Mentioning Trump, this was an interesting "debate". I think the Mootch won it

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6dqbxn

Hannity: "NYT trying to distract you with fake news!"
Hannity, later: "OK, so it isn't fake news, but I'm going to distract you with a car chase".

What's the big deal if Trump "wanted" to fire him? How is that obstruction of justice? As far as I remember, wanting to do something doesn't constitute doing it. In addition, maybe Trump wasn't aware that it would constitute obstruction - when he found out, he stopped the action.

He ordered McGahn, the White House Counsel, to fire him. McGahn refused and threatened to resign, so Trump backed down.

He ordered McGahn, the White House Counsel, to fire him. McGahn refused and threatened to resign, so Trump backed down. — Michael

Yep, what's wrong with that? How is that obstruction of justice?

He ordered the firing of the person investigating him, and within just a few weeks no less. You have to be willfully ignorant to not see the problem with that. Try and spin it all you like.

For example, he tells McGahn "fire him", McGahn says I can't do that because it's obstruction of justice, so if you insist, I will resign, and Trump backs down. What's wrong with that? That's a normal interaction between two people.

It isn't a normal interaction between two people. It's the President ordering an investigation into him be ended.

This is likely the relevant statute:

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...

An order can be illegal even it it isn't carried out.

If he'd just asked if he could, then it might not have been an issue (or at least wouldn't be obstruction), but it wasn't just that.

It seems to me that you'll always bend over backwards to try to defend Trump. God knows why.

I did not go to Harvard law school, or to any law school for that matter, but it doesn't take much brain to realise that the bit you quoted shows exactly why Trump is innocent:

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. 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.

There's no law out there, by the way, saying that the President cannot contemplate doing something against the law.

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

Whoever ... endeavors. Obstruction need not be successful.

See United States v. Tackett, 113 F.3d 603, 611: "Although the omnibus clause of §1503 requires that a defendant’s actions were intended to obstruct an actual judicial proceeding, the government need not prove that the actions had their intended effect. Furthermore, an endeavor to obstruct justice violates the law even if, unbeknownst to the defendant, the plan is doomed to failure from the start."

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

He might have the legal authority to fire Mueller, but not for any reason. Firing him because he's investigating you would be an example of corruption. I don't know if corruption is defined in U.S. statute, but Shumaker and Longsdorf define it in their 1910 law dictionary as "an act done with intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others".

Remember that Nixon was going to be impeached for obstructing justice (and abuse of power) after firing the special prosecutor investigating him.

There's no law out there, by the way, saying that the President cannot contemplate doing something against the law. — Agustino

He wasn't just contemplating it. He ordered it.

He ordered it. — Michael

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.

You're making me dizzy with so much spin.

Here's the original report:

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.

It's since been corroborated by others, including the Washington Post and even Fox News.

You're free to think it "fake news" if you like, but they have more knowledge of the matter than you, so you'll just be voicing an uninformed assumption.

So why didn't McGahn resign then? He should have resigned if it was an order, not threaten to resign. The fact that he threatened to resign shows us that Trump wanted to order him to do that, and he let Trump now that if he really did order it, then he would resign. If he had resigned, then you could very clearly argue that Trump did in fact order it.

You're making me dizzy with so much spin. — Michael

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.

It seems to me that you'll always bend over backwards to try to defend Trump. God knows why. — 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.

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.

And as for it being "clear as daylight that there was no obstruction of justice", that's simply not true. You've shown that you don't even understand the law, so that's quite a bold claim to make.

The Washinton Post has a report on the legal problems, with opinions from a constitutional lawyer and a former White House ethics lawyer. Their word trumps yours (pun intended).

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

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.

Legally it's a very simple issue. Order given = either the person resigns or they carry it out.

Legally it's a very simple issue. Order given = either the person resigns or they carry it out. — Agustino

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer.

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer. — Michael

So according to you, Trump gave an order and McGahn did what he couldn't do, which is refuse to obey it?

What do you mean by he couldn't do? Orders don't have some magical power to force obedience. Trump told him to do something, and he said "no", and threatened to resign. Trump wasn't willing to push the matter.

Trump wasn't willing to push the matter. — 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.

Of course an order can be disobeyed. What are you talking about?

You're my boss. You order me to make you a cup of tea. I refuse. I've disobeyed your order.

You're my boss. You order me to make you a cup of tea. I refuse. I've disobeyed your order. — Michael

Then you'd be fired. Was McGahn fired? :-d

You might not be willing to fire me, just as Trump clearly wasn't willing to fire McGahn.

You're playing ridiculous word games here. This is what I mean by you bending over backwards to defend Trump.

You might not be willing to fire me, just as Trump clearly wasn't willing to fire McGahn. — 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're playing ridiculous word games here. This is what I mean by you bending over backwards to defend Trump. — 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.

It may even be treasonous to disobey an order of the President. — Agustino

It's not treasonous (or a crime at all) to disobey an illegal order, which is what this would have been.

In fact, it's not treasonous to disobey a legal order: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

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

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).

As far as I see, that's what you're doing, since you're refusing to accept and understand what an order commonly means.

I know what an order is. It's when a superior tells you to do something. You're the one trying to play word games and spin it as an order being defined as something that is either obeyed or which if disobeyed results in resignation or a firing. That's just ridiculous.

Again, the reports are there for you to read. I trust them more than you. You don't even know the law.

Besides, the law doesn't even use the term "order". It just states: "whoever corruptly... endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede..."

Trump asking/telling McCahn to have Mueller fired because he doesn't want to be investigated fits this definition.

And regarding "corruptly endeavours", this overview of obstruction law states (page 18):

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.”

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

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.

"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

Yeah, disobeying the President of the United States, as someone under him, does give comfort to the Enemies of the country.

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.”

What action taken? There was no action taken :s

Again, the reports are there for you to read. — Michael

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.

Trump asking/telling McCahn to have Mueller fired because he doesn't want to be investigated fits this definition. — Michael

What if Trump asked McCahn to fire Mueller because he thought that the process was a waste of time and resources?

And again, Trump took NO ACTION. There was NO ACTION taken - nothing was done. He asked him to do it, he explained that if he would be ordered to do it he would resign, and Trump decided not to give that order. Hence no action was taken.