As the Mueller investigation homes in on Donald Trump and his alleged collusion with our longtime adversary, namely Russia, it's come to light only Trump's advisor prevented him from firing Robert Mueller. Among the reasons Donnie cited for firing Mueller was his failing to pay a fee or penalty at some golf resort.
I am not shitting you whatsoever. I'd love to hear the remaining few Trump supporters give their spin on this.
Once again two unnamed sources. President Trump has previously denied this allegation. Appears the Dems are trying hard to take the lime light off of the Presidents trip, as well as all the wonderful economic news of the past few days. They just don't do as well as Trump when it comes to releasing info that could work to sway away from rhetoric. He is a master at it, they look obvious and foolish. As a rule their rhetoric is deputed and found to be, fake news... You certainly are digging yourself in with this bit of fake news. But when it is proved to be fake, don't worry the Dems will feed you up more.
Only Fox deals in "fake news," Shar. Since Trump denied the sources we can bet it's real news as he's know for his lies. The Dems don't need to make up fake news as there's so much real news hanging around DT's neck. You truly have a rude awakening in store in your near future.
I do not tune into Fox news. I note once again you don't answer my "what if there is no there, there?" Do you admit you are wrong or just move on to some new to speculate about the president? I truly hope you will give me an answer.
Been out of town and just got in, Shar. I'll admit I was wrong and apologize for my mistakes. Are you willing to admit you voted for a traitor if it turns out he was involved with the Russians?
If Trump turns out to be a "traitor" or he is implicated in wrong doing during his campaign that evolved Russia, I will be glad to apologize. It's a deal..
Fair enough! That doesn't mean I forgive you though.
LOL. And, that's the way it will go. It always does, no matter the chosen party affiliation. Hate for 'the other side' cannot be appeased by anything other than wallowing in it.
That was a joke, L2L. I have no hate for anyone, especially Trump. I'd have to respect him first before developing hate for him.
RG - I figured there would be no forgiveness... I think you will be as gracious as I would be. LOL
As usual, the NY Times cites anonymous sources. There is hence no way to confirm this.
Trump has denied that he ordered Mueller's firing. So the story is just "he said/she said," while those supposedly making this accusation (I say "supposedly," since "anonymous sources" could very well mean that the Times invented the story out of thin air) remain nameless.
Let the Times ante up some names.
Sorry, but now many other sources back up the story besides the NYT. Mueller is closing in on the Don as we speak. We'll wait and see how anxious he is to be interviewed by the Special Counsel.
"Sorry, but now many other sources back up the story besides the NYT. "
Not sure what you're trying to say here - everything I can find either lists a "report" of the event or that the NYT says it. Personally, I wouldn't say that quoting a source quoting an unnamed source is "backing it up".
I would hope Mueller would question President Trump, otherwise it would not be a full investigation. However, I would surmise Trump will be one of the last before he raps up his investigation. It's nearing an end my friend... How will you feel if there is no there?
You are correct. Multiple news agencies including the Washington Post have independently confirmed that Trump tried to fire Mueller and that the White House counsel threatened to quit because it was illegal.
Some people don't seem to understand that Washington operates on anonymous sources because no one wants to go on the record for saying anything bad about a President.
That's why the Washington Post and New York Times track down multiple credible sources. When they all say the same thing, they have their confirmation.
This is funny to me. I can't take it serious. Even if it's true, the story is....Trump thought about doing something....but didn't do it. (sarcasm alert) Wow...no president in the history of the country have every changed their mind after speaking about an issue with an adviser. Talk about desperate for anything real or imagined. The left's reaction is funny.
We'll see how funny it is before long, Mike. Trump's lawyer saved him from making a huge mistake, but Donnie has more than that to worry about. Do you really believe he's "looking forward" to sitting down with Mueller's team as he claims, or is he simply lying as usual.
I laughed out loud when I saw Trump say he is looking forward to talking with Mueller. He lies like he breathes. He can't help himself.
