Trump tried to fire Mueller in June

[_Jersey Girl]

Tell you what. You more informed guys talk about it if you'd like and I'll watch. I'm out of my depth and I know it.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sorry, I mixed up the immunity for Congresscritters with the president. I think think the issue of criminal prosecution of the president may be undecided. I’ll do a little reading.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tell you what. You more informed guys talk about it if you'd like and I'll watch. I'm out of my depth and I know it.

If it makes you feel any better so is everyone else.

The President is THE Executor of Justice, so to speak, and, well, even if he were impeached and then charged and convicted he'd most likely be pardoned to preserve "the office" I think.

It's all hypothetical, anyway. Kind of. I mean. Hrm. He is being investigated, so... Wow. We're really into some uncharted territory aren't we?

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Jersey Girl, here’s a pretty good article that explains the issues. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... -probably/

[_subgenius]

The main relevance of this story is that it is pretty dramatic evidence of intent to obstruct justice.

Nope, it's not. The reason for "wanting to fire" would be the only way to discern that relevance...and you don't have that evidence at all...you barely have any evidence at all...you currently have hearsay, and even if that is true, you still have zilch towards "intent".

[_Res Ipsa]

The main relevance of this story is that it is pretty dramatic evidence of intent to obstruct justice.

Nope, it's not. The reason for "wanting to fire" would be the only way to discern that relevance...and you don't have that evidence at all...you barely have any evidence at all...you currently have hearsay, and even if that is true, you still have zilch towards "intent".

The NYT article goes into to the rationales offered, and they look very much like pretexts. Combined with all the efforts made by Trump to undermine and shut down the investigation, there’s a pattern that offers pretty solid evidence of intent.

[_EAllusion]

The main relevance of this story is that it is pretty dramatic evidence of intent to obstruct justice.

Nope, it's not. The reason for "wanting to fire" would be the only way to discern that relevance...and you don't have that evidence at all...you barely have any evidence at all...you currently have hearsay, and even if that is true, you still have zilch towards "intent".

Subs : Hillary and Bill Clinton are fugitives from the law leaving a trail of coverup murders in their wake, including Vince Foster's.

Also Subs: Trump could have good reasons for firing people investigating his and his admins potential malfeasance. I don't see any evidence that anything untoward is going on.

[Guest]

Interesting theory that all of this still goes back to Michael Flynn. Trump fired Comey because he wouldn't 'go easy' on Flynn. Now Mueller on May 17th but it wasn't until June 2nd that he was given authority over the Flynn investigation. So the theory is that Flynn knows some things that could be very damaging to Trump, and trying to derail the investigation was seen as the preservation of this Presidency.

Curiously, although Trump called the NYT story "fake news", no one else at the White House (to my knowledge) has disavowed the story, including Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who said in December "for the thousandth time" no one ever thought about firing Robert Mueller.

By the way, I've decided to come clean. I am not a Tour Guide. This is my real ID:

[_subgenius]

The NYT article goes into to the rationales offered, and they look very much like pretexts. Combined with all the efforts made by Trump to undermine and shut down the investigation, there’s a pattern that offers pretty solid evidence of intent.

Rationales?
Geez, if you set the bar this low for democrats Hillary Clinton would be in Gitmo. And exactly what other "efforts" are you combining? I'm sorry, but wanting someone to be guilty is not what adults consider sufficient to impeach or imprison another person.
Truth is, you have no evidence and no pattern.

[_subgenius]

This is June. Mueller was hired in May. So he can't investigate Trump because of a issue with his membership at a Trump Country Club. Presumably Mueller has been has been waiting for the off-chance that Donald Trump would be elected President and Mueller would be appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate him.
.

Mueller also interviewed for FBI position, why do you conveniently omit facts in favor of presupposition? Either way, you don't get to accuse Trump of being an unreasonable person and then claim his actions as being "reasonable" for an excuse to condemn.