Do you think Mueller should be fired?

[Aglaopheme]

Here's Rosenstein's letter recommending Comey's firing:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767

Dude, words matter. Trump’s words and his lawyer’s words.

 

[Rightguide]

Dude, words matter. Trump’s words and his lawyer’s words.

I understand your ideological focus, but Rosenstein's words have meaning as well, and note the references to former Assistant Attorney's General:


"My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Ford, wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." Silberman believes that the Director's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt the bureau will ever completely recover." Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had "chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, department from the department's traditions." They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W Bush, observed the Director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI director "doesn't make that decision". Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorneys General under President George W Bush, called the decision "an error in judgement." Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI".

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual event as "real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation," that is "antithetical to the interests of justice".

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President HW Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was "astonished and perplexed" by the decision to "break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections." Ayer's letter noted, "Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department's widely-respected, non-partisan traditions."

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions."

 

[IG_88]

I understand your ideological focus, but Rosenstein's words have meaning as well, and note the references to former Assistant Attorney's General:


"My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Ford, wrote that "it is not the bureau's responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted." Silberman believes that the Director's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt the bureau will ever completely recover." Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had "chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, department from the department's traditions." They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W Bush, observed the Director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI director "doesn't make that decision". Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorneys General under President George W Bush, called the decision "an error in judgement." Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI".

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual event as "real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation," that is "antithetical to the interests of justice".

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President HW Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was "astonished and perplexed" by the decision to "break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections." Ayer's letter noted, "Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department's widely-respected, non-partisan traditions."

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions."

That's all fine and good but it doesn't wipe out what was said. Just because there was a memo doesn't mean it was the reason for things.
I think most agree now that Comey probably needed to be fired but you can't just ignore what the President himself and his attorney both said.

 

[HisArpy]

That's all fine and good but it doesn't wipe out what was said. Just because there was a memo doesn't mean it was the reason for things.
I think most agree now that Comey probably needed to be fired but you can't just ignore what the President himself and his attorney both said.

No one says that they're ignoring the things Trump has said. What they're saying is that the guy who wrote the recommendation outlined LEGAL AND SOUND reasons to fire Comey.

Trump is perfectly within his rights to not like Comey as FBI director for WHATEVER reason he has as long as THE REASON Comey was fired isn't unlawful. So far, no one disputes that Comey should have been fired for those reasons long before he was. There is nothing wrong with Trump looking for a basis to do just that.

 

[Rightguide]

That's all fine and good but it doesn't wipe out what was said. Just because there was a memo doesn't mean it was the reason for things.
I think most agree now that Comey probably needed to be fired but you can't just ignore what the President himself and his attorney both said.

Doesn't matter what he said. He can fire Comey for whatever reason he deems appropriate. There can be no "obstruction of justice" when the President exercises his lawful Article II authority. The DOJ, the FBI, are not immune to the authority of the Executive,

 

[Bdm20]

Doesn't matter what he said. He can fire Comey for whatever reason he deems appropriate. There can be no "obstruction of justice" when the President exercises his lawful Article II authority. The DOJ, the FBI, are not immune to the authority of the Executive,

It does matter what he said. True, he can fire him. He doesn't even need a reason to fire him. Think about this parallel, though. In the state where I live, if you're an "at will" employee, you can be fired for any reason. You don't have to be told why you're being fired. However, if your boss is stupid enough to then tell you (or be recorded telling the Russians or Lester Holt in a televised interview) a REASON why you were being fired, that opens a whole new can of worms. Trump just can't help himself.

 

[HisArpy]

It does matter what he said. True, he can fire him. He doesn't even need a reason to fire him. Think about this parallel, though. In the state where I live, if you're an "at will" employee, you can be fired for any reason. You don't have to be told why you're being fired. However, if your boss is stupid enough to then tell you (or be recorded telling the Russians or Lester Holt in a televised interview) a REASON why you were being fired, that opens a whole new can of worms. Trump just can't help himself.

Irrelevant. You're equating a legal premise of a State law and the Plenary Powers of the President under the Constitution. Furthermore, the things Trump has said are being misquoted and taken out of context in order to try to justify something that may not exist.

Here's a decent article on the whole issue. It's not as clear cut as the D's and howling mob would like you to believe. Read the article, don't just hunt through it for nuggets and quotes to be used to prove talking points while ignoring the whole.

Vox article

 

[Bdm20]

Irrelevant. You're equating a legal premise of a State law and the Plenary Powers of the President under the Constitution. Furthermore, the things Trump has said are being misquoted and taken out of context in order to try to justify something that may not exist.

Here's a decent article on the whole issue. It's not as clear cut as the D's and howling mob would like you to believe. Read the article, don't just hunt through it for nuggets and quotes to be used to prove talking points while ignoring the whole.

Vox article

Ok, just read the article. A lot of "may not" and "might" and "if"'s relating to what evidence Mueller's team has and what it means. We don't know yet what evidence they have as it seems the only information which gets leaked on this is coming from the Trump side.

