-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit [NYT]
- Thread starter Wulfric
- Start date
Musky_Cheese
Banned
He’s a really silly goose isn’t he.
Mohonky
Member
Haha pretty much. I'm sure he thought Presidency was a dictatorship
Rudelord
Member
Not to be 'that guy', but if I thought about stealing something, almost did it, but then thought better of it because the group I'm around think it's a stupid idea, that doesn't mean I actually stole anything. So to claim obstruction when he didn't go through with it is...a stretch.
Now, does it look good for him? Decidedly not.
Last edited:
Razorback
Member
It's more like he ordered people to commit theft, but they refused and threatened to quit.
NiiloPielinen
Member
Mueller's going to be like
https://streamable.com/cu14a
https://streamable.com/cu14a
WaterAstro
Member
I can't say if this White House Counsel is helping or hurting Trump. If he did fire Mueller, maybe it would have been grounds for Trump's impeachment. If he didn't, then Mueller will find something to impeach Trump. Either way, lol.
cubicle47b
Member
Someone on Reddit suggested this leak might be from Trump’s camp and that he might be considering firing Mueller again and want to gauge the public’s reaction. I’m hoping it’s because Mueller is getting ready to press charges.
Trump ordered Mueller fired and only backed down when the White House counsel threatened to quit. He had to be forced out of the decision.
It's not obstruction if there is no follow through. He didn't impede the investigation by ordering the firing and backing down.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
It's not really that simple. Assume, for the sake of argument, that Trump doesn't know what he's doing, instead of that he is an evil mastermind. For most of his life, being "the boss" meant being able to fire anyone in his organization. Now, his "organization" is the executive branch. It makes sense that he would bring his business-based expectations to the White House, and have to be told--in a dramatic way--that what he was proposing be done was inappropriate.
In contrast, everyone knows theft is wrong.
This doesn't really make sense. First, the article describes when "Mr. Mueller learned about the episode," which suggests that the sources--or at least some of them--are from the special counsel's office. Consistent with this, the article describes its sources as "people told of the matter," not people with first-hand knowledge of it. Second, McGahn, the guy who threatened to quit, is still White House counsel.
Last edited:
Again he fired Mueller and was forced to back down because of threat from the White House Counsel. The order was in and it was only stopped because of such a threat. Not too mention intent and trying to obfuscate all this is going to be more important in the long run.
Sadly it seems he was spurred on by Fox News if you look at his tweet history at the time. Fox News is making more policy and deciding the fate of the country at this point.
Last edited:
No he didn't fire Mueller. He decided to fire Mueller and backed down. Nothing actually happened to Mueller or the investigation to cause obstruction. It would be like your boss deciding to fire you and people stepped in for you and he changed his mind. would your work be obstructed by the decision to fire you. No, you might not even know about it unless someone told you.
Again its the intent and the fact they're trying their best to blur the truth that is going to truly affect things here. Trump is basically caught lying several times over on these facts and that's the bigger deal here in a lot of ways.
Intent means nothing if there was no actual obstruction. If i decided to lie under oath, but as talked out of it and didn't lie in the end no law was broken. Him intending to break the law and breaking it are two different things. If they found him doing something else, this could be used to then prove intent. but this doesn't do anything for obstruction on its own.
Yet again its not just the fact he tried to do this but everything that happened after the fact including Trumps own words about this. Intent is just part of this. Trump is his own worst enemy and this is just high lighting another aspect of this. Now just imagine him having to answer questions about these things directly to Mueller.
Last edited:
I would argue that the intent is enough to show that he is willing to obstruct justice. I mean, the FBI would step in if someone's intent were to kill innocent people in a terrorist act. Or if someone was preparing to assassinate a high ranking government official. Even though they "backed off".
Trump cannot talk himself out of that by claiming that he didn't know better. If he tries to go that route, he has to be impeached immediately. Basically every explanation makes him look even worse than the actual fact.
Trump cannot talk himself out of that by claiming that he didn't know better. If he tries to go that route, he has to be impeached immediately. Basically every explanation makes him look even worse than the actual fact.
Razorback
Member
I don't need to assume anything in this case, what you stated is already what I believe.
Your argument is that he didn't know that obstruction of justice is wrong? How does that change anything? He's still not fit for office.
rokkerkory
Member
Tell that to Mueller
I don't have to tell Mueller anything. Mueller has to present his case to congress. This alone wouldn't hold up. If he finds something else that he can stick to Trump, this could be used to show intent.
Nintendo Switch
Banned
I am guessing the reason his staff switched allegiances and leaked this now is because they found out that Trump is planning to try to fire again Mueller now that the right wing bubbles have all adopted the idea that the FBI and JD are a part of a secret society to take down Trump.
This way, if he does fire Meueller now, any reason he gives for doing so would be undermined.
This way, if he does fire Meueller now, any reason he gives for doing so would be undermined.
Last edited:
A Link to the Past
Banned
Intent to obstruct justice does matter, because he's already being investigated for other attempts. It can be used to show an active desire to halt the investigation into his Russian ties.
rokkerkory
Member
Obviously Mueller has much more including betrayaltons from Flynn and others.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
No. My argument is that he didn't know firing Mueller was wrong. Given that legal experts disagree over what constitutes obstruction of justice, do you seriously believe Donald J. Trump has a firm handle on the concept? Do you think you do? This is why people have lawyers.
Razorback
Member
You don't need lawyers to know that firing the guy responsible for an investigation against you is wrong. By wrong I don't mean illegal, I mean immoral. It's irrelevant if there are loopholes that make it legal. His behavior would seem suspicious even to a 5-year-old and I don't buy it for a second that he doesn't know how it would look to the public. He only did it as a last resort, because he's guilty and using whatever cards he has left. This is more than reason enough to want to get rid of him for the benefit of the country, even if we can't prove his guilt, his behavior is not trustworthy.
If your point is that he might get away with it still, then ok, I guess. He has gotten away with everything so far. But aside from that, I have no clue what point you are trying to make.
rokkerkory
Member
Just reading up on history would help Trump out but he doesn't read books or study history.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I don't see what's wrong with firing the head of a partisan witch hunt, which is Trump's view of the Mueller investigation. You're working from the assumption that Trump is guilty, which has yet to be proven.
If it were this easy to determine Trump's guilt, what the hell is taking Mueller so long?
Your analogy was bad. Obstruction of justice isn't like theft, and the president's authority over his subordinates isn't like property rights. In short,
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Its not like switching on a light, Through Investigations take time. Even a simple open and shut murder case with a ton of evidence can take years to go to trial. Watergate took many years.
The presidency is not a dictatorship. There are checks and balances in place precisely to ensure that presidents can be held accountable for illegal actions.
I am not saying that Trump colluded with Russia or committed treason. But him actively impeding an investiation to determine the facts is in fact obstruction of justice.
Last edited:
bucyou
Member
CNBC BREAKING NEWS: Mueller reportedly told Trump's lawyers the president is not a criminal target at this point
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/03/mue...t-is-not-a-criminal-target-at-this-point.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/03/mue...t-is-not-a-criminal-target-at-this-point.html
rokkerkory
Member
Lure him in
bucyou
Member
Possibly!
rokkerkory
Member
Trump is a subject? Isnt that serious?
bucyou
Member
I would think any investigation would be serious.
But I also think that with the amount of leaks about everything and anything, evidence would of surfaced already, if there was any that is.
rokkerkory
Member
There are many leaks but none from Mueller. For instance, no one knew about Zwaan or Rosenstein saying persue collusion all the way back in Aug of 2017.
Similar threads
- Locked