Democrats think they've got a slam-dunk obstruction case against Trump. They don't.

[LV426]

Democrats will be showcase an investigation that was not obstructed into a crime that investigators could not establish actually happened.:

How would you know? You never read the Mueller Report.

[dukkha]

If that's the case, then why did Trump order McGahn to lie to Congress, and why did he order Cohen to lie to Congress?

Would that not be obstruction of justice, to order a witness to lie to investigators?

first off it wasn't an order -it was a request. then the fact McGahan suffered no consequence means there was no corrupt intent behind the request.
Finally what Trump wished was protestations of an innocent man - no underlying crime.
Good luck trying to impeach with that!

[dukkha]

How would you know? You never read the Mueller Report.

idiot. that is the outline of what happened.
We know there was no collusion/underlying crime -which means..( see if you can follow, I am not spoon feeding)

[Superfreak]

Both are felonies, both carry the same penalties.

Again you dolt... they are not the same thing as you claimed they were. Again... even the case against 'attempted' is weak. But you continue to ignore that.

[Superfreak]

both class A felonies warranting serious jail time

nice call

Again retard... they are not the same thing. Which is the point. You made a claim, while calling someone else a retard. Your claim was moronic and incorrect. Which makes you the retard.

[LV426]

first off it wasn't an order -it was a request.

Same difference...why was he even making a request to lie to Congress?

You're saying Trump is innocent of Obstruction of Justice because he only requested they lie to Congress?

Not sure why you think this is a strong argument.

[LV426]

then the fact McGahan suffered no consequence means there was no corrupt intent behind the request.

Doesn't matter if McGahn suffered a consequence or not; why was Trump requesting he lie to Congress in the first place?

[LV426]

Finally what Trump wished was protestations of an innocent man - no underlying crime.

How would you know? You didn't read Mueller's report.

And now you've moved the goalpost again; going from "requested" to "wished".

That shows the intent to obstruct justice was top of Trump's mind; otherwise, why would he have any any overture to Cohen and McGahn to lie to Congress?

[Rune]

Not all lawmakers are lawyers you dolt. Not all lawyers are good at their job. Just look how confused Garud gets on an almost daily basis. He has no grasp of basic law, yet he is a lawyer. Passing exams doesn't make you good at what you do.

Notice you immediately attack the messenger rather than address the points brought up by the article? Yeah... we noticed that too.

Notice my first post attacked the article, idiot.
Note also that Jarrod is a good lawyer; you are a partisan hack for your groundless insult.
Yurt is an asshole and a footlocker but still a good lawyer.
You are just a bandwagoning lipstick salesman. You are thoroughly unqualified to judge lawyers.

Your ignorant arrogance make me want to puke.

[LV426]

idiot. that is the outline of what happened.

How would you know? You didn't read Mueller's report.

Turns out you barely read Barr's false conclusions of them too.

So you're speaking from a place of willful ignorance.

WHY?

That's what I can't seem to figure out; why are you lying about this? It seems like you have something very personal at stake here, which is why you have to lie about things.

But...someone with 1000 different IDs can't really be trusted anyway.

We know there was no collusion/underlying crime

How do you know that? You haven't read the Mueller report, by your own admission.

[Rune]

Not all lawmakers are lawyers you dolt. Not all lawyers are good at their job. Just look how confused Garud gets on an almost daily basis. He has no grasp of basic law, yet he is a lawyer. Passing exams doesn't make you good at what you do.

Notice you immediately attack the messenger rather than address the points brought up by the article? Yeah... we noticed that too.

Notice my first post attacked the article, idiot.
Note also that Jarrod is a good lawyer; you are a partisan hack for your groundless insult.
Yurt is an asshole and a footlocker but still a good lawyer.
You are just a bandwagoning lipstick salesman. You are thoroughly unqualified to judge lawyers.

Your ignorant arrogance make me want to puke.

[LV426]

idiot. that is the outline of what happened.

How would you know? You didn't read Mueller's report.

Turns out you barely read Barr's false conclusions of them too.

So you're speaking from a place of willful ignorance.

WHY?

That's what I can't seem to figure out; why are you lying about this? It seems like you have something very personal at stake here, which is why you have to lie about things.

But...someone with 1000 different IDs can't really be trusted anyway.

We know there was no collusion/underlying crime

How do you know that? You haven't read the Mueller report, by your own admission.

[LV426]

idiot. that is the outline of what happened.
We know there was no collusion/underlying crime -which means..( see if you can follow, I am not spoon feeding)

If there was no collusion, why did Paul Manafort share polling data with Kilimnik for months when he was campaign manager?

[Superfreak]

Notice my first post attacked the article, idiot.
Note also that Jarrod is a good lawyer; you are a partisan hack for your groundless insult.
Yurt is an asshole and a footlocker but still a good lawyer.
You are just a bandwagoning lipstick salesman. You are thoroughly unqualified to judge lawyers.

Your ignorant arrogance make me want to puke.

No, your first post stated the members of the committee are lawyers. It had nothing to do with the articles points.

No, Garud may do well with ambulance chasing cases, but he has shown on the site to lack basic comprehension of the law. It is not groundless.

I stated nothing of Yurt, so why deflect to him?

No moron, when someone displays a lack of understanding on the law, then we can indeed state they don't understand it.

Notice you still haven't addressed the actual content of the article? You just continue your pathetic little attempts to attack others. Such a sad little person you are.

[Superfreak]

Yet the committee members ARE lawyers you fucking mental midget.

Rune's first post... the one he says attacks the article. LMAO.