One of the subjects of debate in the article, and your statement, is whether the president has the right to fire for whatever reason. The article does not suggest he's in the clear, rather that it could go all the way to the Supreme Court for determination.

I believe it will be found that just like I have the right to drive out of a bank parking lot and make a legal right turn into an alley and put a cover over my car, I can be charged with a crime if there was a police car behind me with its lights flashing doing so was an attempt to keep them from catching me after robbing the bank.

I do not believe it's absolutely clear cut based on the information which we know at this time. I would be shocked, however, if it's not 100% clear cut once we find out everything which the investigation has discovered.

 

[Rightguide]

It does matter what he said. True, he can fire him. He doesn't even need a reason to fire him. Think about this parallel, though. In the state where I live, if you're an "at will" employee, you can be fired for any reason. You don't have to be told why you're being fired. However, if your boss is stupid enough to then tell you (or be recorded telling the Russians or Lester Holt in a televised interview) a REASON why you were being fired, that opens a whole new can of worms. Trump just can't help himself.

He could announce to the world why he did it and it wouldn't change the fact that Comey was fired. He has every constitutional right to control the DOJ or the FBI and direct their activities, though their is no evidence he even did that.

 

[HisArpy]

Ok, just read the article. A lot of "may not" and "might" and "if"'s relating to what evidence Mueller's team has and what it means. We don't know yet what evidence they have as it seems the only information which gets leaked on this is coming from the Trump side.

One of the subjects of debate in the article, and your statement, is whether the president has the right to fire for whatever reason. The article does not suggest he's in the clear, rather that it could go all the way to the Supreme Court for determination.

I believe it will be found that just like I have the right to drive out of a bank parking lot and make a legal right turn into an alley and put a cover over my car, I can be charged with a crime if there was a police car behind me with its lights flashing doing so was an attempt to keep them from catching me after robbing the bank.

I do not believe it's absolutely clear cut based on the information which we know at this time. I would be shocked, however, if it's not 100% clear cut once we find out everything which the investigation has discovered.

This is hard to digest but I think it means you read the article and still think that Mueller has the goods on Trump? Even though you also admit that there's no real clear showing that he has anything because the only things that have been leaked support Trump?

As for the other bits, in any debate there are always 2 sides. I usually side with the viewpoint that is based on known facts rather than "what might happen if...".

 

[Bdm20]

This is hard to digest but I think it means you read the article and still think that Mueller has the goods on Trump? Even though you also admit that there's no real clear showing that he has anything because the only things that have been leaked support Trump?

As for the other bits, in any debate there are always 2 sides. I usually side with the viewpoint that is based on known facts rather than "what might happen if...".

I read the article and it does not in any way state unequivocally that Mueller does [nothave the goods on Trump. No one outside Mueller's team knows the extent of the evidence. It's all speculation. What we do know
Beyond a reason of a doubt is that Trump lies. Often. I expectto find out in the future that there's a whole lot of evidence of wrongdoing. We're simply not privy to that information yet.

 

[Hypoxia]

Some of this is quite public. Tromp admitted obstructing justice. Team Tromp conspired with Kremlin agents to break election laws; that's on record. Now we await the details.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Some of this is quite public. Tromp admitted obstructing justice. Team Tromp conspired with Kremlin agents to break election laws; that's on record. Now we await the details.

In that case, it should be an extremely easy matter for you to stipulate BOTH the statutory requirements FOR obstructing justice as well as the public comments which constituted Trump's de facto violation of those requirements.

I can't wait.

 

[IG_88]

In that case, it should be an extremely easy matter for you to stipulate BOTH the statutory requirements FOR obstructing justice as well as the public comments which constituted Trump's de facto violation of those requirements.

I can't wait.

I'm the farthest thing from a Trump fan but it gets really old hearing people say that things are "facts" when they clearly are not since Trump is still in office. If things were so clear we wouldn't really need any special counsels, they'd just cuff his ass and that would be the end of that.

 

[Hypoxia]

In that case, it should be an extremely easy matter for you to stipulate BOTH the statutory requirements FOR obstructing justice as well as the public comments which constituted Trump's de facto violation of those requirements.

Tromp tweeted, "I don't obstruct -- unless I'm fighting back!" which evaluates to, "Yes, I obstructed." That's a public admission in an official communication. Pointing out just which statutes were violated ain't my job.

 

[Beco]

Judges in Virginia and Washington have the special counsel reeling.
Mueller’s Tough Week in Court
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
May 7, 2018 3:21 PM



https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/robert-mueller-tough-week-court-manafort/

 

[HisArpy]

Tromp tweeted, "I don't obstruct -- unless I'm fighting back!" which evaluates to, "Yes, I obstructed." That's a public admission in an official communication. Pointing out just which statutes were violated ain't my job.