I'm sure Trump's attorneys aren't as excited that POTUS said he'd chat with Mueller under oath. Maybe that isn't a good idea. Regardless of whether or not there was collusion. He must have lost whatever marbles he had left...
Ah, he thought about doing something but didn't do it - the Scaramucci defense. Are we really that dumb? He fired James Comey. He thought about firing Mueller. He doesn't want to be investigated and he's trying to actively stop it, which is called "obstruction of justice". That's the whole point of the story. Furthermore, the White House didn't deny the allegation, which means it's true.
What's really amazing in this age of "fake news" isn't that the news is fake, it's that those charging that the news is fake don't know how honest reporting works and can't differentiate it from opinion. These people are reading web sites where there is no research and no reporting, just opinion, and believing it to be fact, and then charging newspapers like the NYT as being fake when they have a very established way of printing "news" that the sites they trust don't follow at all. Now, does NYT have a bias? They certainly do, but that's different than false reporting and conflating the two is a sign of a limited intellect.
That said, I really like Anthony Scaramucci. I wish he was still Communications Director. I'm serious. I don't like his politics, but I think he's fun.
This is how I handle my liberal relatives who try and talk to me about this. "Of course you're right" (snicker, snicker). "You know what's going on" (suppressed giggle) "Hey, I don't doubt what you're saying for a minute" (Hands over mouth trying to hide intense laughter).
I'm sure Mueller has already determined that Trump was prevented from firing him by White House Counsel threatening to quit. I'm betting he's already spoken with "sources" who have detailed that information. Sources who are highly motivated to tell the truth, since it's against the law to lie to investigators. it is another indication of Trump's state of mind and his "intent" to obstruct justice, or not.
Fake News to a conservative: Not true
Fake News to a liberal: True, but critical of Trump or most news stories from Fox News
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone refrained from mud slinging and let the investigation run its course. At which point we would all know what those investigating thought was true.
No - must give an opinion, declaring it obviously true, before facts are found that might deny that opinion.
Like you've never done that? Geez. That's what these forums are, a place for us bloviators to espouse our opinions on current events. Your holier-than-thou pronouncement is pretty funny, considering you believe Clinton has committed 100 crimes, even though she has never been charged with any of them.
I have, more than once, stated unequivocally that I would accept the results of the investigation, even if no wrongdoing is found. I have yet to receive the same assurance from any Trump supporter on these forums that they would accept the results, without qualification, if wrongdoing is found.
Works both way, ya know.
Like how wilderness and LtoL insist Clinton is guilty even though she was investigated and not charged. Heck, winderness has stated she's committed 100 crimes! LOL
Umm...you forgot to mention that Wilderness was quoting the FBI. Does that mean that the right would be correct to ignore any findings because they're from the FBI? After all, if the left ignores FBI reports and pretends they were never made, shouldn't the right?
And I corrected you on that. Only two instances of improper sharing of classified documents was found, not 100.
As long as you maintain the same standard for Trump, at least you'll be consistent.
Oops. Only two that carried the designation of classified. And 100 more that she should have known, in her official capacity, was classified. Plus, of course, that NO govt. business should have been on a private server...which she also knew and had been warned of multiple times. And, for that matter, the use of even a cell phone in unsecured foreign locations to get material on...not specified as illegal as far as I know, but then again something she knew she should never have done. We won't mention intentionally destroying evidence the FBI wanted...
Let's not make it far less than it was in order to claim the left was correct in ignoring FBI findings.
I am not making it "far less." I am describing it accurately. You are the one claiming crimes that have never even been brought up for charges, much less been proven in a court of law, yet have repeatedly chastised others for referring to Trump and his cronies as criminals. You can't legitimately have it both ways, though I know you will probably continue to try.
Are you ignoring the hundred emails that were classified but didn't carry the stamp? Or the one she had tried to erase, leaving only a partial "stamp"? Or saying that that Clinton was incompetent to hold her position and therefore it's OK? Just what is your claim, given the words of the FBI?
