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

I find it funny that's it's always the "failing" NY Times that always breaks these stories.

Sounds like a bunch of bullsh*t to me.

I don't believe it at all.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

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?

Wait you forgot he first asked Comey for his loyalty, then he asked him to let the Flynn thing go, then he fired Comey when he wouldn't.
Then he put Andrew McCabe in as acting directed of the FBI and first thing he does when he gets him alone is say "so look Andy...who did you vote for hmmmmmm?"
Then he asked McGhan to fire Mueller probably as a test and McCabe refused and threatened to quit, then he made Christopher Wray FBI director.

Do you understand the term abuse of power?

a reply to: dragonridr

The fbi seems to have violated fisa rules.

It needs investigating.

a reply to: neo96

Oh but that bs about a secret society that was legit ... not a smoke screen?

Yeah okay...

a reply to: whywhynot

Hyperbole

Readership is actually up.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The whole front page is Trump. See, even you can now admit he's good for business!

a reply to: xuenchen

Oh no you did int...

Lol yeah... Alrighty then...

a reply to: Sillyolme

Of course it is. They are making a ton off the bs collusion and selling trump hate

a reply to: Greven

"Obstruct this, I'm from New Jersey!"

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: dragonridr

The fbi seems to have violated fisa rules.

It needs investigating.

Wrong FBI has no control over FISA. I think you meant the DOJ the Justice department decides what's investigated not the FBI.

a reply to: dragonridr

Apparently trump didn't have the cajones. When McGahn wouldn't and threatened to quit trump dropped it. Guess he didn't want the blood directly on his hands.

a reply to: dragonridr

Wrong FBI has no control over FISA.

Hmmm.

Yes they do

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sillyolme

Of course it is. They are making a ton off the bs collusion and selling trump hate

Think that's going to dry up as Trump's approval ratings continue to claim. Strangely his support is increasing and I think will continue to do so.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: dragonridr

Apparently trump didn't have the cajones. When McGahn wouldn't and threatened to quit trump dropped it. Guess he didn't want the blood directly on his hands.

Unlikely lawyers are a dime a dozen and replacing them would be easy. A lawyer threatening to quit isn't going to change an opinion of thr president

a reply to: Grambler

Oh is that the next thing? The secret society thing didn't last twenty four hours so now we have this new story?

I see no sources in the article, no evidence whatsoever that it is any more than an opinion.

It sounds that Trump had considered whether he should fire Meuller, but I see nothing more than that. Who is writing and publishing all this crap, they should be required to state a source that can be verified by the people, one that is credible.

If this information came from Trump's legal councel, they should be losing their license shortly, lawyers are not allowed to give out information like that, they could be sued for everything they have and more. Since they are still working, I doubt if this is true.

I think that news agencies should have signed documentation or face severe punishment for twisting the truth out of proportion like tabloids.

originally posted by: Greven
Apparently, this was in June.


This is, hilariously, undone by his next reasons:

The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president's son-in-law...

Um... so he's arguing that Mueller would be biased... for him?


I just don't have words for this. Please read the article.

No, Trump was obviously not arguing that Mueller would be biased for him.
Conflicts of interest operate both sides. A conflict of interest can be either for you, or against you, and you don't want to have either of them.

What Trump was doing, was observing proper ethics.
The reason you didn't understand this might be because someone like Hillary or Obama have on numerous occasions, had people who favor them in positions giving them an advantage, but being highly unethical and offering them a huge conflict of interest, but they did it anyways, and no one said a thing about it who supported them, until someone forced it out in the MSM, then the MSM caves in and has to deal with it.

But when it involves Trump your eyes begin to see something isn't right, albeit misunderstood and drawing the incorrect conclusion because of your own bias against him. (That's the real funny part).

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Oh is that the next thing? The secret society thing didn't last twenty four hours so now we have this new story?

It was worth a laugh I thought it was funny.

a reply to: JinMI

He never intended to win. He wanted the exposure for a new tv or internet show. We should consider adding fraud charges to the rest of them. The bastard.

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?

.

Says the guy who posts on Q anon threads
You guys are ridiculous