Have you not paid any attention over the last two years? One of the main recurring stories is Trump trying to do insane things and his staff finding ways to thwart him.
That's like saying if Trump wanted to fire Mueller he just would have. We know he DID want to and DID try, he was just thwarted by his staff. Now what he did was still a felony, but the fact that his felony failed doesn't change the fact that he wanted and tried to do it.
All our solutions have ended up in Mitch's legislative graveyard.
Wait. Firing Mueller wouldve been a felony?
Of course. Immigration is one of the GOP's great perma-issues, perfect for frothing up the fear & hatred every two years. They have no intention of giving it up.
Trump committed several w/o that.
"They" is relevant only in the context that conservatives have no solutions at all. That's right & you know it.
Why Democrats aren’t rushing to change immigration laws
They don’t agree with Trump and public sentiment doesn’t provide a mandate toward a solution
where was all this fake outrage when Obama opened these detention centers?
Wait. Firing Mueller wouldve been a felony?
Wait. Firing Mueller wouldve been a felony?
Where are the democrat solutions? It seems like all they do is use this issue to attack Trump and the GOP without providing anything constructive. Trump is their pied piper. Dems are in defense mode on current immigration issues when they should be in offense.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/why-democrats-arent-rushing-to-change-immigration-laws
Somehow the US survived decades without such Camps.....
What a bunch of BS. The Dems offered comprehensive immigration reform. First Ryan, then Trump, killed it.Where are the democrat solutions? It seems like all they do is use this issue to attack Trump and the GOP without providing anything constructive. Trump is their pied piper. Dems are in defense mode on current immigration issues when they should be in offense.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/why-democrats-arent-rushing-to-change-immigration-laws
where was all this fake outrage when Obama opened these detention centers?
Yes. In fact, even ATTEMPTING to fire Mueller was a felony. You'll almost certainly see Trump try to pardon his way out of it before he leaves office and if he doesn't he's likely going to be prosecuted for it.
The three elements of obstruction of justice are an obstructive act, a nexus to an official proceeding, and intent to obstruct. As per the Mueller report, all three elements are easily satisfied.
1) obstructive act: firing the person investigating you is clearly an act that obstructs their investigation.
2) nexus to an official proceeding: Trump knew he was under investigation by Mueller for criminal activity.
3) intent: as per the Mueller report: "Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct."
If all three elements are met that's a felony and Mueller's report finds 'substantial evidence' for all three. Is there something here you're disputing?
Uhhhhhh, Democrats already put forth their solution. It was passed by a huge bipartisan majority in the Senate, then because Republicans controlled the House they refused to even let it get a vote because they feared it would pass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde...ty,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
This legal analysis disagrees with you. Worst case is IF Trump would have, he would increase his exposure to obstruction. But, alas, Trump didnt even have the legal authority to do so.
First, President Trump lacks unilateral authority to fire Mueller. While President Trump might compel others to do so on his behalf or instruct the attorney general to revoke DOJ’s special counsel regulations, the risks of doing so are prohibitive. History warns that he would be risking his presidency, not to mention increasing his exposure to charges of obstruction of justice.
Despite the repeated spread of misinformation from the Attorney General and the president, the Mueller Report is clear: there is significant evidence that President Trump obstructed justice. This report does not clear President Trump; to the contrary, it explicitly states that the investigation was unable to reach the conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice. He was not charged, according to the report, because Mueller’s team ‘determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment,’ not for lack of evidence, which they amply and overwhelmingly supplied.
There was plenty at the time. Not that you'd notice, given your penchant for revisionist history.
The government expanded the use of family detention in 2014 in an attempt to deter asylum seeking women and children from coming to the U.S. from Central America. This policy was implemented despite the U.S. having a direct hand in creating the violent and unstable conditions prevailing in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador that are causing many to flee.
No it doesn't. It is pointing out the legal obstacles to removing Mueller, not that the facts in the Special Counsel's report did not establish the necessary elements of obstruction of justice. After all, it couldn't possibly have made that argument considering it was written a year and a half before the report came out.
Also, from your own cited source:
They explicitly state that removing Mueller would expose him to obstruction of justice charges. Your own source agrees with me.
Based on the Mueller report? No. I understand that not guilty does not mean innocent, but if the AG didnt have enough to prosecute, then Im not going to assume anything.Interestingly enough, the same people who wrote that report had this to say after the Mueller report came out:
https://www.citizensforethics.org/press-release/crew-statement-on-full-mueller-report/
So, the source of the legal analysis you just cited as credible thinks there was 'ample and overwhelming evidence' that Trump committed obstruction of justice. With that in mind would you care to change your opinion?