Read very carefully!!!

If law enforcement is conducting an investigation as to wether are not a crime occurred, is occurring or is going to occur

And you attempt to interfere with the purpose of obstruction. That’s a F**KING CRIME!!!!!

The moment Trumped asked his man to have Mueller fired he was committing a crime. He attempted to obstruct justice

And it doesn’t matter he failed

If I tried but failed to rob a bank it’s still a crime.

Grow up

You are still wrong.

"The moment Trumped asked his man to have Mueller fired he was committing a crime. He attempted to obstruct justice"

Obviously, this is incorrect otherwise Mueller would have indicted him for obstruction. He didn't charge him because without context the act of speaking about something you are legally allowed to do is not itself a crime. Read the report for what Mueller said about this.

Trump as Chief Executive has the legal right to fire anybody in the Executive Branch, with or without cause, which includes the DOJ. That is why Congress was trying to pass a bill to protect Mueller from being fired. Trump could have fired him and it would not be obstruction unless you could prove his intent was to obstruct.

You TRYING to rob a bank implies action, and failing to do so implies incompetence.

More spin. He couldn’t legally indict a seating Potus and you are either to stupid to know that or you are intentionally ignoring it.

Pick one.

That’s why he handed it off to Congress. If Congress has the votes they can impeach him.

But have no fear. Your Golden Calf is safe because he’s always been apart of the swamp

I again disagree.

As far as I can find from my research, there is no law saying you can't indict a sitting POTUS. I know there are people who say there is a precedent, but I can find no place that says you can't legally. In fact, on page 180 of Part B of the report, Mueller even states that "no person is so high as to be above the law"

If Mueller felt there was sufficient evidence, and he didn't want to indite, he could have at least said he found conclusive evidence of obstruction. Instead, he said on page 182, "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards we are unable to reach that judgment." meaning that there is probably more than a reasonable doubt that Trump committed obstruction.

So by all standards, Trump is innocent of obstruction unless and until he is charged and found guilty, which I doubt will happen.

As far as impeachment, I doubt the Dems are that stupid. They know the Senate would not prosecute, and they may not even get the votes needed in the House. Since they are already taking the heat on the whole Russa hoax thing already, it would be political suicide in the upcoming elections. The general public is tired of this whole witch-hunt.

Well I can agree with that last part. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Public opinion? That’s 100% different and? The moment I read Trump was instructing people to obstruct justice on his behalf. He was guilty in my opinion.

It’s also my view the same corruption that saved Hillary is saving Trump.

F**k Americas Utterly and non repairable corrupt political system. I don’t know of a single politician or POTUS I would piss on to put out the fire.

I have a massive humor that includes dark humor and I’m having a blast watching this country destroy itself. Why shouldn’t I? It’s what they want.

In closing maybe if you after you did some deep research into Trumps whole life you’d realize he’s just another pos like all the rest.

You grow up and join the real world .

You enjoy your self imposed ignorance bye bye snowflake

Never-Trumpers are morons

Yes, because he smashed phones with hammers and deleted 10's of thousands of subpoenaed emails... Oh wait, that was Hillary, Trump gave them everything they asked for.

I know of you. Tell me? Could you actually talk about Trump with whataboutisms?

Because while Hillary is a c**t who should have at least been charged and stood trial.

That doesn’t exonerate Trumps wrong doings.

But I’m clearly talking to someone who thinks two wrongs make a right.

Trump is actually correct in that under the law, as President, he COULD legally have fired everybody without cause. That may or may not have been seen as obstruction. However he didn't, he let the witch-hunt proceed. No obstruction if you don't do anything to obstruct.

How many time have you thought or said you would like to kill someone, but didn't. Should you then be accused of murder? You can't prosecute somebody for what they think but don't act on.

Plus, how do you obstruct an investigation into a crime when no crime was committed, and the basis for the investigation was a hoax, to begin with.

Wrong again. He didn’t allow anything.

Those he attempted to have do his dirty illegal work in a very nice way to him to pound sound.

It’s the F report. Try reading it

Actually, I have read the whole report.

Whether he asked people to do anything or not, is really irrelevant. He could have been asking for advice and they talked him out of it, who knows. Without action being taken, you would have to prove intent, and since nobody is a mind reader, that is difficult at best. Which is why Mueller said in the report he could not charge him.

The only facts we have is that he did not stop the investigation and he publicly said he would not stop it. There is substantially less evidence that he committed a crime then there was when Comey let Hillary go, especially since this whole investigation was predicated on a hoax and no underlying crime was actually committed.

In Hillary's case, a crime was committed, but Comey used the excuse he could not prove intent even though it was proven she took actions. This especially troubling since Comey is not a prosecutor and should not have been the one to make that determination, to begin with.

I can tell you didn’t read it with the first couple sentences of your rant. Bye