Mueller Independent?
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
The problem with any of these investigations or select commissions is they always choose people with long histories working in The Swamp. They are an incestuous bunch who are conflicted in numerous ways. Mueller is no different especially given the closeness he and Comey have.
Before Mueller's bestest buddy Comey admitted he leaked memos to the press.
They sure knew Mueller and Comey were close co-workers in the past when they appointed him. They sure knew they had just fired Comey with very conflicting statements as to why. How does Comey leaking memos affect any of that foreknowledge? It doesn't.
Given quotes from many here, no independent counsel whatsoever and shutting down the entire thing appears to the only acceptable choice.
I'd kind of like to see Trump try to fire him. Just for the entertainment/watching history as it unfolds value. It would be a near verbatim Saturday Night Massacre redux....a crap storm of epic proportions. I wouldn't advise it though. That would do more to derail the Trump agenda going forward than anything Mueller could do.
Last edited:
It means Comey himself should be a subject of the investigation.
There's no ****ing mystery as to why Comey was fired. He purposely wanted to create ambiguity as to whether Trump himself was being investigated, thus undermining his administration, even though Comey has clearly stated Trump wasn't under investigation and also explicitly indicated that he did tell Trump this as Trump previously indicated.
Is Trump ham handed at handling his duties as President? Absolutely. But, that isn't illegal.
Well, that's not why the official statement said Comey was fired, but okay.
Under investigation for what?
Are you alleging the information he leaked was classified?
And even if he should be under investigation, that wouldn't be part of the Russian investigation and still doesn't answer why that suddenly makes Mueller an unacceptable choice for independent counsel to the DOJ (all still Trump appointees) that will be making the final decisions regarding charges filed.
- There's nothing to investigate with Russia; it's a charade invented by the Clinton team, and picked up by Democrat leadership/politicians, leftist groups and others with a vested interest in thwarting Trump...
- On top of that, multiple other groups are looking into "Russia"
- So there really shouldn't be any Special Independent Counsel, so I have no idea who should be a special counsel. How about Rudy Giuliani? He's a former prosecutor.
- Information need not be classified in order to be "leaked". Indeed, most improperly leaked information is not classified.
- Whether (any of) Comey's leaked information was classified is unclear. He says the information wasn't. He's a better judge than I, but he could also be wrong (he never sought a classification review) or lying.
Congressional conservatives were rolling in russian money and knew what Russia was doing. They still took the money and did nothing to frustrate the Russian hacking and propaganda because they benefited from it. Read the Ryan/McCarthy transcript. There's enough republicans implicated in this deal that there actually may be some attempt to derail Mueller. I hope Biff fires him, too. It will be more entertaining than any sporting event.
I find it very interesting that conservatives could care less that Russians worked so hard and did so much to swing this election. Imagine if the Russian hacking and propaganda helped Hillary win instead of Biff. They'd be in a fevered pitch. D.C. conservative credo: Money first, party second, country third.
They're so afraid of a special prosecutor that it's comical. They act like guilty children. An innocent POTUS or any other politician would call up Mueller and say, "Hurry up. Here's everything I have. I'll be in tomorrow for a sworn statement and give you anything you want tomorrow. Let's wrap it up."
Nailed it. In advance.
Rudy Giuliani? And you're whining about Mueller not being independent.
Also, could you cite me the criminal statute applicable to the leaking of unclassified information? TIA.
Nailed what in advance? And to whom -- were you speaking to yourself in a mirror?Nailed it. In advance.
Rudy Giuliani? And you're whining about Mueller not being independent.
Also, could you cite me the criminal statute applicable to the leaking of unclassified information? TIA.
Is it criminal to leak social security information? Could a U.S. Attorney be subject to sanctions for leaking evidence? There are myriad types of government information that individuals are proscribed from releasing to unauthorized persons, with results ranging from termination to criminal prosecution. Did I say Comey should be subject to criminal indictment for the leaking?
Rudy Giuliani was a facetious recommendation designed to demonstrate what would be the response if an individual as partisan as Mueller, but from the other side of the equation, were recommended -- nailed in advance.
Last edited:
There isn't even a special prosecutor in place. There is an independent counsel to the DOJ. The DOJ is still going to be making any charging decisions.
I don't agree with you that often, but I do agree with the statement above. There IS going to be a Special Counsel investigating this. That ship has sailed. That horse is out of the barn. That train has left the station. Continuing to try to derail it is much more of a distraction and impediment to Trump pursuing his policy agenda than the investigation will be at this point. Continuing this "nothing to see here....move along" smoke screen nonsense is counterproductive for the administration. If they would shut up, cooperative fully and quickly, and focus on their policy goals instead....some decent work might get done.
If Russia is a "charade" designed only to thwart Trump.....he is playing right into their hands with his efforts to impede the investigation. Must be more of that 4-D chess I keep hearing about him playing.
Nailed it. In advance.
Rudy Giuliani? And you're whining about Mueller not being independent.
Also, could you cite me the criminal statute applicable to the leaking of unclassified information? TIA.
