Please Fire Mueller!

[The Derp]

He's been investigated and has been cleared by Comey.

Not sure how you can reach that conclusion when there are about 7 or so active investigations into it. How can you make this claim before the investigations are even done?

 

[The Derp]

That's funny coming from snowflakes who could not accept
- Hillary's defeat

Ummm, we do accept her defeat. It's how she was defeated that is in question here.

- No evidence of criminal activity by Trump or his team

That you know of, as of yet. The purpose of an investigation is to find evidence.

- No evidence of collusion by Trump

See above. You cannot say there's no evidence if investigations are currently ongoing, which they are.

- Who now have been reduced to hoping Mueller will succeed where Comey failed based off comey's testimony of how Trump said 'I HOPE...'

It's pretty obvious that "I hope" was a tacit direction for Mueller to do what Trump wanted. And why was Trump talking about ongoing investigations with the FBI Director anyway? If he and his comrades are not guilty of anything, then why are they acting as if they are?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Yes. Whatever Mueller concludes I'll be fine with it.

Sure.....
AS LONG AS......he crucifies Trump...otherwise.....liar

 

[The Derp]

thirteen months is not the beginning. wow.

Something this YUGE is going to take a long time. How long did the Whitewater investigation last? 5 years? 6? And that was just a real estate thing. This is foreign espionage and possible collusion. So it's going to take longer.

I'm confused on what your problem actually is;

• You insist that the investigations (which are still ongoing) exonerate Trump and his team before the investigations are concluded.
• You insist that there isn't anything to find in these investigations.
• You insist that the investigations are taking too long.

So all three of those things contradict each other.

 

[The Derp]

Bottom line, there is none. There is no smoking gun. There is no gun. There is no victim (except for Hillary being beaten). THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

...that hasn't yet been made public. The point of an investigation is to find evidence of those things. So it's weird how you can say there is no evidence before the investigation has finished.

If they're not guilty, they sure are acting like they are.

 

[OldLady]

Neutral? Sounds to me like if they voted for Hillary, you don't consider them fair minded enough to perform their duties."

High profile politically active Liberal Lawyers who voted for and were/are big donors. No, I do not consider them neutral.

Did one of these attorneys actually represent Hillary?

YES. One is a Clinton Foundation Lawyer.

You know what I think? I think they will be fair. You know why? They are professionals. They are not like you.

So calling into question obvious conflicts of interest is being 'Un-professional'? Gee, it's not like the Democrats who have been pushing these investigations, who have broken laws to undermine this newly elected administration has given us any reason to question their motivations or actions, right?

Since Clinton is NOT a target of this investigation, it should not matter in the least that one of the lawyers represented her. Being liberal is an objection? You are again spouting your implied idea that only Trump supporters or people who did not vote are able to work this investigation.
If there was any actual problem with the fact that Comey worked for Mueller, Mueller would not have been appointed. I'm sure they saw this coming--it was Comey's "leak" that precipitated Mueller's hiring, wasn't it?

 

[Reasonable]

The goal is to find out the truth why so many of Trump's staff have Russian connections.
If it means removing the orange clown from office so be it..
All of his staff didn't go to Russia and meet with them in the USA without being directed by the prez himself.

No! We are talking about TRUMP! Not Hillary. Hillary is gone, dude!

I didn't even mention Hillary. You just can't help yourself bringing her into every conversation.
You're really obsessed..

 

[easyt65]

Ummm, we do accept her defeat. It's how she was defeated that is in question here.

Ummm, SHE LOST THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ELECTION.
Yes, the snowflakes continue to parrot the 'she won the insignificant popularity contest' - doesn't matter. She lost. Comey also testified months ago that the "Russian' thing did not cost her any votes.
Time to accept reality, snowflakes.

- No evidence of criminal activity by Trump or his team

That you know of, as of yet. The purpose of an investigation is to find evidence.

Of course the NSA and FBI both testified there was never any crime - no evidence of collusion. NONE. the objective of n investigation is to investigate a suspected crime - there was none, as has been proven / testified to. The purpose of an investigation is to keep digging until you find evidence of SOMETHING because you hate the purpose you are investigating.