Are you claiming that because the FBI said "Yes there was a crime but no one has been punished for it, she shouldn't either (a flat out lie, as others have been prosecuted for it)" that there was no crime?
When the FBI produces a statement that Trump (remember, it didn't start as "anyone vaguely connected to Trump") is guilty of Russian (govt.) collusion to fix the election, I'll believe there is enough evidence to prosecute. Until then, no.
LOL, I have never said any of those things. As for the FBI, this is what was said:
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
If no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case, then that means they do not believe they have enough evidence to prosecute and convict. But, you are allowed your opinion. Just don't be surprised if your hypocrisy is challenged.
I think most of you know by now that I am quite far from being a Trump fan and am a vocal liberal, but MY GOD I am tired of hearing about Russia every damn day.
I feel like there have been at least 20 times since he was elected that liberals got excited about some new finding that ended up being absolutely nothing. Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s shady as hell and wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if there was something unholy happening here, but do we really have to jump on every. single. thing. that may or may not have any indication of something maybe happening?
It’s boring. I’m bored.
I understand your perspective, but what has been discussed and revealed to be "absolutely nothing"? The investigation is still ongoing so no final results have been released, but there have been several indictments and revelations of repeated lying on the part of Trump family members, campaign team members, and more. So, I'm not sure what you mean?
But let's ignore the 22 million e-mails lost by the George W. Bush presidency, and then his complete disregard for Congress in subpoenaing them. 95% of his advisers used a private server run through the RNC. But yeah, for those two classified e-mails, we better jail her and claim FBI corruption.
Solid double standard.
Look up when we decided to prevent private servers. You'll find the rebuttal to this silly claim.
Look up the Presidential Records Act and you'll find the rebuttal to your rebuttal.
Presidential records act does not mention classified information, and in any case was not instituted until 2008 - the last year of GW.
Though I didn't claim FBI corruption, even after the fiasco of Billy getting to the AG, who then instructed the FBI on what to do.
You want to pay for the wall, make the Trump-Mueller interview pay-per-view. There's the $25 Billion.
Presidential Records Act was passed in 1978 and dictated how records of the President and Vice President were handled after January 20, 1981.
Bush and Cheney took a big poo poo all over that rule and then stuck their middle finger up to Congress when they subpoenaed all the e-mails from the RNC server. Just another example of the lawlessness of when the GOP is in control.
I get the impression some here are not following the investigation closely.
It has produced no evidence whatsoever that Trump colluded with Russia--and only some rather flimsy indications that Russia may have tried to influence the election. (Did RT show signs of favoring Trump? Do some Americans sometimes read RT?)
What the investigation HAS revealed is massive corruption within the FBI and DOJ--which looks very much FBI collusion with the Hillary campaign to throw the election. It also looks very much like--having failed to throw the election in Hillary's favor--the FBI subsequently turned its attention to trying to remove a sitting president. In other words, if true, it appears the FBI was engaged in a coup d'etat attempt.
Is Trump a politician or not? The designation seems to change on the whims of the Trump defender, depending on whether it helps or hurts their man.
He has taken on the job of a politician, requiring that he work with politicians and that he use the tools of politicians, behaving as one to at least some degree.
But no, he is not a politician. Or perhaps we might say he's far too new to the task to be a "good' (as defined by politicians) one. He's a businessman.
I agree with that assessment. I just chuckle at those who excuse his behavior because he's not a politician, and then turn around and excuse his behavior as no different from other politicians.
It IS a conundrum, isn't it? He isn't one (most certainly he isn't a politician!) but has to pretend he is while working with other politicians. His whole life now is about being a politician - something he isn't.
But there IS at least some justification for those excuses; he tries and fails, then behaves (spin, exaggeration, changing stories, etc.) just as the rest of the political world does.