Not a fan of the Giuliani pick, but as to your second question, there have been numerous references both on this board and in separate articles that indicate that private notes taken by FBI staff as part of their role is considered property of the FBI and require (at a minimum) a classification review prior to release. The fact that these discussions involved the POTUS and were specificially tied to a on-going classified investigation into Russia, its not a stretch to assume these would be classified at least confidential. In either case, these notes are clearly the property of the FBI and not of Comey himself, and thus at a minimum he released FBI data without express approval of the FBI.
Compare this statement.....
To....
That's what I nailed.
No special counsel is the only acceptable alternative to you. That ship has sailed.
None of which cite any applicable statute or court decision and are all based upon statements of Trump's private attorney.
If DOJ thinks it's investigation worthy....I say get after it. The fact that Comey revealed he leaked them after the DOJ appointed Mueller doesn't affect Mueller's credibility to act as special counsel to the DOJ one iota.
No, I just think it's demonstrably a complete waste of time. If I suggested Mueller should investigate Comey's leaking and (also his possible perjury) and I have also suggested Mueller should be replaced (despite my not having a suitable replacement handy in my Rolodex), in what way have I demonstrated that "no special counsel is the only acceptable alternative to" me? Your statement defies any definition of logic.
Problem is...a Trump appointee appointed Mueller.
The contortions you are going through to paint Mueller as partisan as someone like Giuliani completely ignores the fact that he was appointed BY a Trump partisan. It's just more smoke screen for your position that NO special counsel is acceptable to you.
Plenty of people other than "Trump's attorney" have stated same.
Would Comey's notes be considered government property by a judge in a criminal trial for purposes of discovery?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...opinion-the-damaging-case-against-james-comey
C'mon now....
1. "Russia" is nothing but a charade designed to thwart Trump....
2. There shouldn't be an independent counsel at all....
But....
I haven't shown "no special counsel" is the only acceptable alternative to you.
You're the one defying logic.
So, now you're a mind reader? With all due respect, and not to put too fine a point on it -- you can **** off. I've told you my position and you're not in any position to dictate what my position is to me.
Yes, but as you have already stated -- that ship has sailed.
C'mon now....
1. "Russia" is nothing but a charade designed to thwart Trump....
2. There shouldn't be an independent counsel at all....
But....
I haven't shown "no special counsel" is the only acceptable alternative to you.
You're the one defying logic.
They should probably write him up or fire him.
This raised a significant problem for me. So we know Coney's leak was specifically designed to angage an investigation, and yet his testimony made it clear Trump is not a target.
Can someone explain specifically what Mueller is investigating at this point and how he's not completely redundant to the FBI?
If he's going to continue on, I expect an inquiry into Seth Rich and who Gucifer 2.0 really is. That's where an investigation needs to look, but probably won't.
If a special council had been formed to investigate one of Obama's numerous scandals and the council was stacked with Republican donors, what would the Democratic reaction have been?
This absolutely nails it. On the other hand I have a question for you sys. Is it your position that this is the first time, the first US election in which the Russians have "hacked/interfered?"
Then I assume you are aware the Democrats would be responding in much the same way Republicans are responding to Mueller stacking the council with Democrat donors. That is the point.
I haven't heard that either way, but I've read in numerous articles that they did it with other countries, namely in Europe.
I don't recall whole cloth, Russia-fabricated stories like Pizzagate and the dead DOJ guy in previous elections. The prior loony theories from '08 were all conservative sponsored, like Obama is a muslim, atheist, won't swear on a bible, won't wear a flag, born in Kenya, etc. Sandy Hook conspiracy, Jade Helm, etc. were all alr-right creations.
Isn't he the fellow who exhonorated the Clintons on a couple of potentially felonious scandals?
Okay, good point. So the shoe's on the other foot? Chickens returning to roost? Fine with me.
I don't know - -my memory fades. If so, that's another reason Biff should say, "Hey, a special counsel can exonerate me. I want a good one appointed so I can turn everything over and be exonerated." Don't you agree?
I'd agree a lot more if there were actual known felonies committed that were being investigated.
Yes, I've only heard things out of the corner of my ear the Russians have tried to mess with US elections for years. I have no idea if it's true. But, if we assume it's true, should we believe they have always tried to get Republicans elected over Democrats? If there is a Trump/Russian connection, what is its purpose? What is Trump supposed to get out of the relationship, and what do the Russians get? I mean what exactly is the "deal" they have agreed to? Does anyone know? Or is it some kind of Alex-Jones-like conspiracy theory? Just something to roil up the masses. I'm curious what you think about it, something beyond troll-like insults against conservatives. Do you have a substantive analysis you can share?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Flynn lie to Congress under oath? I could be wrong on that. If he did, prosecute him for perjury.
I'm lost on Manafort. You posted a list of Russia Russia Russia a while back that had a lot of fluff included and I never fInished sifting through it. (Not meant to be an attack on you, just saying the list sucked.)
Those are the big questions. I have to work now. Here's a pretty good primer on one component of it. I'm also taking our Senator James Lankford at his word that Russia has been doing it for a while to other countries.
http://time.com/4783932/inside-russia-social-media-war-america/
Plus ease sanctions, which Biff supports.
@Ponca Dan https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ssian-hacking-scandal/?utm_term=.6d939f2092a5
