Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[twa]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

What I'm wondering is the side to that. Could Republicans really be okay with firing not one, but two investigators into the Russia attacks? I'm not just talking Congress, though they count the most, but Main Street Republicans. Won't it stink to high heaven even to them?

 

there would be legitimate reasons to fire/replace Mueller

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/should-trump-fire-mueller-part-two.php

 

 

Quote

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-is-robert-mueller-conflicted-in-trump-probe/article/2625638

And finally, from another Hill lawyer:

It's somewhat ironic, no? I mean, the whole purpose of the special counsel is to have a prosecutor from outside the government and outside of the normal chain of command because inherent conflicts render the Justice Department incapable of handling it. So, now the special counsel is a close friend (mentor/mentee relationship) with the star witness, who by his own admission leaked the memos at least in part to engineer the appointment of a special counsel. Only in Washington. You can't make this stuff up.

 

 

Personally I'm fine with Mueller absent any recent communication with Comey preceding his appointment.

[Burgold]

I'll put it this way, twa. I could be persuaded (though I don't see cause yet) for Mueller to be dismissed if there was evidence he was biased and on a true witch hunt (think Kenneth Star who went down every rabbit hole imaginable until he found his little blue dress. Still not sure how that connected to his Whitewater mandate), but if you think that then Trump is not the guy to fire him. You have to have someone not involved in the Russia investigation and there's the rub. Trump can't do it. Sessions can't do it. And so on and so on... even Pence apparently has some murky Russia ties.

 

This is the absurdity when you elect Lex Luthor to be President.

 

Edit: but you did answer my question. Rank and file Republicans would be okay with Trump dismissing two investigators looking into him and his campaign.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Burgold

[Busch1724]

Well good ole Newt was on Good Morning America this morning. The narrative for this, at least initially, is Mueller's ties to Comey, the fact that he hired four democrats as part of his first hires, recent press about Griffin's beheaded photo, and  the play where Trump was mock assassinated. So the groundwork has been laid, and the talking points disseminated. 

[twa]

if there is good reason, though like the Comey firing it only complicates things.

 

Mueller can only be fired by Rosenstien btw....or his replacement if he was fired 

[Bang]

I'd take Lex Luthor in a heartbeat.

Infinitely smarter.

 

~Bang

[twa]

1 hour ago, Busch1724 said:

Well good ole Newt was on Good Morning America this morning. The narrative for this, at least initially, is Mueller's ties to Comey, the fact that he hired four democrats as part of his first hires, recent press about Griffin's beheaded photo, and  the play where Trump was mock assassinated. So the groundwork has been laid, and the talking points disseminated. 

 

messaging and positioning are normal.

 

Think there wouldn't be eyebrows raised if a Trump foundation lawyer and 2016 donor was appointed to the investigation? 

or would be more hair on fire caterwalling?

[Bang]

At some point it may dawn on some folks that the INDEPENDENT counsel chose people he thought he could trust to work an investigation.

If your team isn't part of that, the next step is

A/ complain that it isn't fair

B/ examine your team and try to discern why the trust factor is missing

 

I think it's obvious what a thinking person would do.

And i think it's obvious what the GOP will tell their people to think.
 

Think on your own, or accept talking point propaganda from a guy who epitomizes partisan politics.
Choices, choices.

 

~Bang

Edited June 13, 2017 by Bang

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

What I'm wondering is the side to that. Could Republicans really be okay with firing not one, but two investigators into the Russia attacks? I'm not just talking Congress, though they count the most, but Main Street Republicans. Won't it stink to high heaven even to them?

 

Assuming that you're talking about the (IMO, loony) theory of Trump firing the special prosecutor, I will point out that I think he would be the third person fired for looking into Trump and Russia.  (Wasn't Preet Bahara or whatever it is, the first?)  

Edited June 13, 2017 by Larry

[codeorama]

Ok, I'm not understanding this. HOW is is possible that Trump can potentially fire the special prosecutor?  How is this even a thing? 

Do we live in Russia or something...??

Edited June 13, 2017 by codeorama

[Larry]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

there would be legitimate reasons to fire/replace Mueller

 

I see we're already working on the "let's try to come up with a fake reason for firing the prosecutor, before he actually gets fired, this time" marching orders.  

[Burgold]

Just now, codeorama said:

Ok, I'm not understanding this. HOW is is possible that Trump can potentially fire the special prosecutor?  How is this even a thing? 

Because Republicans lack a shred of integrity?

 

That would be my read anyway. Even more so, if the GOP majority in Congress roll over and Main Street Republicans do too. 

[codeorama]

Just now, Burgold said:

Because Republicans lack a shred of integrity?

 

That would be my read anyway. Even more so, if the GOP majority in Congress roll over and Main Street Republicans do too. 

 

I just can't wrap my mind around this. 

How can anyone defend this (If he does it), but you know his supporters will have no problem with it.

Party Hivemind... needs to go away.

[HOF44]

Didn't Trumps Justice dept. pick the special prosecutor???  They got to pick and are now crying foul???  Crazy!

[codeorama]

1 minute ago, HOF44 said:

Didn't Trumps Justice dept. pick the special prosecutor???  They got to pick and are now crying foul???  Crazy!

 

Its because the people the special prosecutor is hiring, he looks to be doing a legit job and I"m sure trump is scared because we all know he or those close to him are guilty.

[HOF44]

Just now, codeorama said:

 

Its because the people the special prosecutor is hiring, he looks to be doing a legit job and I"m sure trump is scared because we all know he or those close to him are guilty.

I get that, but they picked him.  Seems they might have been able to have a pretty good guess of his close associates.  You can't appoint the guy and then claim you were screwed.  

[codeorama]

2 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

I get that, but they picked him.  Seems they might have been able to have a pretty good guess of his close associates.  You can't appoint the guy and then claim you were screwed.  

 

Totally agree, but all the stuff going on now is beyond belief. Never in my lifetime did I think we'd be where we are now.

[LadySkinsFan]

7 hours ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

I can't figure out the crazy to guilty ratio for Trump. In regards to him firing Mueller potentially. Like I think he's mentally ill so that's always there, but is that it? Is it even the dominating factor? Like is he just 100 crazy/0 guilty or 20 crazy/80 guilty? It's somewhere in that range. 

 

**** i can't wait for like 30 years from now when we start getting all the definitive scholarship on this period. This is gonna be an awesome time to study (granted everyone doesn't die.)

 

Likely I won't be alive, would be fascinating to study and how to prevent.

[DogofWar1]

56 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Assuming that you're talking about the (IMO, loony) theory of Trump firing the special prosecutor, I will point out that I think he would be the third person fired for looking into Trump and Russia.  (Wasn't Preet Bahara or whatever it is, the first?)  

Definitely 3rd, and possibly 4th.  Remember, Yates' firing came shortly after reporting Flynn concerns to WH.  The whole thing about the travel ban was potentially cover, though it's it's pretty good cover and why I say "possibly" 4th.

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

I feel like this is pretty serious. 

 

So our Elections weren't just influenced. But actually hacked. Nice. 

[twa]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

I see we're already working on the "let's try to come up with a fake reason for firing the prosecutor, before he actually gets fired, this time" marching orders.  

 

Which of those concerns are fake?

 

I don't see him getting fired, but I'm certainly open to discussion.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by visionary

[Dan T.]

Can someone post a good link to a livestream of Sessions' open testimony here?  For some reason with Comey's hearing, none of the links I tried worked well except the one posted on a thread here...