Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice...
He did NOT impede Muller's investigation, nor did he influence it for that matter. He did not behave "corruptly" - using means that are outside of what is legally possible for him to do (and by the way, it is legally possible for him to fire Muller). In a court of law you have to prove actual damages - and actually, Trump did not impede anything.Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer
He did NOT impede Muller's investigation, nor did he influence it for that matter. — Agustino
In a court of law you have to prove actual damages - and actually, Trump did not impede anything. — Agustino
He did not behave "corruptly" - using means that are outside of what is legally possible for him to do (and by the way, it is legally possible for him to fire Muller) — Agustino
There's no law out there, by the way, saying that the President cannot contemplate doing something against the law. — Agustino
Nope, he didn't order it. You don't understand what ordering it means. He would have ordered it if McGahn would have resigned. He wanted to order it, McGahn told him he would resign, so then he didn't order it. You're not allowed to refuse an order from the President, you can resign, but not refuse.He ordered it. — Michael
President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.
Well, I don't really understand why leftists don't get this point - in this case, it seems clear as daylight that there was no obstruction of justice. So I'm not trying to spin anything, I think that YOU are trying to spin the actual situation.You're making me dizzy with so much spin. — Michael
And this isn't true either, I think that it's clear by now that in certain areas Trump isn't a very moral person - like sexuality for example.It seems to me that you'll always bend over backwards to try to defend Trump. God knows why. — Michael
I didn't call them fake news, and I did read the reports. Through reading them, I deduce that the President didn't give an order - he wanted to give an order. If he had given an order, then McGahn would have resigned.The reports are there for you to read. Again, you're free to call them "fake news", but they have more knowledge - and credibility - than you. — Michael
Exactly, so he didn't order him. Maybe he suggested it, contemplated it, or expressed his desire to do it. That's not the same as ordering him. I already explained the difference. An order cannot be disobeyed - either he tried to implement it, or he resigned. Neither of these two things happened.Trump wasn't willing to push the matter. — Michael
Yeah, I wouldn't fire you if it wasn't an order, and it was just a suggestion. But if it's an order and you disobey, you'd be fired. It may even be treasonous to disobey an order of the President.You might not be willing to fire me, just as Trump clearly wasn't willing to fire McGahn. — Michael
As far as I see, that's what you're doing, since you're refusing to accept and understand what an order commonly means.You're playing ridiculous word games here. This is what I mean by you bending over backwards to defend Trump. — Michael
It may even be treasonous to disobey an order of the President. — Agustino
Yeah, I wouldn't fire you if it wasn't an order, and it was just a suggestion. But if it's an order and you disobey, you'd be fired. — Agustino
As far as I see, that's what you're doing, since you're refusing to accept and understand what an order commonly means.
In order to “corruptly endeavor” to obstruct the due administration of justice, “[t]he action taken by the accused must be with an intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings.... Some courts have phrased this showing as a nexus requirement—that the act must have a relationship in time, causation, or logic with the judicial proceedings. In other words, the endeavor must have the natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.”
No, insubordination, even in a light matter, is punished, because it teaches others that disobeying is permissible. This is especially so at White House or military level.It is not a given that the punishment of insubordination is being fired. Nor is it given that insubordination is punished at all. It depends on context. You might not punish me at all over a cup of tea, given that I might resign and I'm worth more to your company than you're willing to lose (over a cup of tea). — Michael
Yeah, disobeying the President of the United States, as someone under him, does give comfort to the Enemies of the country."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." — Michael
What action taken? There was no action taken :sIn order to “corruptly endeavor” to obstruct the due administration of justice, “[t]he action taken
by the accused must be with an intent to influence judicial or grand jury proceedings.... Some
courts have phrased this showing as a nexus requirement—that the act must have a relationship in
time, causation, or logic with the judicial proceedings. In other words, the endeavor must have the
natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.”
The reports are what people declared. What people declared isn't necessarily the truth, or perhaps they didn't word it in the most accurate manner.Again, the reports are there for you to read. — Michael
What if Trump asked McCahn to fire Mueller because he thought that the process was a waste of time and resources?Trump asking/telling McCahn to have Mueller fired because he doesn't want to be investigated fits this definition. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.