Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit

a reply to: Greven


You left out this part...

"ACCORDING TO 4 PEOPLE WHO..."

LOL! Don't you know yet that articles quoting anonymous sources are FAKE NEWS 90% of the time?

That being said, I'm sure President Trump has considering firing quite a few people. Some his did (i.e. Priebus/Bannon), and some he didn't (i.e. Sessions and Mueller).

Also, it's guaranteed that he will consider firing other people going forward.

The Washington Post and New York Times, in particular, have a significant Anti-Trump / Anti-USA slant. They are the go-to of choice for lawbreakers, like Comey-the-Leaker.

originally posted by: Grambler

And in case you missed it, he didnt fire Mueller. He just uestioned if he could be impartial, and was talked out of it.

First he attempted to obstruct Justice by getting Comey alone in a room and suggesting he let go of the Flynn thing. Then he fired Comey... Then he ordered Mueller be fired and the White House council refused the order.

Obstruction of Justice (x3)... Is 3 the official count or were there more attempts?

a reply to: Grambler

There has been such a campaign of false assertions just to distract us from the truth I have to give myself a criteria for limiting the huge data input. Anonymous sources seemed appropriate as that hurdle.

You see this is the result from all of the BS sources, screaming at the moon and arm waving. I just filter it out.

MAGA

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: Grambler

And in case you missed it, he didnt fire Mueller. He just uestioned if he could be impartial, and was talked out of it.

First he attempted to obstruct Justice by getting Comey alone in a room and suggesting he let go of the Flynn thing. Then he fired Comey... Then he ordered Mueller be fired and the White House council refused the order.

Obstruction of Justice (x3)... Is 3 the official count or were there more attempts?

Hold on tightly to that dream as you go to sleep. If it helps you anyway.

a reply to: whywhynot


so a free press
where you draw the line? Not surprising.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Greven


You left out this part...

"ACCORDING TO 4 PEOPLE WHO..."

LOL! Don't you know yet that articles quoting anonymous sources are FAKE NEWS 90% of the time?

That being said, I'm sure President Trump has considering firing quite a few people. Some his did (i.e. Priebus/Bannon), and some he didn't (i.e. Sessions and Mueller).

Also, it's guaranteed that he will consider firing other people going forward.

The Washington Post and New York Times, in particular, have a significant Anti-Trump / Anti-USA slant. They are the go-to of choice for lawbreakers, like Comey-the-Leaker.

McGahn, the lawyer in question, has not denied it.

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: Grambler

There has been such a campaign of false assertions just to distract us from the truth I have to give myself a criteria for limiting the huge data input. Anonymous sources seemed appropriate as that hurdle.

You see this is the result from all of the BS sources, screaming at the moon and arm waving. I just filter it out.

MAGA

It's so common, that this NYTimes hit-piece won't even make the top 100 in the next Fake News Awards presentation.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Greven

Do you have a link so I can read the article?

www.nytimes.com...

You do realize these are more anonymous sources, right? (Sr White House Officials)

It’s a waste of my time to read such unverified stuff.

Not just anonymous sources...

"according to four people told of the matter"

anonymous sources that weren't even present. They all heard it from some one. They could have all heard it from the same some one. And that some one could be the bum down the street.

Man jernalisum is getting weak.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

Asking comey to go easy on flynn, and firing comey were not obstruction.

Trump was allowed to fire comey for any reason, and could have straight up pardoned flynn if he wanted.

Keep following that delusion though, I am sure if you just wish hard enough it will come true.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: Grambler

There has been such a campaign of false assertions just to distract us from the truth I have to give myself a criteria for limiting the huge data input. Anonymous sources seemed appropriate as that hurdle.

You see this is the result from all of the BS sources, screaming at the moon and arm waving. I just filter it out.

MAGA

It's so common, that this NYTimes Fake News hit-piece won't even make the top 100 in the next Fake News Awards presentation.

Compared to the anonymous post literally just on the internet about Obama Lawyering Up? that, I quote:

originally posted by: carewemust
That is very believable based on what we know. Obama will throw a lot of people under the bus in an attempt to save his own hide.

Bit of a double standard there.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: whywhynot


so a free press
where you draw the line? Not surprising.

So you really think that we have currently a free press? Really?

Not surprising.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Greven


Don't you know yet that articles quoting anonymous sources are FAKE NEWS 90% of the time?

So apparently a founding principle of a free press means its fake news? That's really f***king stupid. And really convenient that it wasn't a problem until Trump took office.

a reply to: whywhynot

You do realize that they don't have to reveal their sources right?

You also realize that those sources have to actually exist too don't you?
Otherwise you loose readers for being unreliable then you lose advertiser because you lost readers, then you're out of business.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

Everybody has an opinion on Trump. So what, they did not make Trump or his team, lie, and break the law

If trumps team broke the law, and the proof is there, what difference does it make.


Even IF they LOVED Trump if Trump or his team broke the law, would they not have to report it.


Frankly, I am sure there are people who work for the FBI who hate Hillary.

It's not like the FBI is framing anyone. Trumps team and possibly Trump have already done a bang up job all by themselves!

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Greven


Don't you know yet that articles quoting anonymous sources are FAKE NEWS 90% of the time?

So apparently a founding principle of a free press means its fake news? That's really f***king stupid. And really convenient that it wasn't a problem until Trump took office.

Why are you using "free press" with "anonymous sources" interchangeably? Even a "free press" can get off their lazy asses and provide journalistic accountability, like sighting their sources.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Greven


Don't you know yet that articles quoting anonymous sources are FAKE NEWS 90% of the time?

So apparently a founding principle of a free press means its fake news? That's really f***king stupid. And really convenient that it wasn't a problem until Trump took office.

You’re right about the press not being a problem for Obama. Hmmmm, wonder why?

What law did Trump break ?

Almost firing Mueller ?

Listening to his lawyer?

Oh damn.

That's a biggie GOTCHA now ain't it ?

Great the NYT did an interview with the janitor of the WH. Hey MSM your desperation is showing. Better dial it back a notch. Pathetic attempt to bury the Strzok story.

originally posted by: neo96
What law did Trump break ?

Almost firing Mueller ?

Listening to his lawyer?

Oh damn.

That's a biggie GOTCHA now ain't it ?

Well, I didn't say anything about breaking the law.

I just thought the reasons were funny.

originally posted by: kurthall

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

Everybody has an opinion on Trump. So what, they did not make Trump or his team, lie, and break the law

If trumps team broke the law, and the proof is there, what difference does it make.


Even IF they LOVED Trump if Trump or his team broke the law, would they not have to report it.


Frankly, I am sure there are people who work for the FBI who hate Hillary.

It's not like the FBI is framing anyone. Trumps team and possibly Trump have already done a bang up job all by themselves!

If trump broke the law he should go to jail.

So far the evidence against manafort looks pretty convincing to me, regardless of rather or not the investigations is biased, so he should be charged.

I can support wanting a look onto the investigators, and wanting trump and any other politician to be charged if they break the law at the same time.

Having said that, I do not believe firing comey is obstruction as legally trump can fire him for any reason, and I dont believe wanting to fire mueller but not doing it is a crime.