That's your opinion of what he said, not what he actually DID say. Because he didn't actually say he obstructed justice, he did NOT "admit" to obstruction of justice. You want what he DID say to "mean" he admitted to obstruction. That's a whole different animal called "an inference" rather than "an admission".

As to which specific statutes were violated, yes it is your job if you're going to make the claim he admitted to violating them. What statute(s)? Specifically. And how, specifically.

 

[Hypoxia]

That's your opinion of what he said, not what he actually DID say. Because he didn't actually say he obstructed justice, he did NOT "admit" to obstruction of justice.

A jury might think otherwise.

As to which specific statutes were violated, yes it is your job...

If it's a job, how much are you paying? I'm not cheap, boy. Pay up or shut up.

 

[about_average]

FACT:

Rod Rosenstein wrote a memo recommending the firing of Comey and outlined several reasons why it should be done immediately. Some of which the recent IG report substantiates. Trump has repeatedly said he followed the recommendation of Comey's superior.

I'm only going by what Trump himself said. His later attempts at damage control when he realized he told the truth, for a change, on national TV are just that.

Anyone with half a brain knows he told the truth on NBC. Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about the rule of law so even if Comey broke some law regarding the Clinton investigation, his handling of it is what got Trump elected, so there's no way he'd fire him for his handling of it. He even said just before the election Comey did the right thing.

FACT #2:

There is NO EVIDENCE that the Trump campaign attempted to unlawfully change the outcome of the 2016 election.

I would say Trump Jr's admission that he did, after being caught lying about it, is pretty good evidence.
Or do you think he desire to work with a hostile foreign government to get information was just because he wanted some light bedtime reading?

 

[about_average]

Fact #3: Hillary, the Democrat Party, and officers of the Obama administration, did conspire with agents of a foreign government to affect the outcome of the election and to frame the President of the United States, Donald Trump.

You keep posting that BS but to date you haven't provided a single piece of evidence that Steele, or anyone on his behalf, worked with people claiming to represent the Russian government in their discussions with him.
Not to mention the fact you've never provided any evidence there was an attempt to "frame" Trump.

Whereas there is concrete proof the Trump campaign was excited to meet with someone who represented the Russian government, in order to get information detrimental to Clinton's election efforts.

 

[Hypoxia]

You keep posting that BS but to date you haven't provided a single piece of evidence that Steele, or anyone on his behalf, worked with people claiming to represent the Russian government in their discussions with him.
Not to mention the fact you've never provided any evidence there was an attempt to "frame" Trump.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it gets pretty suspicious after a year of the same old bullshit.

 

[HisArpy]

A jury might think otherwise.

Thus, evidence from your own fingers that he did NOT admit to obstructing justice. Admissions of guilt don't need a jury to decide if they are or aren't.

If it's a job, how much are you paying? I'm not cheap, boy. Pay up or shut up.

Oh Puhleeze.

You jumped on the $2 of monopoly money I waved out the window at you so fast.. you didn't even care if it was sticky and stained.

 

[bellisarius]

Obstruction? A president cannot be indicted merely for exercising his or her constitutional duties. Mueller knows that and that's exactly why Trump should tell Mueller to go "fuck off" re. any interview. And should Mueller subpoena Trump, Trump should essentially tell Mueller to "fuck off" again and let Mueller take it to the SCOTUS. Mueller has no evidence of any wrong doing, as a matter of fact his appointment as Special Counsel is extra-legal based on the law under which he was appointed to begin with. And that is the reason Mueller is getting hammered by the judges once he steps in the courtroom.

It appears that Rosenstein made the original fuck up and then later tried to cover every ones ass ex post facto, not unlike the bind that Mueller finds himself in re. Flynn. Ex post facto alteration of facts and/or charters just don't cut it in the courtroom.

 

[Rightguide]

Obstruction? A president cannot be indicted merely for exercising his or her constitutional duties. Mueller knows that and that's exactly why Trump should tell Mueller to go "fuck off" re. any interview. And should Mueller subpoena Trump, Trump should essentially tell Mueller to "fuck off" again and let Mueller take it to the SCOTUS. Mueller has no evidence of any wrong doing, as a matter of fact his appointment as Special Counsel is extra-legal based on the law under which he was appointed to begin with. And that is the reason Mueller is getting hammered by the judges once he steps in the courtroom.

It appears that Rosenstein made the original fuck up and then later tried to cover every ones ass ex post facto, not unlike the bind that Mueller finds himself in re. Flynn. Ex post facto alteration of facts and/or charters just don't cut it in the courtroom.

It'a amazing the amount of ignorance the opposition operates under.

 

[Beco]

This week, one of the Russian companies accused by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of funding a conspiracy to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election was revealed in court to not have existed during the time period alleged by Mueller's team of prosecutors, according to a lawyer representing the defendant.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/30556/disaster-mueller-indicted-russian-company-didnt-ryan-saavedra