Trump admits to obstructing justice by firing Comey

[PhilFish]

Long after the barrage of lies from Baghdad Barr and Trump, Mueller did say what I said above - that Trump could be impeached, but not charged criminally, while he was president. He is no longer president so he can now be charged criminally. Which Garland should do ASAP.

Ok. And then I provided you with a link to what he said

Why hasn't garland?

 

[PhilFish]

Seriously?

Yikes.

We must be reading something different. Refer me to what you are reading. Nowhere on the referenced does he say he does so.. but the author, and a reference to maddows blog say that that possibly may be... See?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Ok. And then I provided you with a link to what he said

Why hasn't garland?

I can’t explain why Garland hasn’t indicted him. Politics, I suppose. But when a president can fire an FBI chief because he was investigating him and his cronies, and no charges are filed, we become nothing but a banana republic. Garland must do his duty.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

We must be reading something different. Refer me to what you are reading. Nowhere on the referenced does he say he does so.. but the author, and a reference to maddows blog say that that possibly may be... See?

See the Trump quotes I provided above.

 

[PhilFish]

“[A] lot of people say to me, 'How you survived is one of the most incredible things.' Don't forget, I fired Comey. Had I not fired Comey, you might not be talking to me right now about a beautiful book of four years at the White House. And we'll see about the future. The future's going to be very interesting. But I fired Comey, that whole group, and now that group is coming back again. I mean, it's not believable. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. It shouldn't be allowed to happen."

Yes. Point to where it says to stop any investigation etc

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Yes. Point to where it says to stop any investigation etc

Not to stop an investigation - to stop Comey from investigating him and his cronies. Because Comey refused to pledge “loyalty to Trump” when Trump cornered him for the infamous private dinner Trump set up.

 

[PhilFish]

I can’t explain why Garland hasn’t indicted him. Politics, I suppose. But when a president can fire an FBI chief because he was investigating him and his cronies, and no charges are filed, we become nothing but a banana republic. Garland must do his duty.

Odd...you can explain everything else with little to no references to facts. Now you're stuck.

Doctrinaire blinders?

 

[PhilFish]

Not to stop an investigation - to stop Comey from investigating him and his cronies. Because Comey refused to pledge “loyalty to Trump” when Trump cornered him for the infamous private dinner Trump set up.

So disloyalty to an administration while serving in the administration is to be rewarded?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Odd...you can explain everything else with little to no references to facts. Now you're stuck.

Doctrinaire blinders?

False, of course. I scrupulously support everything I say with links when facts are knowable. I obviously can’t read Garland’s mind. I leave concocting facts to wingers.

 

[PhilFish]

False, of course. I scrupulously support everything I say with links when facts are knowable. I obviously can’t read Garland’s mind. I leave concocting facts to wingers.

Ok ... Scrupulously support the obstruction charge that exists?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

So disloyalty to an administration while serving in the administration is to be rewarded?

Nope. Comey made it clear to Trump that his loyalty to the nation could not be questioned. Trump grilled Comey about the FBI investigation of Trump and his cronies and asked if he could count on Comey’s “loyalty” in that regard. He was asking an FBI Director to violate his oath and pledge that he would not pursue that investigation, which obviously implicated Trump. Comey declined to end the investigation, so Trump fired him.

Textbook obstruction of justice.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Ok ... Scrupulously support the obstruction charge that exists?

If you’re talking about the 10 instances of obstruction investigated by Mueller, they are explained at great length in his report.

 

[PhilFish]

Nope. Comey made it clear to Trump that his loyalty to the nation could not be questioned. Trump grilled Comey about the FBI investigation of Trump and his cronies and asked if he could count on Comey’s “loyalty” in that regard. He was asking an FBI Director to violate his oath and pledge that he would not pursue that investigation, which obviously implicated Trump. Comey declined to end the investigation, so Trump fired him.

Textbook obstruction of justice.

Yes that is textbook obstruction of justice in the neighborhood of make believe and the land of fairies and flowers. Unless of course you're willing to produce a reference that indicates that what Trump meant by loyalty was interference on comey's behalf into the investigation. Are you willing to produce such a reference?

Otherwise what you have is your fabrication of what was meant by the word loyalty in that regard.

By the way, an investigation lasting nearly two years and resulting in the Mueller report was in fact conducted, concluded, and produced. Is that not correct?

 

[PhilFish]

If you’re talking about the 10 instances of obstruction investigated by Mueller, they are explained at great length in his report.

No those would be alleged instances of obstruction. Which of those were charged, and adjudicated as guilty in a court of law?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Yes that is textbook obstruction of justice in the neighborhood of make believe and the land of fairies and flowers. Unless of course you're willing to produce a reference that indicates that what Trump meant by loyalty was interference on comey's behalf into the investigation. Are you willing to produce such a reference?

Otherwise what you have is your fabrication of what was meant by the word loyalty in that regard.

By the way, an investigation lasting nearly two years and resulting in the Mueller report was in fact conducted, concluded, and produced. Is that not correct?

This is all covered chapter and verse in the Mueller report. Comey was so disturbed by Trump’s demands during the private meetings Trump arranged (excluding all others) that he immediately drafted memos documenting what Trump demanded. Would you like to review Mueller’s report on the subject? I “fabricated” nothing - it’s all in there.

And yes, an investigation was conducted. Trump thought he could short circuit it by firing Comey and keeping it under control by keeping it in the DOJ. But Rod Rosenstein was one step ahead of him and he appointed Mueller as special counsel.

BTW, obstruction of justice still exists if the attempt to obstruct fails.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

No those would be alleged instances of obstruction. Which of those were charged, and adjudicated as guilty in a court of law?

As we already discussed above, Mueller did not charge them due to the DOJ rule about not being able to indict a sitting president. Garland is not now so constrained and he can, and should, charge Trump with obstruction.

 

[PhilFish]

This is all covered chapter and verse in the Mueller report. Comey was so disturbed by Trump’s demands during the private meetings Trump arranged (excluding all others) that he immediately drafted memos documenting what Trump demanded. Would you like to review Mueller’s report on the subject? I “fabricated” nothing - it’s all in there.

And yes, an investigation was conducted. Trump thought he could short circuit it by firing Comey and keeping it under control by keeping it in the DOJ. But Rod Rosenstein was one step ahead of him and he appointed Mueller as special counsel.

BTW, obstruction of justice still exists if the attempt to obstruct fails.

Comey memos detailing conversations of Trump meetings published

Detailed notes by the former FBI director document sensitive conversations with the US president.

www.google.com

No.

 

[PhilFish]

As we already discussed above, Mueller did not charge them due to the DOJ rule about not being able to indict a sitting president. Garland is not now so constrained and he can, and should, charge Trump with obstruction.

That is not what Mueller clarified, as I provided above

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Comey memos detailing conversations of Trump meetings published

Detailed notes by the former FBI director document sensitive conversations with the US president.

www.google.com

No.

No what?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

That is not what Mueller clarified, as I provided above

I don’t know what you’re doubting here. Mueller certainly did cite the DOJ rule against indicting sitting presidents.