This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

That Trump Tweet Attacking Robert Mueller? Sorry, Republicans Haven’t Seen It.

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


Most GOP leaders would prefer to ignore the president’s diatribe on Jeff Sessions and the Russia investigation.

WASHINGTON ― Republicans really, really hate questions about President Donald Trump’s verbal assaults on special counsel Robert Mueller and his investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Ask most of them about Trump’s comments attacking the investigation, which began under the direction of his own Justice Department, and whether lawmakers ought to take any legislative steps to protect it, and you’ll likely be met by long stares, claims of ignorance or expressions of desire to discuss just about anything else.

The long-running pattern was not much different on Wednesday after Trump heightened his attacks on the special counsel’s investigation by tweeting that Attorney General Jeff Sessions “should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt.” Sessions recused himself from matters involving the investigation last year, given his contacts with Moscow’s U.S. envoy during Trump’s campaign.


Donald J. Trump
✔️
@realDonaldTrump
..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!


8:24 AM - Aug 1, 2018

While no GOP senators said they agreed with Trump, a wildly unpredictable president who has fired Justice Department officials unexpectedly in the past, few took his latest comments seriously. Most expressed support for Mueller and delivered well-worn statements dodging questions about what exactly they are willing to do to push back against the president if the special counsel is fired.

“I didn’t see it,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters about Trump’s tweet. “All I can say is I stand behind the Mueller investigation and want to see it completed.” The retiring Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman added that “chaos would ensue” in the Senate if that event occurred, but he did not give specifics.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) similarly said he had not seen the tweet and declined to comment.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) simply reiterated that he has “a long-standing policy that I won’t respond to tweets.”

Trump has frequently raged at Sessions over the past year on Twitter. He suggested that his attorney general should not have recused himself from the Russia investigation and has also lamented naming him to the post in the first place. Investigators are reportedly looking at Trump’s tweets to determine whether they’re part of an attempt to obstruct justice.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate from Maine, was one of the few GOP senators who expressed criticism of the president, calling his tweet “entirely inappropriate and intemperate.” She added that Sessions couldn’t fire Mueller because of the attorney general’s recusal from the case, an argument that Republicans have repeatedly made in opposing legislation that would protect the special counsel.

The White House sought to downplay Trump’s call for shuttering the Russia probe, however, saying that the president had been speaking in a personal capacity and not as the chief executive.

“It’s not an order. It’s the president’s opinion,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said during a press briefing on Wednesday.

Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, echoed the line by telling reporters that the president had simply been “expressing his opinion on his favored medium for asserting his First Amendment right of free speech.”

The president’s tweet, which seemed to call on Sessions to terminate Mueller for the first time, came as a trial began for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who has been charged with money laundering and fraud related to his work as a pro-Russia lobbyist in Ukraine.

Democrats said they were alarmed at Trump’s escalating rhetoric regarding the Mueller investigation, fearing that it could lead to more drastic actions.

“It says he’s very worried,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said of Trump’s tweet calling on Sessions to shutter the investigation.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), meanwhile, told reporters that “the walls are closing, and he could do something pretty dangerous before the summer’s out.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-mueller-russia-tweet_us_5b61eb44e4b0de86f49d575e?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__080218&utm_content=__TheMorningEmail__080218+CID_3aab2cbac6ea424aa4b6643e777e7e10&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=HuffPost&ncid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__080218

************

View user profile
Time for the Mueller witch hunt to be shut down. He found and indicted some guilty Russians who had zero association with the Trump campaign; trumped up some charges on some of the President's campaign associates for activities that long pre-dated and unrelated to the campaign; and has found nothing regarding any so-called collusion.

There's no there, there. There will be no indictment of the President, no impeachment, and he will be re-elected. Face it. Get used to it. It's a liberal butt-hurt fantasy to think otherwise.



View user profile
ConservaLady wrote:Time for the Mueller witch hunt to be shut down.   He found and indicted some guilty Russians who had zero association with the Trump campaign; trumped up some charges on some of the President's campaign associates for activities that long pre-dated and unrelated to the campaign; and has found nothing regarding any so-called collusion.  

