• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump can't fire Mueller

RickJames3000 said:
Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing. Excon is apparently too stubborn (or afraid) to face reality here.
Click to expand...

There are certain posters at DP that are not just not worth engaging.
Maybe you've come across such posters?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Trump has made no move or comment suggesting he has any intention of firing Mueller and seems to have refuted what the media is reporting about that.

But technically he can order Rosenstein to fire Mueller, though he better have a very VERY good and verifiable reason for doing so or it would be political suicide. As I recall the current regulations, a special prosecutor can be removed for malfeasance/misconduct, failure to do his job, conflict of interest, or other good cause.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's unimaginable that Trump would fire someone who was investigating him, knowing there would be political backlash.

Oh. Wait.
 
Paperview said:
Sure is fun watching some here advocate for another Saturday Night Massacre.
Click to expand...

That worked out really well for Nixon.
Maybe some posters are too young to remember that event?
 
radioman said:
I've highlighted the key words in your post.
Click to expand...

What alternative is there?
1. say/do nothing.
2. reasonably oppose crazy
3. join crazy

we have some on the forums that insist on #1, which amounts to avoidance or silent approval.
Choosing #2, we're stuck stating the obvious.

If I ever do #3, its due to either a brain injury, or because I decided to "go out by taking as much as I could and ****ting on everyone else".
 
radioman said:
I've highlighted the key words in your post.
Click to expand...
As he was wrong you highlighted his wrongness and established yours as well.
:lamo
 
bubbabgone said:
You're right, of course, but I wasn't even thinking of Newt.
What I had heard was that the firing of Mueller speculation came from Ruddy of Newsmax who saw Sekulow from the American Center for Law & Justice answer a question on a Sunday morning show (I believe he doesn't actually work for Trump).
Ruddy now says he never talked to Trump about it so he doesn't really know shiite.



Chris Ruddy, Trump ally, says president is considering firing Robert Mueller - Washington Times
Click to expand...

I hadn't seen what you posted here. I saw Newt on Chris Wallace's show on Fox on Sunday - something I only rarely watch. Gingrich is incensed by Mueller's hires. That doesn't amount to much of anything other than screaming "Witch hunt!" in advance of any hunting. I agree that such talk is thinly sourced. There are those who see Watergate parallels in their coffee every morning, too.
 
humbolt said:
I hadn't seen what you posted here. I saw Newt on Chris Wallace's show on Fox on Sunday - something I only rarely watch. Gingrich is incensed by Mueller's hires. That doesn't amount to much of anything other than screaming "Witch hunt!" in advance of any hunting. I agree that such talk is thinly sourced. There are those who see Watergate parallels in their coffee every morning, too.
Click to expand...

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Wishful thinking on some people's part perhaps? :mrgreen: Time will tell......
 
polgara said:
Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Wishful thinking on some people's part perhaps? :mrgreen: Time will tell......
Click to expand...

As things stand now, it sure looks like wishful thinking to me. There's just no telling what who might come up with though, and how far from reality it might be. I don't think it matters really. So far all predictions of Trump's demise have been empty. The objective isn't to nail Trump so much as it's to create a giant distraction to prevent Trump from getting anything else done. I expect investigations to continue forever, or until a democrat wins some meaningful office somewhere. The two are not necessarily exclusive. At the rate they're going, the democrats could take forever to win something.
 
bubbabgone said:
From what I've heard about it so far, this story about canning Mueller is very thinly sourced and even thinnerly founded in substance.
It came from someone who heard someone say something and assumed their own interpretation of what they were hinting at, and neither person was in a position to actually know anything.
But it was something certain elements of the media was eager to blast everywhere sooooooooo...
Click to expand...

just another hearsay rumor
 
bubbabgone said:
Yup. And thanks for not bitching about me using the word "thinnerly" ... I'm looking to have it catch on so feel free to use it.
Click to expand...

Use whatever word you want. It is a free country.

Most people make up words from time to time.
 
humbolt said:
I hadn't seen what you posted here. I saw Newt on Chris Wallace's show on Fox on Sunday - something I only rarely watch. Gingrich is incensed by Mueller's hires. That doesn't amount to much of anything other than screaming "Witch hunt!" in advance of any hunting. I agree that such talk is thinly sourced. There are those who see Watergate parallels in their coffee every morning, too.
Click to expand...

The idea is to make the dance
12192012001326.gif
last as long as you can and make it appear serious.
When people stop watching because it never seems to end you declare that's it's still not settled and keep talking about it through 2018.
 
Vetplus40 said:
I wasn't aware of this either, but according to Deputy AG Rosenstein, the statute that was implemented under former AG Reno has a "chain of command" that omits the POTUS. As such, Trump can't fire him. Interesting.......:)

That said, he states that he has seen NO reason to fire Mueller whatsoever.
Click to expand...