- Who now have been reduced to hoping Mueller will succeed where Comey failed based off comey's testimony of how Trump said 'I HOPE...'

It's pretty obvious that "I hope" was a tacit direction for Mueller to do what Trump wanted.

NO, it is not OBVIOUS Trump meant 'shut the investigation down' when he said 'I hope'. Once again, you are projecting opinion and interpretation.

'President Trump, when you said, "I hope..." were you telling Comey to shut the investigation down?'
- Trump: NO.

He said-vs -He said'. No proof of guilt. End of story. Any claim to the contrary is, again, opinion.

(Comey has already - according to snowflakes - perjured himself under oath. Trump hasn't...yet snowflakes say we have to believe Comey. )

 

[easyt65]

Since Clinton is NOT a target of this investigation, it should not matter in the least that one of the lawyers represented her.

Gee, since Trump beat Hillary, liberals are filled with butt-hurt outrage over that - so much that a violence radicalized snowflake just tried to kill a bunch of Republicans yesterday, and you think having a lawyer for the woman who was beaten (and why libs are so pissed off) is really not a problem as a part of the team investigating Trump.

Wow. Ok, I can't argue with such a stance like that anymore. That to me is ludicrous. As I said, to me, you might as well have Donna Brazille on the Counsel, since she is not under investigation either.

 

[OldLady]

Since Clinton is NOT a target of this investigation, it should not matter in the least that one of the lawyers represented her.

Gee, since Trump beat Hillary, liberals are filled with butt-hurt outrage over that - so much that a violence radicalized snowflake just tried to kill a bunch of Republicans yesterday, and you think having a lawyer for the woman who was beaten (and why libs are so pissed off) is really not a problem as a part of the team investigating Trump.

Wow. Ok, I can't argue with such a stance like that anymore. That to me is ludicrous. As I said, to me, you might as well have Donna Brazille on the Counsel, since she is not under investigation either.

Not every Clinton voter is as incensed as the political hacks here, and trying to say that everyone who voted for her is so lathered up that they're ready to shoot someone is ridiculous. It is YOU who is promoting hysteria here. There is no reason to question these guys' credentials. It is not your business who they supported in the campaign. This is a free country, still, Easy.

 

[Marion Morrison]

We actually have a pretty good government now at the higher echelons.

As for the thousands that Obama appoinred..eesh. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[toobfreak]

I didn't even mention Hillary. You just can't help yourself bringing her into every conversation.
You're really obsessed..

No, you mention Hillary in your every post, even when you don't realize it. It is a subconscious guilt fixation for you.

 

[The Derp]

Ummm, SHE LOST THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ELECTION.

Yeah, but with the news that Russia hacked 39 states' voting systems, it kinda throws that whole thing into doubt, particularly in states like Michigan, where Trump won by a small handful of votes. What's troubling is that Conservatives seem completely ambivalent to the hacks. If Hillary had won with a foreign power hacking on her behalf, you can bet Conservatives would have collectively soiled their pants (again).

Yes, the snowflakes continue to parrot the 'she won the insignificant popularity contest' - doesn't matter. She lost. Comey also testified months ago that the "Russian' thing did not cost her any votes.

But that was before the reports that Russia's hacking was far more widespread than previously believed.

Of course the NSA and FBI both testified there was never any crime - no evidence of collusion.

You cannot make that claim because the investigations are currently happening. Perhaps at the time, they didn't find any evidence...but perhaps since then, they have. The point is that you don't know, and clinging to whatever someone may or may not have said months ago is desperation given the scope and scale of the 7 investigations currently happening into all aspects of Russia.

the objective of n investigation is to investigate a suspected crime - there was none, as has been proven / testified to. The purpose of an investigation is to keep digging until you find evidence of SOMETHING because you hate the purpose you are investigating.

So if there's nothing there, why are you so apoplectic about the current investigations? If you are so confident that there was no wrongdoing by anyone, then let the investigations play out. What are you afraid of? Being wrong? It's not the worst thing you will have done with your life.

