• 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!

Gregg Jarrett: Trump should demand Mueller quit as special counsel

American said:
I provided the best links I could find.
Click to expand...

Don't apologize. "Anywhere" doesn't count. Obviously Gregg Jarrett said it, so it's "somewhere". Jarrett's a lawyer, and an anonymous source clued him in. Works for everything else in the news.
 
JasperL said:
I'm with you - did a Google search on the term and got nothing but the Fox News article.

As an aside, when someone writing for a major publication is supposedly quoting statute, but doesn't cite the statute (which section) much less provide a link to it, it's a HUUUUGGE red flag for me. It's at best very lazy and very sloppy, which doesn't bode well for the quality of the argument itself.
Click to expand...

Bee
eye
en
gee
Oh
!
:)

Huge red flag. I don't know why some cons so often fall for this stuff, then go crawling back to the place that keeps feeding them bad and embarrassing information.

It's really sad.
 
American said:
I provided the best links I could find.
Click to expand...

I understand and wasn't directing my comment to your links. It was meant as a criticism of the article and the author, not you. :peace
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by American

I provided the best links I could find.
Click to expand...

But didn't bother to actually look at the language of the "special counsel statute" - (which you linked and does not contain what you quoted)

that should have tipped you off right there. Heck, all you had to do was a Ctrl^F and plug in the word personal or relationship -- to see it wasn't there.

Did it concern you as you read the author of that rather shoddy piece of work didn't link, or even give the statute number? It should.

Any careful news consumer needs to be wary of people trying to pool the wool over the eyes of the reader, as was displayed vividly here by Mr. Jarrett.
 
Last edited:
Paperview said:
But didn't bother to actually look at the language of the "special counsel statute" - (which you linked and does not contain what you quoted)

that should have tipped you off right there. Heck, all you had to do was a Ctrl^F and plug in the word personal or relationship -- to see it wasn't there.

Did it concern you as you read the author of that rather shoddy piece of work didn't link, or even give the statute number? It should.

Any careful news consumer needs to be wary of people trying to pool the wool over the eyes of the reader, as was displayed vividly here by Mr. Jarrett.
Click to expand...

I think you have me confused with someone else.
 
JasperL said:
The hack also misquoted the relevant section which is why it doesn't show up in a google search. Omitted part bolded.


Goodness, this guy's a lawyer. He should be ashamed and embarrassed to put out that kind of hackery. Hope he got a good price for his integrity. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yep. I covered that in #30:

"Very true, but I'll remind, Comey isn't the subject of the investigation.

Nor does (b) apply, IMO.

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution."
 
humbolt said:
Don't apologize. "Anywhere" doesn't count. Obviously Gregg Jarrett said it, so it's "somewhere". Jarrett's a lawyer, and an anonymous source clued him in. Works for everything else in the news.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't work. Jarret said he was quoting the special counsel statute and he was lying.
 
Paperview said:
I did misquote the wrong person. Thank you.

I read your reply and mistakenly hit the "reply with quote" button from you instead of American.
Click to expand...

Mistakes happen. I have no desire to get seriously involved in this thread, but whether you believe Jarrett or not, there could be grounds to question exactly where Mueller's loyalty resides - in justice, or in something else. We'll see.
 
JasperL said:
No it doesn't work. Jarret said he was quoting the special counsel statute and he was lying.
Click to expand...

Heh. Mr. Jarrett is somebody. I don't know if he's correct or not. At this point, it probably doesn't matter. It might later.
 
humbolt said:
Heh. Mr. Jarrett is somebody. I don't know if he's correct or not. At this point, it probably doesn't matter. It might later.
Click to expand...

He misquoted the statute and about which statute he was quoting from. That's demonstrated by several of us in this thread. Incorrect is not in doubt. I guess it's possible he wasn't "lying" - perhaps he just put his name on an article fed to him by some think tank or lobbyist or Trump operative, and is just a lazy hack with no integrity.
 
Paperview said:
Very true, but I'll remind, Comey isn't the subject of the investigation.

