Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

lets put a percentage and time frame on this. Then we can revisit

 

Quite an original idea, straight from the tiny hands of Fox & Friend #1.



Does the little monkey hat fall off when you dance?

 

Why don't you revisit some of your posts on this fake Russia thing from back in the fall..all great stuff and well worth revisiting.

 

They know he's reprehensible and incapable of performing his Constitutional oath. I have gained a lot of respect for GOP members who have decried President Trump as a charlatan since the beginning of his candidacy.

At the root of all of this, what I wish conservatives like @Commodore would understand is that this isn't merely about sour grapes over the election. As I liberal I know the DNC nominated a significantly flawed candidate with decades-worth of baggage and a demeanor that turned off voters. Do I think that's fair criticism and reflective of how Hillary Clinton would've governed? Not entirely. What this is about is getting to the bottom of why President Trump seemingly kowtows to Russia at every turn, praising Vladimir Putin while throwing our historic allies under the bus. It is about making sure that somebody who preaches "America first" politics isn't actually governing from an "America first if Putin says it's ok" perspective. President Trump took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Russia is an enemy. Their aims have been at odds with ours ever since Berlin fell. To pretend that there isn't even smoke surrounding President Trump's stance on Russia is to be blindly, stupefyingly partisan.

 

Let's see it. I'd love that.

 

Trump testifying under oath.

 

The thing is that legislation would have been as stagnant as it is now with Clinton, except that public opinion would blame her for being "unlikeable", "corrupt", "establisment" or other frames Republicans have been throwing at her for decades.

It's really the fault of the Republican party that gutted itself in place of liars, lunatics and thieves who have proven to be just as inept at governing as their party chief. It's just that those flaws wouldn't be magnified as a do-nothing opposition party.

I'd think do-nothing ruling party doesn't work out in the end, but common sense stopped working years ago and here we are.

 

This isn't terribly surprising. The Trump family is very wealthy and they have a long history of suing anyone and everyone to get their way. Even if the suits have no merit, they are costly to defend.

 

If I lived up on a hill and I was watching the wave approaching, I'd probably buy flood insurance just in case.

 

While Trump has stopped short of saying he plans to fire Mueller, his top aides have acknowledged the subject has come up. That, in turn, has prompted a sharp retort from top Republicans and Democrats alike.

“Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency unless Mueller did something wrong,” Graham told reporters last week.

Bipartisan bills unveiled to protect Mueller
​

Competing bipartisan Senate bills introduced Thursday put President Donald Trump on further notice that any move to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller wouldn’t go down without a serious fight.

The two pieces of legislation take different approaches but both have the same mission of requiring judicial review of any move to oust Mueller, who is leading the independent probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

• One of the measures, introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee members Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), would let Mueller challenge his firing by a panel of three federal judges — but only after he’s been terminated.
• By contrast, a different proposal from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) would force the top Justice Department officials who were tasked with firing Mueller to go before the judicial panel before he’s even terminated to explain their reasons for the move.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/03/robert-mueller-senate-bills-protection-241296

 

If Trump want to fire Mueller, he better do it fast. Things are about to get ugly for him and his corrupt families and friends.

 

Read posts from the beginning of this thread by Trump supporters and read recent ones.

Goal posts have been moved across the continent.

 

I think it reflects that they now know Trump did something that warrants consideration of impeachment. Now, they want to narrow the scope of the investigation (which they describe as a "witch hunt" or a 'fishing trip"). They want Mueller and the two congressional investigations to narrow their search to "only involving collusion with Russians" or even more narrowly "evidence that Trump and the Russians changed votes or hacked voting machines".

Of course, when Mueller was named to investigate... his charter was to look at any links between Russia and the Trump campaign as well as any other matters that may arise directly from the investigation. So any financial improprieties discovered as well as any obstruction of justice are certainly matters that may arise from the investigation. So sorry, its not just an investigation of collusion. And Mueller has full prosecutory privileges.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-appoints-special-counsel-in-wake-of-comey-developments/

Interesting to note that there are a growing number on the Trump side who obviously believe Trump was guilty of collusion. For example, Charles Krauthammer (someone who believes Trump is unfit to be president, just said the following:

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...r-impeachment-would-be-a-catastrophic-mistake

Wow... Trump has so lessened the office of the president and all things related to our democratic process that the likelihood that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the presidential election is only described as "unseemly"?

Webster defines unseemly as "not according with established standards of good form or taste; not suitable for time or place; inappropriate; unseasonable." Interesting to also note that Webster included this as an example of "unseemly" used in a sentence:

 

Well, quitting won't protect him from the FBI.

I do think there is a little something to the Deep State stuff. The disgust with having this guy for president among career government people seems to be pretty strong given the leaks that spring everywhere. Liberals in government might not like having Rubio or Kasich for president, but they'd probably do their jobs and basically serve the president's agenda. They wouldn't be breaking the law to maximize his embarrassment and hamstring his agenda. Some of that is patriotism and trying to stop official coprruotion and malfeasance, imo, and some of it is a deep organizational disdain for a guy who violates the culture and won't play by the rules. And, since he won't conform, they will make it as hard as possible for him to succeed.

I'll be surprised if they can get the President to testify before the Grand Jury at all. He is accountable only to Congress and to the voter.

 

True, but I suspect that there would be some sort of deal made... agreeing to resign if the investigation stops, or perhaps with some limited communication of findings to show it was not a "witchhunt" but no further charges (especially related to financial activities).

Agree... Trump has brought the "deep state" stuff on himself. I would not agree with Kasich and especially Cruz, but partisan differences is not what is being investigated here. I may disagree with Kasich (and strongly disagree with Cruz), but neither have hidden financial crimes, and neither would collude with Russia. democrats would oppose what they say and do (like repubs did with Obama), but that would be expected. Republicans choosing Trump was such a mistake that they will regert for years.

True... we are wholly dependent on republican congress to restore our government and democracy. That will start by removing Trump.

 

Great job. The only critique is that it was a bit too coherent. Need more incomplete thoughts.

 

They got Bill Clinton to testify before a Grand Jury in 1998 while he was still the sitting president. The precedent already exists.

 

LOL Brit Hume, always carrying the Trump/Fox water, tries the "crimes not related to the election shouldn't be looked at" defense:



Um, no says Lawrence Tribe...



Hmm... with all due respect to the conservative talking head, I think I will go with the professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard University, who also practices law with the firm Massey & Gail LLP.

 

Meanwhile... Twitchy speculation of indictments...

Trump’s itchy Twitter finger just triggered speculation about an indictment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-indictment/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.288258ec9231