There's no there, there.   There will be no indictment of the President, no impeachment, and he will be re-elected.  Face it.  Get used to it.  It's a liberal butt-hurt fantasy to think otherwise.

Here's what needs to be faced: You have absolutely NO FRIGGING IDEA what Mueller has or doesn't have. THAT'S an indisputable FACT.

So how much are the Russians paying you to post this utter crapola anyway? Whatever it is, you deserve more, because you're certainly doing a bang-up job of fostering hatred and divisiveness.

View user profile
I guess if the President would just sit down with the prosecutors as they are requesting, Trump could get it all straightened out and put an end to this investigation.....but......but......but......Trump's lawyers do not want him to talk.

View user profile
I'm glad Mueller has uncovered the 30 Russians responsible for the meddling in our election.  But that had nothing to do with President Trump.   Remember, the Russians were meddling in favor of Hillary Clinton as well.  It was an overall disruption campaign.  But the FBI could have done that investigation without a special counsel having been appointed.

President Trump is right.  It's a witch-hunt being perpetrated by the Deep State and they are trying to frame the President as "the witch."  This investigation should be shut down and the FBI should continue any further investigation as to Russian or any other foreign meddling in our election.   Further, both Mueller and Rosenstein have personal conflicts of interest against President Trump and should be taken off the investigation.

This whole thing will end in nothing involving the President.  If there were something there we'd have heard about it already.  It's a politically motivated  charade being performed for the media in order to attempt to poison the people against the President.  I'm not so sure some of the people behind this charade shouldn't be investigated and perhaps indicted themselves.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:I guess if the President would just sit down with the prosecutors as they are requesting, Trump could get it all straightened out and put an end to this investigation.....but......but......but......Trump's lawyers do not want him to talk.

Given the conflicts of interest and the bias that has been shown against Trump by Mueller, persons in the special counsel office, at DOJ, and within the FBI - why should he?  

I don't blame the President one bit for totally ignoring any of these requests from the Special Counsel.  He is the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our armed forces charged with the responsibility  of running the government, defending our nation, and dealing with all other nations of the world as the leader of the free world. He's not some lackey who should have to come running every time some lawyer wants to ask him some list of unspecified questions to try and frame or entrap him or whatever.  

He should continue with the business of running the country, and if they have something on the President (which they don't, and won't) they can let the country and Congress know and file whatever charges they feel they can sustain.  Won't happen though.  I promise you.  This is just a political kabuki play they are putting on to try and influence the voting population against the President and his agenda to Make America Great!  And Trump is smart enough to know what they are trying to do.  That's why he's not letting them sucker him into playing their political game.

View user profile

Everyone Charged in Robert Mueller’s Russia Investigation

The special counsel indicted at least four members of Trump’s campaign.

"Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has led to the indictments of 31 people and three companies — that we know of so far.

Mueller, who was appointed special counsel of the investigation on May 17, 2017, was authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s order. The probe, approved by former FBI Director James B. Comey, investigates whether there were "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Below is a full list of who has been charged, what the charges are, and how they have responded to those charges. It will be updated if and when necessary..."

Paul Manafort
Richard "Rick" Gates
George Papadopolous
Michael Flynn
Alex Van Der Zwann
13 Russian Nationals and 3 Russian Entities
Richard Pinedo
12 Russian Intelligence Officers

(see site for charges)

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a13122012/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-charges/



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a13122012/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-charges/

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:
Everyone Charged in Robert Mueller’s Russia Investigation

The special counsel indicted at least four members of Trump’s campaign.

"Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election between President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has led to the indictments of 31 people and three companies — that we know of so far.

Mueller, who was appointed special counsel of the investigation on May 17, 2017, was authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s order. The probe, approved by former FBI Director James B. Comey, investigates whether there were "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

Below is a full list of who has been charged, what the charges are, and how they have responded to those charges. It will be updated if and when necessary..."

