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. — Agustino

The action taken was telling McGahn to have Mueller fired. What exactly would it take for you to accept it as an action/order? Must Trump personally hand deliver a notice of termination?

This is all just nonsense spin.

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

No it doesn't. Again, you seem to just be fabricating legal knowledge apropos of nothing. Try actually doing some research, as I have been doing. Here's a good place to start.

Instead of holding Trump to account, Republicans are joining him in a cynical attempt to tarnish the FBI and undermine the criminal investigation into Russian election meddling.

Aided by the conspiracy mongers at Fox News, they have promoted a crackpot theory that there was a “secret society” within the FBI trying to bring down Trump. The zany conspiracy story involves two FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and text messages they exchanged during the 2016 campaign. These were leaked to the press after the justice department turned them over to Congress.

Some of the messages can be read as mocking Trump – in one, he is called an “idiot”. Mueller demoted Strzok, who had been one of his top counterintelligence experts, from his Trump-Russia investigation as a result. Strzok had led the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation so the notion of him being a pro-Democratic mole is, simply, ludicrous.

The Republicans want to destroy the public’s faith in the impartiality of the FBI, in order to undermine Mueller. Their aim is to insulate Trump against the obstruction of justice charges the special counsel is said to be contemplating.

This is political poison. It is toxic to democracy. It goes beyond anything contemplated by Richard Nixon and his supporters during Watergate. What can prevent the poison from infecting the country’s lifeblood?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/27/trump-fbi-us-constitution?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Excellent news!

Now you need to put down the Crack pipe...

Now you need to put down the Crack pipe... — Posty McPostface

Why? They are purposefully trying to lynch Trump in order to promote their left-wing bias, because they cannot get over the fact that the Democrats lost the election. There's nothing true in these accusations, all lies.

The action taken was telling McGahn to have Mueller fired. — Michael

No, that's not an action, that's a discussion that was moving towards taking a certain action.

This is all just nonsense spin. — Michael

What you are doing is spin, since you don't take the events as they happened, instead you twist them so that you can say Trump "ORDERED" Mueller to be fired and actually tried to obstruct justice. No he did not - he contemplated it, but at no time did he take or attempt to take an action that obstructed justice.

No it doesn't. Again, you seem to just be fabricating legal knowledge apropos of nothing. Try actually doing some research, as I have been doing. Here's a good place to start. — Michael

I don't see how the document linked disproves what I said. Can you give a citation please that you think disproves it?

Good documentary on Trump:

What you are doing is spin, since you don't take the events as they happened, instead you twist them so that you can say Trump "ORDERED" Mueller to be fired and actually tried to obstruct justice. No he did not - he contemplated it, but at no time did he take or attempt to take an action that obstructed justice. — Agustino

I'm not spinning anything. I'm repeating what the news has reported. Whereas you're fabricating knowledge of what Trump did (or didn't) do in an attempt to defend him.

I'm repeating what the news has reported. — Michael

The anti-Trump news you mean? Like CNN.

The anti-Trump news you mean? Like CNN. — Agustino

The news that reports the facts. That those facts always seems to show Trump doing something wrong isn't their fault.

And again, even Fox News confirmed these reports. Hannity, no less, as shown in that amusing video I posted.

The news that reports the facts. — Michael

Nope, those aren't facts. It's not a fact that Trump tried to obstruct justice. That is your silly spin. What is factual is that some people from the White House have declared that Trump initially told them to fire Mueller, or expressed his desire to do so. That's all.

Come on Agustino. Even the die-hard Trump supporter Sean Hannity conceded the point.

What point? That Trump talked about firing Mueller and considered doing it?

I haven't been keeping abreast with the latest developments on this front, but I did hear rumblings about these text messages and some reference to a "secret society" that's got Trump supporters all flustered.

My guess, admittedly based on limited info, is that the term was used in jest as it relates to Trump's narrative about a "deep state" working for elites against the interests of average Americans. In that sense this sarcastic remark can be taken out of context (intentionally) and then used as confirmation of the notion of a secretive association it was attempting to ridicule.

Conjecture of course but I feel like I have an intuitive understanding of the Trump strategy and the mindset of his typical supporter. The general Democratic strategy, too, if I may be so bold. With few exceptions they both seem predictable and unprincipled attempts to manipulate the emotions of their constituents. But I guess that's always been the case in politics so this is nothing new.

Telling someone to do something isn't an action? He was talked out of the idea by having cabinet members threaten to resign so he didn't push it. That may not count as obstruction of justice per se, but it clearly shows that he attempted it.

This was the text:

"Are you even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society."

The Republican Senator Ron Johnson who was pushing the story later backtracked, saying it was probably a joke.

Telling someone to do something isn't an action? — ProbablyTrue

No, not in all contexts. Some discussions are facultative, merely done for the purpose of seeing what other people's positions are for example. Trump did not order Mueller to be fired, if he had done that, then McGahn would have resigned. He did not resign, hence Trump did not order it. He wanted to order it, and when he saw that McGahn and others don't support it, he didn't.

That may not count as obstruction of justice per se, but it clearly shows that he attempted it. — ProbablyTrue

No, it's not attempted obstruction. He considered taking a certain course of action, and was persuaded differently. Considering a course of action is different from actually embarking upon it.

LOL that sounds even more benign than I thought it would. I can't imagine anyone taking that literally and seriously, assuming that if there were a real secret society it would be referred to by its members simply as the "secret society."

Backing off under threat of great consequences is different than a casual discussion about whether he should or not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html

They were talking about Fight Club.

Backing off under threat of great consequences is different than a casual discussion about whether he should or not. — ProbablyTrue

It still remains a fact that he did not embark upon the process of firing Mueller. He chose not to at the end of the discussion with McGahn.

Haha but doesn't that violate the club's first (and second) rule?

That's why they called in "the secret society".

It still remains a fact that he did not embark upon the process of firing Mueller. — Agustino

The process begins with Trump telling a subordinate what to do. That subordinate refused.

Ah got it lol.

Seriously though, in addition to all the other problems with grand conspiracy theories, if there were a legitimate secret society--ooh!!--wouldn't the members come up with a really sophisticated name to conceal its function?

Granted they were communicating in a way they assumed was private, but still this is childish to the point of being unbelievable. Imagine me asking you, let's say a fellow worker or even friend - Hey, wanna ride to the secret society meeting together?

I know that's not a great objection, but the whole thing is too inane to take seriously. Having said that, these are FBI employees and the nature of the organization is somewhat secretive, so that gives the conspiracy a hint of plausibility it would otherwise be lacking.

Trump orders General Mattis to fire a nuke at NK. Mattis complies. Trump nukes NK.

Trump orders Mattis to nuke NK. Mattis refuses. Trump didn't try to nuke NK?

The process begins with Trump telling a subordinate. That subordinate refused. — Michael

No he didn't. He just expressed what he would do in case Trump would order him, that he would resign. He did not resign. Why not? Because Trump didn't order him.

Trump orders Mattis to nuke NK. Mattis refuses. Trump didn't try to nuke NK? — ProbablyTrue

No, he was considering it, but he didn't actually try to do it. If he orders Mattis, and Mattis starts initiating the procedures, and then something goes wrong and they don't do it anymore, then he did order him.

Trump orders Mattis to nuke NK. Mattis refuses. Trump didn't try to nuke NK? — ProbablyTrue

And by the way, if Mattis refuses in such a hypothetical case, that is unconstitutional. The generals CANNOT refuse the President in such a circumstance. They can try to convince him otherwise, but if it's an order, it cannot be refused - that would be treason.