NO, it is not OBVIOUS Trump meant 'shut the investigation down' when he said 'I hope'. Once again, you are projecting opinion and interpretation.

So why would Trump say that to Comey, with no attorneys present? What does it mean, then, when Trump -as the POTUS- said he "hoped" Comey would end the Flynn investigation? Kinda flimsy excuse there.

'President Trump, when you said, "I hope..." were you telling Comey to shut the investigation down?'
- Trump: NO.

Then what was he doing?

He said-vs -He said'. No proof of guilt. End of story. Any claim to the contrary is, again, opinion.

Problem is that Trump has a long, sordid history of lying. Even recently when he alleged that Obama spied on him. Trump lied about the friggin' crowd size of his inauguration. So if he lied about that, why would he tell the truth about anything else?

 

[easyt65]

Ummm, SHE LOST THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ELECTION.

Yeah, but with the news that Russia hacked 39 states' voting systems, it kinda throws that whole thing into doubt, particularly in states like Michigan, where Trump won by a small handful of votes. What's troubling is that Conservatives seem completely ambivalent to the hacks. If Hillary had won with a foreign power hacking on her behalf, you can bet Conservatives would have collectively soiled their pants (again).

Yes, the snowflakes continue to parrot the 'she won the insignificant popularity contest' - doesn't matter. She lost. Comey also testified months ago that the "Russian' thing did not cost her any votes.

But that was before the reports that Russia's hacking was far more widespread than previously believed.

Of course the NSA and FBI both testified there was never any crime - no evidence of collusion.

You cannot make that claim because the investigations are currently happening. Perhaps at the time, they didn't find any evidence...but perhaps since then, they have. The point is that you don't know, and clinging to whatever someone may or may not have said months ago is desperation given the scope and scale of the 7 investigations currently happening into all aspects of Russia.

the objective of n investigation is to investigate a suspected crime - there was none, as has been proven / testified to. The purpose of an investigation is to keep digging until you find evidence of SOMETHING because you hate the purpose you are investigating.

So if there's nothing there, why are you so apoplectic about the current investigations? If you are so confident that there was no wrongdoing by anyone, then let the investigations play out. What are you afraid of? Being wrong? It's not the worst thing you will have done with your life.

NO, it is not OBVIOUS Trump meant 'shut the investigation down' when he said 'I hope'. Once again, you are projecting opinion and interpretation.

So why would Trump say that to Comey, with no attorneys present? What does it mean, then, when Trump -as the POTUS- said he "hoped" Comey would end the Flynn investigation? Kinda flimsy excuse there.

'President Trump, when you said, "I hope..." were you telling Comey to shut the investigation down?'
- Trump: NO.

Then what was he doing?

He said-vs -He said'. No proof of guilt. End of story. Any claim to the contrary is, again, opinion.

Problem is that Trump has a long, sordid history of lying. Even recently when he alleged that Obama spied on him. Trump lied about the friggin' crowd size of his inauguration. So if he lied about that, why would he tell the truth about anything else?

Nothing is in doubt as Comey testified Russian interference did not change 1 Hillary vote.
-- Also, the Russians did not force Hillary to completely ignore Wisconsin. She ran the worst campaign ever.

There's a lot of argumentative speculation in your post and no evidence.

Trump has a long history of lying. Agreed, but he has not perjured himself under oath the way Comey did. Who to believe - Trump or a politically motivated / biased, disgruntled fired ex FBI director who perjured himself and self-identified as a leaker? Quite a toss up.

 

[The Derp]

Nothing is in doubt as Comey testified Russian interference did not change 1 Hillary vote.

Tesified - past tense - that was before the report was released this week showing Russians tried hacking into at least 39 states, including the states that tipped the balance for Trump.

-- Also, the Russians did not force Hillary to completely ignore Wisconsin. She ran the worst campaign ever.

Wisconsin was one of the states whose voting systems Russia hacked.

There's a lot of argumentative speculation in your post and no evidence.

Such as? I think you're just vomiting out words to make people think you're smarter than you actually are.

Trump has a long history of lying. Agreed, but he has not perjured himself under oath the way Comey did.

How did Comey perjure himself? Trump hasn't perjured himself because he hasn't testified under oath yet.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Couldn't find collusion so he move onto something else

Why do you morons keep saying that? The investigations are at the beginning not the end.

The morons keep stating that, because that is what they are told to think and say. They are, well, morons.

They watch too much Hannity and Fox in general. I turned on Hannity last night for a hoot and all he talked about was radical left and the Deep state. Barely touched on his fuck buddy Trump being under investigation for obstruction of justice. He, like all the other DEPLORABLES, have been so proud saying the prez isn't under investigation. Now that he is, it so pisses him off. He was literally foaming at the mouth.
Sean Hannity: funniest show on TV..

If you went back and reviewed what Ive said about Hannity you would have to retract tbat statement

 

[NightFox]

Meanwhile back on Earth, still waiting for someone to point out what Mueller has done or said to warrant being fired from his role as Special Counsel.

Trump under investigation for Obstruction of Justice.

Why would that warrant firing Mueller? After all Mueller isn't making the obstruction of justice accusation, he's just investigating an allegation that was raised due to the Comey memos/testimony and given that it involves the Flynn Investigation it does fall under his bailiwick. If Trump isn't guilty of obstruction he should welcome the fact that Mueller is investigating given that it poses an opportunity to clear his name by someone (Mueller) that was praised by prominent conservatives & Trump backers for his integrity and competence.

 

[Ted Frazier]

When I read that Muelller is being funded by a lot of people on the left or that he has connections to them it made me realize that the republican party might have it out for Trump. I understand if the democratic party picked him but when republicans themselves don't raise any flags about a possible conflict of interest over this matter then it makes me wonder if they are complicit in this. There are a lot of republicans who a) don't like Trump b) wouldn't mind if he got caned from the job so it makes me wonder if the republican party themselves are allowing the democratic party to do the dirty work they couldn't do during the election.

I haven't been paying too much attention to this but what is so wrong with firing this Mueler guy other than it would make Trump look bad? It would make him look bad but that is just appearances and not substance. Maybe there is good reason to fire him and, if so, what are those reasons?

This thread started in June didn't age well. We're in September.

 

[bendog]

When I read that Muelller is being funded by a lot of people on the left or that he has connections to them it made me realize that the republican party might have it out for Trump. I understand if the democratic party picked him but when republicans themselves don't raise any flags about a possible conflict of interest over this matter then it makes me wonder if they are complicit in this. There are a lot of republicans who a) don't like Trump b) wouldn't mind if he got caned from the job so it makes me wonder if the republican party themselves are allowing the democratic party to do the dirty work they couldn't do during the election.

I haven't been paying too much attention to this but what is so wrong with firing this Mueler guy other than it would make Trump look bad? It would make him look bad but that is just appearances and not substance. Maybe there is good reason to fire him and, if so, what are those reasons?

This thread started in June didn't age well. We're in September.

And Mueller's still here. LOL. We'll get to the bottom of this in time for the 20 elections. (-:

 

[dannyboys]

Meanwhile back on Earth, still waiting for someone to point out what Mueller has done or said to warrant being fired from his role as Special Counsel.

Trump under investigation for Obstruction of Justice.

Why would that warrant firing Mueller? After all Mueller isn't making the obstruction of justice accusation, he's just investigating an allegation that was raised due to the Comey memos/testimony and given that it involves the Flynn Investigation it does fall under his bailiwick. If Trump isn't guilty of obstruction he should welcome the fact that Mueller is investigating given that it poses an opportunity to clear his name by someone (Mueller) that was praised by prominent conservatives & Trump backers for his integrity and competence.

You don't see Trump or ANYONE in his administration claiming Mueller shouldn't do his job!
Trump isn't sending 'hit men' to Mueller's house for Christ's sake!
Trump NEVER attempted to stop Comey from doing his job.
Firing Comey did fuck all to stop/prevent/halt/obstruct Comey.
The stupid fucking LIBs are like a drunk who can't 'get it up' no matter how hard they try.
Fucking pathetic!