Paul Manafort
Richard "Rick" Gates
George Papadopolous
Michael Flynn
Alex Van Der Zwann
13 Russian Nationals and 3 Russian Entities
Richard Pinedo
12 Russian Intelligence Officers

(see site for charges)

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a13122012/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-charges/



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a13122012/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-charges/

I rather suspect Trump's arrangement with the Russian government for political assistance was more of a wink-wink, quid-pro-quo.   Doubtless there were some communications about it ... but I'm skeptical Mueller will ever be able to fully evidence those.

I'm not sure they're ever going to be able to prove a criminal conspiracy.  Not to the level required to sustain an indictment, much less a conviction. And I base that speculation on having had to prove conspiracies in Federal criminal cases.   It takes a bit more than just a series of curious coincidences.

In any case, even if Mueller does come up with enough evidence to sustain an indictment against Trump, Trump will muddy the waters (which is what he's already doing with all his tweets, that's the whole purpose behind them ) and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.  

And if that were to happen, the Supreme Court is likely to view it as a politically charged indictment and as such ultimately a political matter to be decided by the Congress.  But of course Congress is fairly unlikely to impeach unless the evidence has a slam-dunk silver-bullet factor, and the Senate even unlikelier to convict it the House were to vote to impeach.  It will be too close to the 2020 election by the time those events were to run their course anyway.

That's my view of the whole thing.   I think the Mueller investigation needs to go on and whatever the evidence turns out to be ... it be made public to both the Congress and the people.   But I'm certainly not expecting an indictment, conviction, or impeachment to ensue.   It will be decided at the ballot box.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 8/2/2018, 9:52 pm; edited 2 times in total

View user profile
ConservaLady wrote:Time for the Mueller witch hunt to be shut down.   He found and indicted some guilty Russians who had zero association with the Trump campaign; trumped up some charges on some of the President's campaign associates for activities that long pre-dated and unrelated to the campaign; and has found nothing regarding any so-called collusion.  

There's no there, there.   There will be no indictment of the President, no impeachment, and he will be re-elected.  Face it.  Get used to it.  It's a liberal butt-hurt fantasy to think otherwise



Whitewater, It began with an investigation into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and had nothing to do with BJ's. Lasted 4 years. Go ahead and count your chickens.

View user profile
ConservaLady wrote:President Trump is right.  It's a witch-hunt being perpetrated by the Deep State

DEEP STATE??? OMG now this person is a conspiracy theorist to boot???
Any remaining modicum of credibility has now forever flown out the window.

Good holy grief.

View user profile
RealLindaL wrote:
ConservaLady wrote:President Trump is right.  It's a witch-hunt being perpetrated by the Deep State

DEEP STATE???   OMG now this person is a conspiracy theorist to boot???
Any remaining modicum of credibility has now forever flown out the window.

Good holy grief.

Mueller’s Problem Is Not Trumpers’ Zeal — but the Perception of Inequality under the Law

By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

What is disturbing about the Mueller investigation is not per se that a special counsel is looking into charges of wrongdoing known as “collusion,” but that he is indicting or leveraging suspects, amid a larger landscape of related perceived wrongdoers, who so far have not been subject to the same federal zeal.

We do not know all the details, but the public wonders exactly why Michael Flynn was leveraged to confess about lying to federal authorities (in theory, in part due to surveillance obtained by questionable FISA warrants), while, for example, Clinton aides Human Abedin and Cheryl Mills were given partial immunity for their reported misleading statements about their knowledge of the Clinton email server.

People rightly wonder whether there will be consequences facing Andrew McCabe for allegedly lying about leaking to federal investigators, or for the flagrant way that John Brennan has so serially prevaricated under oath to Congress (about Senate staff computers, drone collateral damage, and the seeding of the Steele dossier).

If it turns out that DOJ and FBI officials deliberately misled FISA justices by not disclosing that they knew the Steele dossier was a product of Clinton-purchased opposition research, or that the collaborative news accounts they cited to the court were in truth circular offspring of the Steele dossier, then certainly they should be held legally accountable. The logical inference would be that they feared such full and honest disclosures might endanger the granting of the warrants.