I wonder if one of his biggest problems is that he's not used to having his every word recorded and repeated back a thousand times - all those exaggerations and partial truths haunt him much worse than other politicians because he doesn't keep a close enough rein on his mouth. He just says things that aren't really true without taking great care that he can later deny them like the experienced people do. His exaggerations really are exaggerations rather than partial or spun truths, and it hurts him.
I am often puzzled as to why the liberals among us cannot distinguish between actions that are legal and actions that are illegal. Maybe Trump contemplated firing Mueller. Stop the presses!
On the other hand, presenting partisan-funded falsified information to a FISA court to obtain a warrant to spy on a political opponent is quite a different matter. If this is what "the memo" and the actual FISA documents indicate, we're over into sedition territory.
Apparently you're unaware of the "memo's" origin. It is simply an opinion by Nunes and other pro-Trump cronies alleging what the intel evidence indicated. This simply a ploy to distract from the Russia investigation as Nunes and his pals do not want the actual classified evidence to come to light as they'll look like fools when it does.
Fox, Limbaugh, and other right wing nuts are pulling the wool over peoples eyes in hopes people like you will fall for it. And apparently you have...
"Ok, now, let me try to distract you..."
Nope, didn't work. I have a defensive auto-reflex when ever I see or hear Hannity. *click*
Saw that the other night. What a sudden change of topics when the truth was learned by Hannity. He is a joke as a newsperson.
Hey Randy, even though I can't bear to watch Hannity either, at least I know he is an opinion commentator, not a news person. Maybe that explains why you have such a negative opinion of Fox News - you think all their personalities are presenting "real news."
I think that, just like CNN, out of their 24 hr. schedule, you might see one of two actual news segments - all the rest are opinion commentators.
Are you saying there are only two journalists speaking on CNN in a 24 hour period, GA?
And many people think Hannity is a journalist, unlike you and I. They do not realize he started out as a small time building contractor and discovered he had the ability to convince people he knew what he was talking about. And has made a pretty penny at spinning the facts, I might add..
Nope, only a couple, (or so), actual news segments. Might even be four or five segments, but the point is both channels fill the majority of their broadcasts with opinion commentators.
I disagree GA as there is usually at least one journalist in the mix on each news segment on CNN. Yes, they have opinion people from both sides of the aisle but they have April Ryan, Jim Acosta, Dana Bash, Manu Raju, Pamela Brown, and the list goes on as far as accredited journalists are concerned.
How many such people from Fox can you name off the top of your head?
by crankalicious 12 months ago
Is this something Congress should do?And what exactly is fake news? While President Trump may complain about "fake" news, he continues to make demonstrably false statements at a rate that far exceeds anything in the "fake" news. In fact, those false statement are all tallied...
by Randy Godwin 16 months ago
With Trump being officially investigated for Obstruction of Justice, will he survive the ordeal?Today the Washington Post revealed--through 5 separate sources--Bob Mueller is officially investigating Trump for Obstruction of Justice. The last two Senate interviews with Trumps's cabinet members had...
by ahorseback 20 months ago
Fake is fake and everybody knows the difference except the mainstream media .Any takers ? Even liberals must recognize the futility of the news media maintaining the plague of falsehoods.
by JOC 3 weeks ago
If he's going to cooperate, that would assume that there's something of value to the investigation in there. Should be interesting to see what he shares.
by My Esoteric 16 months ago
Here are the FACTS as we know them:Jan 27, 2017: Trump has dinner with Comey and, according to Comey, Trump asked Comey for a loyalty oath' but Comey only promised Trump honesty. Trump says he didn't but thought it would have been a good idea.Jan 30, 2017: Trump fires Deputy Attorney General...
by JAKE Earthshine 2 months ago
We all watched in utter astonishment and disgust when during the presidential campaign Mr. Trump betrayed the USA again when he maniacally and brazenly used our national airwaves to call on Russia, our arch enemy to break into our sovereign private property with the intent to steal said property...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|