congress to avoid having his taxes released (which I will remind you that every other president for several decades back has released). He's told his staff to ignore subpoenas.
Yeah, that's cooperation.
Tell me, how would you feel if Bill Clinton had pulled this crap during the investigation into him? I seem to recall people having a cow when he met with Loretta Lynch on a tarmac, yet it's okay for Trump to ask his lawyer to fire the man investigating him? Sure, he may be a DOJ employee, but do y'all not know the Watergate historyat all?
www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hous...impeachment-of-nixon
Or do you think Nixon was framed and he was innocent?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
ScienceChic wrote: LOL, a perjury trap. You know how to avoid that? It's really easy - you tell the truth. Something Trump has a really hard time with,
we know (10,000 in 2 years, sad), but it's how it works.
No, he has not cooperated with the investigation. As detailed in the SCO's report, thanks to several people they interviewed either lying to them (Manafort) or refusing to turn over documentation, they said that they were unable to conclude their investigation fully. Trump is suing our Congress to avoid having his taxes released (which I will remind you that every other president for several decades back has released). He's told his staff to ignore subpoenas.
Yeah, that's cooperation.
Tell me, how would you feel if Bill Clinton had pulled this crap during the investigation into him? I seem to recall people having a cow when he met with Loretta Lynch on a tarmac, yet it's okay for Trump to ask his lawyer to fire the man investigating him? Sure, he may be a DOJ employee, but do y'all not know the Watergate historyat all?
www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hous...impeachment-of-nixon
Or do you think Nixon was framed and he was innocent?
If you really believe that about a perjury trap, you have't paid any attention to the long list of cases between Mueller and Weismann that are, at best, questionable and at worst serious abuses. Perjury traps and suppression of exculpatory information are their specialties. (and no Brandon, I will not do your homework for you)