By all means press, again, Paul Manafort to the fullest extent of the law if he violated statutes and unlawfully lobbied for foreign interests, but surely, we must treat the possibly same exposure of Tony Podesta in the same manner.

Military and civilian personnel have gone to jail for carelessly leaking classified documents or destroying evidence of interest to federal prosecutors. James Comey and Hillary Clinton should face the same liability, given their admissions that Comey likely leaked at least one possibly classified government document, written on government equipment on government time, and Clinton illegally used a private server which in some cases transmitted classified materials.

It is illegal to leak to the press unmasked names of those swept up in classified FISA surveillance. And yet we know at least a few names of those surveilled were filtered to the press. Those responsible must face the same prosecutorial zeal that Mueller has so far shown others.

And the symmetry should also guide any investigation into whether it was legal to implant federal informants into an ongoing political campaign.

There is much talk of obstruction of justice. Again, let Mueller pursue his leads. But in the real world outside Washington, one can get into deep trouble by meeting stealthily a federal prosecutor in a secret location who is currently investigating one’s spouse.

No federal official, in the manner of Andrew McCabe, should be in charge of investigating a suspect whose campaign affiliates have recently donated huge amounts of money to the investigator’s wife’s prior political campaign. And a DOJ official is required to state whether he has conflict of interests that affect his performance in the manner in which Bruce Ohr allegedly did not cite his own spouse’s employment for the Clinton-funded Fusion GPS Steele project, or his own contacts with those concerned.

No doubt the idea of impeaching Rod Rosenstein may be misplaced. But Rosenstein himself must know that in such politically charged times he has by needs played some sort of prior role in the Uranium One investigations, the Clinton email investigations, the FISA court warrants, and the collusion investigations, and that these issues swirl around both his current prosecutorial choices and may at some future date put himself in legal limbo. Clearly, if there exists such a doctrine of recusal, he should have long ago recused himself in the fashion of Jeff Sessions, who may have had far less exposure to charges of conflicts of interest.

It wins the Mueller investigation no favors that its origins, by the admission of former FBI director James Comey, were instigated by the leaks of confidential presidential memos by Comey himself — and then coincidentally led to the selection of Mueller, a friend of Comey and for a moment, before his special-counsel appointment, an apparent willing aspirant to be Comey’s replacement as FBI director.

A second worry, of course, is the necessary appearance of political neutrality, crucial for public support for any high-profile federal special inquiry. Robert Mueller needlessly incurred criticism by his own appearance of conflicts of interests, when, for example, he did not disclose promptly the reasons for the departures of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok from his investigative team, and delayed notice until much later after their severances, and seemingly staggered their reassignments to cloud any inference that they were related and prompted by their shared incriminating texts.

Mueller did not need to include counsels on his team, again in such a politically charged atmosphere, who had earlier represented either the Clinton Foundation or contractors for Hillary Clinton under suspicion for the destruction of key evidence.

It would have also been wiser to have gone beyond the law and either have insisted that his legal team’s members had not been donors to either presidential candidate, or, barring that, to have included roughly equal numbers of 2016 partisans. No doubt there are individual complexities and extenuating circumstances surrounding the retirements, resignations, firings, or forced reassignments of a spate of FBI and DOJ officials. But it is not conspiratorial or improper to suggest that something is wrong in Washington when the public was never really told the initial circumstances surrounding the fates of James Baker, Peter Kadzik, Michael Kortan, David Laufman, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, James Rybicki, and Peter Strzok.

Mueller’s problem is not over-zealous Trumpers who will squash his investigation, but rather a growing negative public perception that he is applying a standard of investigatory zeal to some targets that federal prosecutors are not applying to others who may have as much, if not greater, criminal exposure.

The perception again is that the common denominator to such asymmetries is whether the targeted suspect offers supposed incriminatory information about Donald Trump (and so should be pursued), or, on the other hand, should not be put into a position of offering incriminatory information about either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (and thus wins exemption from criminal liability). Given that the above scenarios were actually thematic throughout the Page-Strzok secret-text trove, it is not idle or conspiratorial speculation.