Nor does (b) apply, IMO.

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
Click to expand...
If the leaks to the media are being investigated, Comey may not be the subject of the investigation but he is definitely a subject of the investigation.
His self admittance to leaking likely just brought him more scrutiny.
As a leaker his word in regards to what Trump supposedly said are also now suspect, likely making him a focus of that investigation as well.




LunaRose said:
During the appointment process of Mueller not one Senator or Rep , Democrat or Republican, was against the appointment of Mueller chosen in large part by the President.
Click to expand...
Prove the underlined.


LunaRose said:
Mueller was praised by politicians from both sides of the aisle, everyone give their high accolades of Mueller...But now he is ALL OF A SUDDEN a conflict of interest?
Click to expand...
No. Not everyone, and not all of a sudden.


LunaRose said:
However, Trump and Rosenstien made the decision to appoint Mueller.
Click to expand...
No, just Rosenstein.


LunaRose said:
Trumps administration supported the decision.
Click to expand...
No.


LunaRose said:
Every politician ranging across the political spectrum supported the decision.
Click to expand...
No. Trump made it clear he thought it hurts our country terribly..





LunaRose said:
Comey's and Mueller's friendship was not a secret, colleagues in many professions become friends. This is not proof that Mueller can not do the job that was asked of him ...
Click to expand...
No one said it is proof, but it does have the appearance of impropriety/conflict of interest, and that is a valid reason for him removing himself, or purposely being removed.


LunaRose said:
and not one soul in Washington or anywhere else disagreed when the appointment process was taking place, including the President and his administration.
Click to expand...
Prove your assertion.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Gregg Jarrett: Trump should demand Mueller quit as special counsel | Fox News



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor#Firing_the_special_prosecutor

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...c=true&node=pt28.2.600&rgn=div5#se28.2.600_17

Non-partisan thoughts?
Click to expand...

1. Who is Gregg Jarrett and why should I care what he thinks?

2. Perhaps Jarrett should base his opinions on facts...instead of stuff from unnamed sources.

3. Let Mueller do his job. I want to see what kind of criminal activity he finds evidence for.
 
LunaRose said:
Trump and Rosenstien made the decision to appoint Mueller.
Click to expand...
Trump was not involved at all.

LunaRose said:
Every politician ranging across the political spectrum supported the decision.
Click to expand...
Yes, like I said. Swamp monsters sing the praises of swamp monsters. Outsiders weren't singing his praises. Not Bannon, not Rand Paul, not any of the Trumps.

LunaRose said:
The right and left wing media outlets had nothing negative to say about the appointment...You do understand that a unanimous pick like this does not happen often in our political world now a days?
Click to expand...
Yes, the MSM failed to do due diligence. Just like they did with the Run-up to the Iraq war. Not something worth celebrating.


LunaRose said:
Comey's and Mueller's friendship was not a secret, colleagues in many professions become friends. This is not proof that Mueller can not do the job that was asked of him
Click to expand...
Yes, isn't it remarkable how "the image of impropriety" only seems to apply to Donald Trump and literally nobody else in Washington?

LunaRose said:
and not one soul in Washington or anywhere else disagreed when the appointment process was taking place, including the President and his administration. (Of course other than yourself. :mrgreen:)
Click to expand...

This has already been addressed twice previously. Swamp monsters etc...
Gingrich is a hypocrite though.
 
American said:
Gregg Jarrett: Trump should demand Mueller quit as special counsel | Fox News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor#Firing_the_special_prosecutor

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...c=true&node=pt28.2.600&rgn=div5#se28.2.600_17

Non-partisan thoughts?
Click to expand...

My non-partisan thoughts.

If that statute actually declares what he claims, then yes...Mueller should voluntarily recuse himself and if he doesn't, it would be appropriate for the Attorney General to remove him. HOWEVER, neither of the links you provided contain the text he claims, and I am disinclined to simply take Jarrett's word that such a claim exists in the statute. As such, until I actually see the statute, and actually verify that it says what he claims, I would say Mueller is under no requirement to step down.
 
Paperview said:
Trump humper Jarrett snatched it from here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2, and it's not from "the special counsel statute."

He also left this part out:

(2)Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
Click to expand...

And thus why I was disinclined to believe Jarrett's take without actually having the text of the full statute he was claiming to be quoting from. Thanks for providing this.
 
Now Trump is throwing Rosenstein under the bus.


He'll likely be recusing soon.


Neeexxtttt....

lol.
 
JasperL said:
He misquoted the statute and about which statute he was quoting from. That's demonstrated by several of us in this thread. Incorrect is not in doubt. I guess it's possible he wasn't "lying" - perhaps he just put his name on an article fed to him by some think tank or lobbyist or Trump operative, and is just a lazy hack with no integrity.
Click to expand...

Maybe. In any case, that Mueller is best buds with Comey might give a reasonable person pause concerning his objectivity. I'm willing to wait and see. One thing is clear from the start though. Mueller hasn't stopped the leaks. Maybe he's the new source of them.
 
Excon said:
If the leaks to the media are being investigated, Comey may not be the subject of the investigation but he is definitely a subject of the investigation.
His self admittance to leaking likely just brought him more scrutiny.
As a leaker his word in regards to what Trump supposedly said are also now suspect, likely making him a focus of that investigation as well.




Prove the underlined.


No. Not everyone, and not all of a sudden.


No, just Rosenstein.


No.


No. Trump made it clear he thought it hurts our country terribly..





No one said it is proof, but it does have the appearance of impropriety/conflict of interest, and that is a valid reason for him removing himself, or purposely being removed.


Prove your assertion.
Click to expand...

You are correct in Trump did come out against Mueller....However, I went back to double check my other claims...And I didn't see one one person, not one politician that came out publicly ,aside from Trump, that was against the appointment of Mueller....If you can cite it that would be great.... Rosenstein is part of Trumps Administration and not one person from the Trump administration publicly came out against the appointment. Only saying the investigation itself is unnecessary.

The senate hearing was unanimous and politicians on both sides were giving Mueller high accolades. The assertion that Mueller will conduct an unethical investigation because of his friendships is ridiculous. If we were going by those standards then you should be against Trump being President...The conflicts of interests are countless. Regardless, Mueller hasn't presented the public with any facts or evidence so we don't know what will come of the investigation. Maybe nothing..
 
LunaRose said:
However, I went back to double check my other claims...And I didn't see one one person, not one politician that came out publicly ,aside from Trump, that was against the appointment of Mueller....If you can cite it that would be great....
Click to expand...
I do not need to cite anyone as your three claims were, "not one", "everyone", and "every".
Those are definitive claims and is incumbent on you to support, not me to prove wrong.

Suggestion: If you do not want to be called on such claims do not make definitive claims when you very well can not support them. :shrug:


LunaRose said:
Rosenstein is part of Trumps Administration and not one person from the Trump administration publicly came out against the appointment. Only saying the investigation itself is unnecessary.
Click to expand...
1. Not one person huh? Trump is part of his administration.
2. Not one person huh? You do not know if anyone else was against it, or came out against it. You just do not know of any.
3. Totally irrelevant as Trump can order he be fired for the reason stated. Does not matter who was, or was not, against it from the get.


LunaRose said:
The senate hearing was unanimous and politicians on both sides were giving Mueller high accolades.
Click to expand...
Senate "hearing" unanimous? Senate hearing on what? Have a link to this Senate hearing?


Trump is not precluded from firing him because of any previous support, no matter by how many supported his appointment. It doesn't work that way.
He serves at the will of the President. What Trump can not do is fire him to impede or to obstruct the investigation. While that kind of firing would be legal by law, the reason for it would be illegal and prosecutable.
And firing him for a valid reason with the intent that he would be replaced so the investigation can continue, is not impeding or obstructing.


LunaRose said:
The assertion that Mueller will conduct an unethical investigation because of his friendships is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion.
When such a conflict/appearance of impropriety exists, whether or not the person can conduct a fair investigation is irrelevant to the fact that the appearance/conflict exists.
There is a very good reason for such a rule because you can not be assured that the person will not be influenced, in this case, by his friendship. It is not that simple to overcome human nature, thus the rule.


LunaRose said:
If we were going by those standards then you should be against Trump being President...The conflicts of interests are countless.
Click to expand...
No.
1. You are talking about an elected President vs that of an appointment.
Not the same thing at all.
2. Hyperbolic nonsense. While some have been alleged, no one has shown any actual conflict of interest on Trump's part that violates any law.
Emoluments clause lawsuit? Hilarious nonsense. Again, not actual.


A better example would be that of Sessions recusing himself from the Russian investigation. There was nothing there that said he would "conduct an unethical investigation" (be simply being in charge) because of any of his ties. But it was proper to recuse himself as he did because it had the appearance of impropriety/conflict of interest.
Mueller should display the same integrity and do the same thing.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I call bull**** on Jarrett and his partisan blather.

Mueller is about as good as it gets. Even the GOP said that when he was appointed. Mueller was appointed by the Trump Administration, his own DOJ. Suddenly now that the investigation includes Trump we begin to hear that Mueller is a bad choice. That is a load of hooey. It is at the root likely to be more orchestrated re-direction from the White House.

Former Fox News guy Jarrett is a WH tool being used to send the desired message to the dwindling Trump base.
Click to expand...
A little OT. I've been thinking about Trump's serial lying and constant course reversals. Maybe this is a big part of why he is successful in business and an utter failure in government.

In business, pretending bad things never happened is just practical. Forget it and move on. Plus, everybody is on your side, to make money.

In governing, not everybody is on your side and they're going to call you on it and you're eventually going to have to answer for it.
 
American said:
Gregg Jarrett: Trump should demand Mueller quit as special counsel | Fox News



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor#Firing_the_special_prosecutor

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...c=true&node=pt28.2.600&rgn=div5#se28.2.600_17

Non-partisan thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'm all for getting rid of Mueller just as soon as they find him doing something illegal, unethical, lying or his investigation puts forth lying results. But I guess I won't be on board just because Newt Gingrich and his ilk started crying giant hypocritical tears.
 
radcen said:
A little OT. I've been thinking about Trump's serial lying and constant course reversals. Maybe this is a big part of why he is successful in business and an utter failure in government.

In business, pretending bad things never happened is just practical. Forget it and move on. Plus, everybody is on your side, to make money.

In governing, not everybody is on your side and they're going to call you on it and you're eventually going to have to answer for it.
Click to expand...

It's also much easier to pull unethical garbage in the private world like not paying people you hire and whatnot because there if things get bad for you for doing so, you can just go and settle out of court with a nondisclosure agreement so no one talks. Much more difficult to try and buy your way out trouble as president and hope it just hushes and goes away.
 
reinoe said:
Let me stop you there. I and many others said Mueller was a horrible choice from the start because of his personal friendship with Mueller. There is no "all of a sudden" anything. Please save your partisanship.
Click to expand...

It's pretty damn sudden. Seeing how Mueller was just appointed by the lineage of the right and welcomed by republicans when doing so. All of a sudden... there's a 180 degree turn in opinion with no new reasons as to why.
 
Visbek said:
I'm pretty sure that anyone who is non-partisan sees through this partisan nonsense.

If Trump says pretty much anything directly to Mueller other than providing testimony, a) it's going to go on the record, and b) ordering or merely "suggesting" that Mueller quit will be another possible instance of obstruction.

The idea that it suddenly occurred to legal experts that Comey would be involved in the investigation just this week is hilarious.

Ironically, the real potential conflict of interest is that Mueller's old law firm represented Manafort, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in some matters. (Mueller did not personally work on any of their cases.)
Click to expand...

Well said. I thought it was also quite funny to present a very partisan piece and then immediately ask that no partisan responses be allowed to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom