No, not according to all experts. — Agustino

Of course not. There are lawyers for the defense, too. The primary problem is the matter of intent, which is hard to prove. Why did Trump try to fire Mueller? Was it really for suggestions of conflict, or was that just an excuse? Given that he told Lester Holt and the Russian ambassador that he fired Comey because of the investigation into collusion, regardless of Rosenstein's memo, trying to fire Mueller a few weeks later fits a pattern of behaviour which would suggest corrupt intent.

But my main issue with your claim here is that Trump didn't really try to do it because it wasn't actually done. That's just silly. Relenting because you don't want someone to resign doesn't mean an attempt wasn't made.

It is very relevant. Your good sense is often more important than the law, especially when interpreting the law for a non-lawyer, like I presume both of us are.

No. Either it satisfies the legal definition of treason or obstruction of justice, or it doesn't. You can't simply decide that disobeying the President is treason because it "makes sense" to you.

Why did Trump try to fire Mueller? — Michael

He has said that innumerable times. Because he sees no need for such an investigation since there was no collusion.

But my main issue with your claim here is that Trump didn't really try to do it because it wasn't actually done. — Michael

No, it's not only because it wasn't actually done. It's because he didn't give the order, and hence McGahn did not resign.

Relenting because you don't want someone to resign doesn't mean an attempt wasn't made. — Michael

Again, a consultative discussion in which someone expresses that he will resign if you give a certain order does not indicate that he tried to obstruct justice.

He has said that innumerable times. Because he sees no need for such an investigation since there was no collusion. — Agustino

Ending an investigation into you because you claim to be innocent is obstruction of justice.

No, it's not only because it wasn't actually done. It's because he didn't give the order, and hence McGahn did not resign. — Agustino

So you keep saying, but people with more knowledge of the situation say otherwise. Your supposed reason for denying that it didn't happen - McGahn didn't resign - doesn't make sense.

Ending an investigation into you because you claim to be innocent is obstruction of justice. — Michael

He did not end the investigation, he expressed his desire to do it, but ultimately did not act on it. We'll see, but I highly doubt anything will happen to Trump for this, because it's just normal practice in my view.

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? — Michael

"Attempted murder", now honestly, what is that!? Do they give a Nobel prize for "attempted" chemistry?

FBI has second dossier on possible Trump-Russia collusion

The FBI inquiry into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election has been given a second memo that independently set out many of the same allegations made in a dossier by Christopher Steele, the British former spy.

...

One source with knowledge of the inquiry said the fact the FBI was still working on it suggested investigators had taken an aspect of it seriously.

It raises the possibility that parts of the Steele dossier, which has been derided by Trump’s supporters, may have been corroborated by Shearer’s research, or could still be.

...

The Shearer memo was provided to the FBI in October 2016.

It was handed to them by Steele – who had been given it by an American contact – after the FBI requested the former MI6 agent provide any documents or evidence that could be useful in its investigation, according to multiple sources.

The Guardian was told Steele warned the FBI he could not vouch for the veracity of the Shearer memo, but that he was providing a copy because it corresponded with what he had separately heard from his own independent sources.

Also, because it's hilarious (although also worrying if true):

Among other things, both documents allege Donald Trump was compromised during a 2013 trip to Moscow that involved lewd acts in a five-star hotel.

Meanwhile, a senior official in Trump administration effectively sabotaged the release of the much-anticipated list of corrupt Russian oligarchs and officials who benefited from their ties to the Kremlin. The impending event caused much anxiety in Russian power circles; reportedly, meetings were conducted at different levels of government just to discuss possible courses of action following the release of the list.

When the "Kremlin list" finally came out, in Russia it was met with incredulity, mirth and relief. It included the complete list of richest businessmen cribbed directly from the latest Russian Forbes report, plus the list of all heads of government departments, including even such innocent figures as the head of the presidential human rights council. Naturally, such a formal and all-inclusive catalogue is worthless. And one wonders why it took months to come up with a list that could have been compiled within a few hours at most.

According to Anders Åslund, who was involved in the Congress-mandated effort, that's pretty much what happened. At the last moment some unknown administration official ditched the work of Russia experts and replaced it with this nonsense, which made the whole effort look ridiculous.

Also, they refused to enforce Russia sanctions, despite a near-unanimously supported bill, soon after the Russian spy chief met with intelligence officials, despite being banned from entering the U.S.

One senses that the matter is coming to a head, and that it’s going to be very, very nasty.

Posted to make Wayfarer's comment appear.

Well, it is getting nasty indeed. The notorious Nunes Memo is clearly a stich-up, intended to muddy the waters, dim the lights, and cast suspicion on the FBI and Justice. Obviously, the US is running short of outrage, because that is what this is, and it should be obvious to all sides of politics. The only consolation is, that there are indeed very many influential and powerful people for whom this really might be one of the final straws, so hopefully it will turn into an exploding cigar.

If I got to write the headline:

President Attacks FBI, Justice Deparment in Attempt to Deflect Investigation into Improper Contact between Russians, Son, Close Associates.

GOP Agrees, Attempts to Shift Suspicion onto Government Agencies.

You will both see that nothing happens to Trump. Some of Hillary's people are still infiltrated in the structures of the state and are doing all that they can to undermine Trump and the Republicans. Trump has the highest popularity, amongst Republicans, of any President in recent history - and rightly so, he gets stuff done. 84% of Republicans approve of Trump. 5% of Democrats do (no wonder, he's sweeping the floor with them). And 40% of independents approve. Those are the numbers folks. Like it or not.

So the media is fake. Trump has low approval ratings overall just because all Democrats hate him, and Democrats are roughly 50% of the population. And hopefully, when this matter is solved, and nothing happens to Trump, especially you Wayfarer, will apologise for creating a fuss for so long out of nothing.

Have you been reading Machiavelli as of recent?

Have you been reading Machiavelli as of recent? — Posty McPostface

No, why? In fact, I've never read Machiavelli's Prince fully.

Well, wouldn't it bother you if you had a president who persistently lies about, well, very important issues? As a person who likes Plato (I do, to great extent) and Stoicism (again, my guiding philosophy in life), then wouldn't it be an issue of some strong cognitive dissonance to like the guy under the tenants of those two philosophies?

Well, wouldn't it bother you if you had a president who persistently lies about, well, very important issues? — Posty McPostface

I know Trump frequently "lies" if you can even call them that, about insignificant issues. The media counts things like "it was the biggest crowd ever" as a lie - that's not a lie to me, and it's really insignificant - it's more of a way of speaking, as in "it was a really big crowd". This is unlike other Presidents who usually lie about big issues - I haven't seen Trump being that kind of liar yet.

What are the significant issues he's lied about? Maybe stuff like the Stormy Daniels issue, but we're not sure yet what the truth is there.

As a person who likes Plato (I do, to great extent) and Stoicism (again, my guiding philosophy in life), then wouldn't it be an issue of some strong cognitive dissonance to like the guy under the tenants of those two philosophies? — Posty McPostface

Trump isn't a morally perfect person, for example, I think in matters of sexuality he has some important shortcomings, but in terms of getting things done, useful policies (like the tax & bureaucracy reduction), it seems that he's been doing well. Also, he's a very good cheerleader for America.

I know Trump frequently "lies" if you can even call them that, about insignificant issues. The media counts things like "it was the biggest crowd ever" as a lie - that's not a lie to me, and it's really insignificant - it's more of a way of speaking, as in "it was the biggest crowd ever". This is unlike other Presidents who usually lie about big issues - I haven't seen Trump being that kind of liar yet.

What are the significant issues he's lied about? Maybe stuff like the Stormy Daniels issue, but we're not sure yet what the truth is there. — Agustino

Yeah, this is the very decadent and slippery slope dilemma that America faces. Namely, that we've grown accustomed to having leaders get away with lying and hypocrisy.

Trump isn't a morally perfect person, for example, I think in matters of sexuality he has some important shortcomings, but in terms of getting things done, useful policies (like the tax & bureaucracy reduction), it seems that he's been doing well. Also, he's a very good cheerleader for America. — Agustino

Yeah, and I liked Bill Clinton too for being a great president; but, that doesn't pardon him for his misconduct with Lewinsky. Had Obama done anything in the slightest bit similar to Bill Clinton, then I think you know how the Republicans would respond. But, now we have a president that claimed that groping women by their genitals is an OK thing if spoken in a locker room 'banter' (what does that even fucking mean?) along with allegations that he spent time with a prostitute and paid her to keep silent. Go figure.

The dissonance is real.

The media counts things like "it was the biggest crowd ever" as a lie - that's not a lie to me, and it's really insignificant - it's more of a way of speaking, as in "it was the biggest crowd ever". — Agustino

Wow. Lying is a only a way of speaking now?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

he doesn't lie about insignificant stuff and even if it were the frequency alone should be a problem for anyone with moral fibre. It's your dissonance in continuing to defend the indefensible and simultaneously claiming the absence of morals in society are a huge issue and if only people were more like you. From where I'm standing, if people were more like you society would be even less moral as lies are no biggy.

Wow. Lying is a only a way of speaking now?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html — ProbablyTrue

Proves my point. A list of things which aren't even worth calling lies. It's like saying the President lied because he said he had covfefe coffee in the morning instead of tea >:O - give me a break. Maybe that's a lie for people like me and you, but when you're dealing with matters as important as the US President is, then that is really insignificant.

Yeah, this is the very decadent and slippery slope dilemma that America faces. Namely, that we've grown accustomed to having leaders get away with lying and hypocrisy. — Posty McPostface

Okay, but you do have to admit that somethings really are insignificant, and shouldn't be considered lies in the true sense of the word.

But, now we have a president that claimed that groping women by their genitals is an OK thing if spoken in a locker room along with allegations that he spent time with a prostitute and paid her to keep silent. — Posty McPostface

As far as I remember, he apologised for those comments. And as I said before, he's not morally perfect, and I especially singled out that area of his life. What prostitute did he spend time with?

Proves my point. A list of things which aren't even worth calling lies. — Agustino

Saying things that are wrong and can be verified as wrong aren't lies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Saying things that are wrong and can be verified as wrong aren't lies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading — ProbablyTrue

Insignificant lies, given that he is the President. And they may not even be lies - they can be taken as hyperbole. A hyperbole isn't a lie.

For example, if I say "I had the biggest crowd ever man!" - it depends what I mean by that. Because I could mean that it factually was the biggest, or simply that it was very big. That's how language functions.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

>:O what a joke mate, what a joke. What is this?

"We enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history."

They say this is a lie. That's wrong. It depends how you interpret it. If you interpret it as a reduction in corporate tax, it is the biggest in history. You could also interpret it as "really big" tax cuts.

This is what I mean, the media is really dishonest. How can anyone read and believe this crap? It's like the most uncharitable way to read someone's statements in history!

What prostitute did he spend time with? — Agustino

Actually, it seems to be a plural of a prostitute, meaning prostitute(s).

https://www.dailyrepublic.com/wires/second-porn-star-claims-trump-invited-her-to-hotel-room/

Actually, it seems to be a plural of a prostitute, meaning prostitute(s). — Posty McPostface

Well, they are pornstars, not really prostitutes >:O . But okay. I read about the Alana Evans thing, but I don't really buy that Trump invited her for sex. In fact, she didn't claim that either, she said she considers it a possibility though. It seems that both Evans and Stormy are capitalising on this for financial gain atm - their popularity is skyrocketing, and directors will hire them to do new pornos, knowing that now people will search for them and buy the movies. So, it's in their direct interest to make controversy.