Finally, most of us think special counsels are a bad idea, given their histories of presupposing a guilty target and then finding the necessary criminal violations to indict him. But we are at the homeopathic point in which a bad idea may be needed to rectify a bad idea.

Given the imbalances of the last two years, and the likelihood that they will continue, the only way of restoring confidence in the Mueller investigation may be to appoint yet another special counsel, with a simultaneous mandate to investigate the FISA warrant requests, the NSC unmasking and leaking of the names of American citizens, FBI, DOJ, CIA, and State Department involvement in the use of the Steele dossier, FISA surveillance, and informants in connection with the 2016 president campaign, the so-called Uranium One sale coincidences with large Russian-related donations to the Clinton Foundation and a Russian honorarium to Bill Clinton, and a revisit of the Clinton email investigations and its questionable odyssey during the 2016 campaign.


VICTOR DAVIS HANSON — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won. @vdhanson

View user profile
ConservaLady wrote:
Mueller’s Problem Is Not Trumpers’ Zeal — but the Perception of Inequality under the Law[/b]
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

View user profile
Today in Right-Wing Crankery
By JONATHAN CHAIT
November 24, 2009
I don't normally read Victor Davis Hanson, who's a fruitcake even by the standards of National Review Online, but i was intrigued by the headline of his latest column, "The New War Against Reason." Hanson's thesis holds that, despite promising to heed science, the Obama administration has gone to war against empiricism. Since this is one of the few things the right has not previously accused Obama of doing, I thought I'd see what Hanson's evidence is. Here we go!

For decades, the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics has maintained a rational, scientifically based, and nonpartisan system of reporting the nation’s “seasonally adjusted unemployment rate.” Presidents of both parties respected its metrics. Their own popularity sunk or soared on the basis of officially released jobless numbers, as tabulated and computed by the nonpartisan Bureau. The public trusted in a common standard of assessing presidential job performance.

The BLS is still releasing its monthly report, but alongside it the Obama administration has created a new postmodern barometer called jobs “created or saved.”

Over the last nine months, the official government website Recovery.gov has informed us how the stimulus has saved jobs — even as hard data reflected the unpleasant truth of massive and spiraling job losses.

In other words, not the real number of jobs lost, but rather the supposed number of jobs saved by Barack Obama’s vast dispersion of borrowed money, was to be the correct indicator of employment.

Ok. Hanson doesn't say that the Obama administration has suppressed or altered the BLS's calculation of unemployment. He charges it with creating another website that attempts to calculate how many jobs were saved by the stimulus -- a premise that is shared by the major macroeconomic forecasting firms. Hanson seems to further believe that this figure is intended as a substitute for the unemployment level, betraying an inability to grasp the distinction between the current unemployment rate and how many jobs were saved as a result of the stimulus. How can anybody not understand the difference between these two things? His chain of reasoning is just so wildly illogical you can't even refute it.

Hanson's second data point is that the Obama administration advocates the view that increased carbon dioxide emissions increase average global temperature:

These controversies could be adjudicated through substantive debate, but instead politically correct hysteria again has followed. “Good” informed people — like those who adhered to every doctrine of the medieval church — “know” the planet is heating up, thanks to the greed of carbon-based industry. “Bad” heretics challenge official environmental dogma and exegesis. In such an anti-empirical age, if the “truther” Van Jones had not been there, ready for Obama to tap as green czar, he would have had to be invented.

If you click through, there's a lot more fulminating against climate science, oddly dressed up as a defense of empiricism against superstition when it's actually the exact opposite.

I point these sorts of things out periodically because I think a lot of people, even people who follow politics very closely, fail to understand just how low the standard of conservative discourse is, even at mainstream outlets like NRO. The debate is just dominated by ignorant cranks. It's frightening that this is the intellectual movement that dominates one of our two major political parties.

https://newrepublic.com/article/71487/today-right-wing-crankery

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum