Welcome Thread

[Wally Raffles]

Even though it's difficult to obstruct an investigation when there was never a crime to begin with.

Are you sure of that? I have seen that posed in American Forums, and it failed to get any support. There were some legal people who said that was incorrect.

[Black Orchid]

Bush lawyers per chance?

[Nicole]

4E google “bush lawyer”.

[Nicole]

Even though it's difficult to obstruct an investigation when there was never a crime to begin with.

Are you sure of that? I have seen that posed in American Forums, and it failed to get any support. There were some legal people who said that was incorrect.

Did they say it was legally correct to digitally rape disabled strawberry pickers, wal? What about morally correct to defend them?

[The4thEstate]

4E google “bush lawyer”.

Aha! I see you're not referring to attorneys who worked in the Bush administration!

[The4thEstate]

Even though it's difficult to obstruct an investigation when there was never a crime to begin with.

Are you sure of that? I have seen that posed in American Forums, and it failed to get any support. There were some legal people who said that was incorrect.

OK, let's lay this out. Is it theoretically possible to obstruct justice when no crime has been committed? Sure, I guess.

The real question is whether any thinking person would take such an accusation seriously in this instance.

I'll grant you that it's tough to appreciate the dynamics of this situation if you haven't lived in the States for the past 2 years. But ever since Trump's upset victory in the 2016 election, the American public has been treated to a 24-hour diet of Russian collusion hysteria from the Democrats and the national media (pardon the redundancy). Even though the entire narrative read like a Cold War spy novel written by a teenager.

I mean, seriously ... we were to believe that the guy who campaigned on "American first" had secretly rigged the presidential election with the help of one Vladimir P? Uh-uh, it too obviously was dreamed up in the backroom of the failed Hillary campaign and unleashed as an excuse for why Granny Pantsuit suffered her humiliating defeat in 2016.

Even the choice of Russia was pathetically unoriginal -- spurred no doubt by Trump's joke that maybe the Russians could find Hillary's 30,000 "missing" (i.e., intentionally destroyed) emails. Yeah right, I'm sure a president who was cutting backroom deals with the Russkies would be laughing about it in front of the national media.

The other facet of all this is that during these past 2 years, the Democrats have been fanatically insisting that Mueller be allowed to continue his investigation without Trump's interference. Well, Trump left him alone, and guess what happened? Mueller still concluded that (big shock) there was no Russian collusion involving Trump or his campaign. (Darn, it''s tough to prove something that never happened!)

And that's a long way of explaining how we find ourselves here, speculating on whether Trump might have obstructed justice even if he didn't collude. This is what's known in American football terminology as "moving the goal posts" -- i.e., instead of accepting Mueller's finding and moving on, the desperate Dems have taken the fallback position of, "OK, but even if he didn't collude, he obstructed justice."

It's all very silly, very political and very obvious. And besides, so what if Trump threatened to fire Mueller? Do a little Googling and you'll discover that as head of the executive branch of U.S. government, he had every right to do so under the Constitution.

[Texan]

Newb here. As the name states, I"m from Texas. I'm pretty conservative. I'm a military veteran, married with 3 sons, one of which is currently in the US military, I carry a gun everywhere legal, and I have 10 chickens that I keep for the eggs. I live in an unincorporated area about 50 km South of downtown Dallas. I'm a senior field engineer. I repair solid state uninterruptible power supplies for a living.

I post on 3 political forums and have the same name on all 3. I was invited to this forum and I guess I'm just curious how opinions differ on the other side of the world. I'm pretty much an open book. I'm opinionated and very set in my ways. I typically vote Republican, but I usually vote against the incumbent in the primaries because most national politicians are scumbags and more often than not I feel like I am voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I look forward to getting to know ya'll.

[Black Orchid]

Hi Texan and welcome to PA. I think you will find that we don't differ too much. We have the same ratbags on both sides of politics and politicians we have little faith in.

You do have Trump though so that, in many ways, puts you ahead.

[Neferti]

WELCOME 4th Estate and Texan (and any other newbies I forgot)

[Nicole]

Newb here. As the name states, I"m from Texas. I'm pretty conservative. I'm a military veteran, married with 3 sons, one of which is currently in the US military, I carry a gun everywhere legal, and I have 10 chickens that I keep for the eggs. I live in an unincorporated area about 50 km South of downtown Dallas. I'm a senior field engineer. I repair solid state uninterruptible power supplies for a living.

I post on 3 political forums and have the same name on all 3. I was invited to this forum and I guess I'm just curious how opinions differ on the other side of the world. I'm pretty much an open book. I'm opinionated and very set in my ways. I typically vote Republican, but I usually vote against the incumbent in the primaries because most national politicians are scumbags and more often than not I feel like I am voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I look forward to getting to know ya'll.

Welcome Texan. Good to have another American on the board.

MAGA!