He can order others to fire him. And, I hope he does. Doing so will be the beginning of the end.
 
calamity said:
He can order others to fire him. And, I hope he does. Doing so will be the beginning of the end.
Click to expand...

Only one who can fire Meuller is the DAG.

If Trump fires the DAG, he has to appoint someone to that Senate confirmed seat. Not looking good.
 
Paperview said:
Only one who can fire Meuller is the DAG.

If Trump fires the DAG, he has to appoint someone to that Senate confirmed seat. Not looking good.
Click to expand...
That is not an insurmountable obstacle.
If a DAG refuses and is fired for refusal, an acting Deputy takes his place and Trump can order that ADAG etc... until he finds one who will fire Mueller.
 
Last edited:
RickJames3000 said:
All of this was clearly known before Rod Rosenstein hired Mueller. So why did the Trump Justice Department make this selection?
Click to expand...

This may be true but this doesn't minimize or ameliorate any potential bias on behalf of Mueller.

Furthermore, you are imputing knowledge onto Trump with your statement of, "All of this was clearly known before Rod Rosenstein hired Mueller." Did Trump know Rosenstein was going to appoint a special counsel? Was Trump made aware Rosenstein was going to appoint Mueller as special counsel? You assume Trump had this knowledge but there's been no substantiation of this assumption as fact.
 
NotreDame said:
This may be true but this doesn't minimize or ameliorate any potential bias on behalf of Mueller.

Furthermore, you are imputing knowledge onto Trump with your statement of, "All of this was clearly known before Rod Rosenstein hired Mueller." Did Trump know Rosenstein was going to appoint a special counsel? Was Trump made aware Rosenstein was going to appoint Mueller as special counsel? You assume Trump had this knowledge but there's been no substantiation of this assumption as fact.
Click to expand...

If Trump has no idea what is happening in his own Justice Department, it simply adds fuel to the idea that he's completely incompetent and should remove himself from the office.
 
RickJames3000 said:
If Trump has no idea what is happening in his own Justice Department, it simply adds fuel to the idea that he's completely incompetent and should remove himself from the office.
Click to expand...

You are confusing overall general knowledge with having knowledge in regards to a very specific area, in this instance appointment of special counsel. Here, it would be rational and logical if DOJ hadn't A.) Advised Trump they are appointing special counsel to B.) investigate members of Trump's administration and their alleged relationship with the Russian government.

Trump may generally know what is transpiring at DOJ, but it isn't rational he has knowledge of "everything" occurring at DOJ and in this instance, under these circumstances, it is rational to expect the DOJ would not have advised Trump of an intention to appoint a special counsel to investigate his administration's alleged relationship with the Russian government.
 
NotreDame said:
You are confusing overall general knowledge with having knowledge in regards to a very specific area, in this instance appointment of special counsel. Here, it would be rational and logical if DOJ hadn't A.) Advised Trump they are appointing special counsel to B.) investigate members of Trump's administration and their alleged relationship with the Russian government.

Trump may generally know what is transpiring at DOJ, but it isn't rational he has knowledge of "everything" occurring at DOJ and in this instance, under these circumstances, it is rational to expect the DOJ would not have advised Trump of an intention to appoint a special counsel to investigate his administration's alleged relationship with the Russian government.
Click to expand...

It is rational that Trump would have been briefed by his own team if they were going to appoint a SC, and also who they were going to select to fulfill that role. The idea that they would keep him in the dark about something so significant is ridiculous.
 
RickJames3000 said:
It is rational that Trump would have been briefed by his own team if they were going to appoint a SC, and also who they were going to select to fulfill that role. The idea that they would keep him in the dark about something so significant is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Given the fact that his Attorney General has never had a briefing on the Russian interference with the election, I don't think we can be surprised about any lack of knowledge among any people in this administration.
 
RickJames3000 said:
It is rational that Trump would have been briefed by his own team if they were going to appoint a SC, and also who they were going to select to fulfill that role. The idea that they would keep him in the dark about something so significant is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


What's "ridiculous" is your refusal, perhaps inability, to recognize there are rational reasons for DOJ to not have informed Trump they are appointing a special counsel and/or that the counsel was Mueller. By "informed" I mean they didn't give Trump any sufficient advanced notice, which is to also say if they informed him, it was immediately before or substantially close in time to when Rosenstein acted, thereby precluding Trump from publicly denouncing and publicly preempting appointment of special counsel, and Mueller as selection.

In the alternative, I can see the DOJ not advising him of anything or selection of Mueller.

There are very compelling, and very conspicuous, reasons why the DOJ wouldn't inform Trump under these circumstances or inform him at such a time he wasn't afforded sufficient time to object.

Hell, it's reported Trump wasn't made aware, in advance, of Session's decision to recuse himself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom