• 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!

Donald Trump is done playing nice with Bob Mueller

cuban smokes said:
Talk is cheap & the GOP is full of cheap **** that is a joke, at best ...................

all Trump has to do to have this blow over is start a war & I'm pretty confident that is exactly what he has in mind ............
Click to expand...

This CinC will not be allowed to start a war by himself by his Chief of Staff, the rest of the Generals,
and soon to be President Pence.

Do not congratulate Putin--by this CinC's NSAs--and DO condemn Putin over the military grade nerve agents; thank you Rachel. This is the kind of proof needed to pull the 25th amendment ...
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
This CinC will not be allowed to start a war by himself by his Chief of Staff, the rest of the Generals, and soon to be President Pence ...
Click to expand...

don't kid yourself .........
 
Mycroft said:
Why is this such an interesting discussion? I mean, what indication is there that Trump...or anyone, for that matter...might fire Mueller?

I don't know...I guess some of y'all get enjoyment out of speculation about a drummed up hypothetical situation. I don't.

But hey...don't let me be a debbie-downer. If you want a dry-humping circle jerk, who am I to stop you?

Carry on...
Click to expand...

Actually, I am baffled, too, as to when the possibility even arose that Trump would fire Mueller.
Sessions fired McCabe late in the evening, and next morning - like on cue - all MSM asked the same question: will Trump fire Mueller?
Must have been another one of those choreographed talking points sent to the media via the nighttime express: Mueller's imaginary firing will be made headline for tomorrow. (grin)
 
Mycroft said:
Why is this such an interesting discussion? I mean, what indication is there that Trump...or anyone, for that matter...might fire Mueller?

I don't know...I guess some of y'all get enjoyment out of speculation about a drummed up hypothetical situation. I don't.

But hey...don't let me be a debbie-downer. If you want a dry-humping circle jerk, who am I to stop you?

Carry on...
Click to expand...

Surely you don't need this type of "politics 101" tutoring do you? Just look at Trump's tweets. Duh!
 
Cordelier said:
I'm with Trey Gowdy on this one... if the President has nothing to be afraid of and has nothing to hide, then what does he care what Mueller investigates?

I don't seem to recall the Republicans having a problem when Ken Starr's investigation of a failed land deal from the 1970's somehow morphed into an inquisition on the President's sex life. Given the fact that Rosenstein used to work for Starr at the time, it'd be awfully hypocritical of him to deny Mueller permission to take the investigation wherever it leads, don't you think?
Click to expand...

I remember calling the Starr "investigation" the Starr chambers. Then as now I considered it a failed coup attempt for a president who was elected but many thought illegitimate.

It was a disgrace to the nation then and is a disgrace now. Try to remember an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth B.S. leaves everyone blind and toothless.
 
washunut said:
I remember calling the Starr "investigation" the Starr chambers. Then as now I considered it a failed coup attempt for a president who was elected but many thought illegitimate.

It was a disgrace to the nation then and is a disgrace now. Try to remember an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth B.S. leaves everyone blind and toothless.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I think you're misinterpreting my post. This isn't about eye for an eye... I merely point out that there is no legal precedent for a President to object that an investigation has "become too personal" just because a Special Counsel sees fit to examine his prior business dealings.
 
washunut said:
I remember calling the Starr "investigation" the Starr chambers. Then as now I considered it a failed coup attempt for a president who was elected but many thought illegitimate.

It was a disgrace to the nation then and is a disgrace now. Try to remember an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth B.S. leaves everyone blind and toothless.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely zero false equivalence between the disgraced Starr and the Honorable Mueller ...
 
Vetplus40 said:
Surely you don't need this type of "politics 101" tutoring do you? Just look at Trump's tweets. Duh!
Click to expand...

I've seen his tweets. I haven't seen him say he's going to fire anyone. Have you?
 
Mycroft said:
I've seen his tweets. I haven't seen him say he's going to fire anyone. Have you?
Click to expand...

You already know the current CinC tried to Fire SC Mueller last June. This trumpcon filibuster isn't going anywhere.
Why do you oppose a President Pence at this PMA---Perilous Moment of Action ?
 
NIMBY said:
You already know the current CinC tried to Fire SC Mueller last June. This trumpcon filibuster isn't going anywhere.
Why do you oppose a President Pence at this PMA---Perilous Moment of Action ?
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't know any such thing.

I do know that the Mainstream Media floated rumors about it, but like all of their rumors there was no credibility attached to them.
 
Cordelier said:
I'm with Trey Gowdy on this one... if the President has nothing to be afraid of and has nothing to hide, then what does he care what Mueller investigates?

I don't seem to recall the Republicans having a problem when Ken Starr's investigation of a failed land deal from the 1970's somehow morphed into an inquisition on the President's sex life. Given the fact that Rosenstein used to work for Starr at the time, it'd be awfully hypocritical of him to deny Mueller permission to take the investigation wherever it leads, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Trump is appearing desperate and guilty.
 
Mycroft said:
Actually, I don't know any such thing.

I do know that the Mainstream Media floated rumors about it, but like all of their rumors there was no credibility attached to them.
Click to expand...

Of course you know what White House counsel Don McGhan said.
Let me know when you're ready for President Pence.
I've taken considerable guff from 'my team' for daring to mention those words ...
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/politics/trump-mueller-next-steps-analysis/index.html

Washington (CNN) There's been an important shift over the last few days in President Donald Trump's approach to the ongoing special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election as his rhetoric and his legal team have begun to reflect an increased focus on winning the fight for public opinion rather than cooperating with the actual probe.

For months, Trump's advisers -- political and legal -- kept him largely constrained. Yes, he bashed the Russia probe as a "witch hunt" and a hoax. And he raged behind the scenes. But, he avoided going after Mueller by name and, usually, stuck to the script in public settings by insisting there had been "no collusion" with the Russians and adding that he was eager to sit down with Mueller.
========================================================
Interesting discussion of what would have to happen to fire Mueller & what the consequences might be.
Click to expand...

It is my opinion Trump would be better off just to let Mueller do his investigation and keep his nose out of it. As far as public opinion goes, Democrats have already made up their mind for the most part that Trump is guilty and most Republicans that Trump is innocent. Trying to change their opinions on this is totally useless. Most independents haven't been paying much attention at all. They don't follow politics on a daily basis like the partisans do. Probably won't until Muller makes his final report.

Going into a pr mode against Mueller will only bring the investigation to the attention of those who so far haven't paid attention to it. That's the last thing republicans need going into the midterms. The one thing Trump has proven so far is being political savvy, he isn't.
 
Cordelier said:
Respectfully, I think you're misinterpreting my post. This isn't about eye for an eye... I merely point out that there is no legal precedent for a President to object that an investigation has "become too personal" just because a Special Counsel sees fit to examine his prior business dealings.
Click to expand...

But then you need to try to explain what any misdeeds he did as a developer has to do with Russian Collusion. Or do you think it is OK if a cop pulled you over for speeding then went through your history to see if you ever had a beer then drove your car.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/politics/trump-mueller-next-steps-analysis/index.html

Washington (CNN) There's been an important shift over the last few days in President Donald Trump's approach to the ongoing special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election as his rhetoric and his legal team have begun to reflect an increased focus on winning the fight for public opinion rather than cooperating with the actual probe.

For months, Trump's advisers -- political and legal -- kept him largely constrained. Yes, he bashed the Russia probe as a "witch hunt" and a hoax. And he raged behind the scenes. But, he avoided going after Mueller by name and, usually, stuck to the script in public settings by insisting there had been "no collusion" with the Russians and adding that he was eager to sit down with Mueller.
========================================================
Interesting discussion of what would have to happen to fire Mueller & what the consequences might be.
Click to expand...

First, Mueller is doing the same ting in the Trump case that Starr did in the Clinton case, follow violations of the law as they come up. With Starr, his order to begin with was to into the Whitewater deal to see if either Clinton did something wrong. He found no evidence in that case, but in his search he came upon the case that eventually lead to Clinton's impeachment. With Mueller, his order began with looking into whether Trump or an associate colluded with the Russians, and now he has found so much more and he has to look into anything he finds. That is how this works and it is also why politico's with something to hide hate the special counsel or anything thing like it. The idea that this investigation was going to be short lived, well that was never going to be the case.
 
washunut said:
But then you need to try to explain what any misdeeds he did as a developer has to do with Russian Collusion. Or do you think it is OK if a cop pulled you over for speeding then went through your history to see if you ever had a beer then drove your car.
Click to expand...

Is it really that hard to imagine that there is a possibility that the Trump Organization's business ties with Russia might be deeper and more extensive than has been disclosed?

I always figured the first rule in any investigation is to follow the money. If collusion did occur, it's a pretty solid bet that money changed hands at some point along the line.
 
NIMBY said:
Of course you know what White House counsel Don McGhan said.
Let me know when you're ready for President Pence.
I've taken considerable guff from 'my team' for daring to mention those words ...
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't know that McGhan said anything.

I do know that the Mainstream Media spouted stuff (aka rumors) from "unnamed sources" about what he supposedly said.

But yeah...I know you love to believe those constant rumors. Just like you love to believe the constantly recurring Mainstream Media rumors about how Trump is going to fire Mueller.
 
independentusa said:
First, Mueller is doing the same thing in the Trump case that Starr did in the Clinton case, follow violations of the law as they come up. With Starr, his order to begin with was to into the Whitewater deal to see if either Clinton did something wrong.He found no evidence in that case, but in his search he came upon the case that eventually lead to Clinton's impeachment.
Click to expand...

What case was that?
 
washunut said:
But then you need to try to explain what any misdeeds he did as a developer has to do with Russian Collusion. Or do you think it is OK if a cop pulled you over for speeding then went through your history to see if you ever had a beer then drove your car.
Click to expand...


Not a good analogy at all. If Mueller comes across evidence of fraud, money laundering, and business deals with Russian mobsters and/or Russian oligarchs tied to Putin he can't just ignore it.
 
Perotista said:
Most independents haven't been paying much attention at all. They don't follow politics on a daily basis like the partisans do. Probably won't until Muller makes his final report.
Click to expand...

As an independent voter I have not lacked in interest in the liar in chief and I don't believe I am alone. It's hard to not notice the train wreck that is the presidency at this point in time.
 
Cordelier said:
Is it really that hard to imagine that there is a possibility that the Trump Organization's business ties with Russia might be deeper and more extensive than has been disclosed?

I always figured the first rule in any investigation is to follow the money. If collusion did occur, it's a pretty solid bet that money changed hands at some point along the line.
Click to expand...

I think that is a stretch. New York City has a large Russian population. In addition, many Russians, Chinese,Saudi etc. with a ton of money buy expensive properties in NYC. Sort of like having a foreign bank account, that appreciates.

That being said do I think he and every major developer has ties to people of Russian decent the answer is probably yes. To try and tie that to some type of collusion is nonsense IMO.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Not a good analogy at all. If Mueller comes across evidence of fraud, money laundering, and business deals with Russian mobsters and/or Russian oligarchs tied to Putin he can't just ignore it.
Click to expand...

That is you opinion and that is fine. It is a good analogy his charge was to look into Russian collusion in the 2016 election. Not to review his life's dealings and find out if he ever dealt with mobsters. Pretty sure builders of large projects in NYC have to deal with a bunch of crooks, including crooked politicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom