Trump says he NEVER told Don McGahn to fire Mueller and he didn’t need to…

Trump defended himself against a central accusation of obstruction in the Mueller report today in a few early morning Tweets. Essentially he explains that he never told Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller and points out that he didn’t need to, as he could have just done it himself.





To listen to the salivating media and Democrats, you’d think that Trump fired Mueller two years ago and stopped the investigation.

But this is the key point, that Mueller was never fired and his investigation never obstructed, just as AG Barr indicated weeks ago.

And as Mark Levin has already pointed out, just because it’s in the Mueller report doesn’t mean it’s all true. Trump denies some of it, as in this case.

Trump is clearly done with all of this and isn’t going to allow McGahn or any other aid to testify before Congress without a fight. So if you think there’s an open question here, don’t expect it to be resolved any time soon.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

149
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
25 Comment threads
124 Thread replies
22 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
newest oldest most voted
H2O
Member
Active Member
H2O

There is no “open question”. This is all simply b.s. demonRat politicians continuing to spread innuendo to damage Trump. Right Scoopers need to wise up to this tactic. It is time for Trump and the conservative movement to go on offense and start prosecuting (legally I may add) the deep-state demonRats involved in this entire hoax.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

The whole story seems weird. The White House Counsel is not part of the DOJ, and is not the president’s personal attorney. It would be like the CEO calling up his insurance agent to send orders to his VP of Finance.

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

Trump isn’t super knowledgable in how government works, and he’s known to request or demand odd things in odd ways especially when he is flustered. I could see him getting angry and asking McGahn to fire him even though he’s not the right person for the job. You’re right though, the whole situation is strange. Who told Mueller about this?

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

McGahn spent 30 hours talking with Mueller’s team (according to Mark Levin), so I guess it came from McGahn. But who knows…

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

After typing a bunch of responses in this story, I’m left feeling dumb for being distracted. facepalmd facepalmd facepalmd facepalmd

They moved the goalposts on us yet again and now we’re dutifully chasing after them.

The Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a hoax perpetrated by the Obama administration, the Hillary campaign, and the DNC. All the rest of this McGahn/Sessions/obstruction jibber-jabber is just playing the game that the left wants us to play.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

Very true. We need to keep the focus there.

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

This was always the goal post. They’ve always know “there’s no there there” with Trump and Russia. The objective has always been to get him on something else and they’ve been talking about obstruction since the beginning.

The game is obstruction and the winner isn’t as black and white as it may seem. It’s now onto Congress to decide whether Trump is guilty or not. The Democrats have the power to impeach Trump and now they have an excuse that will seem viable to a lot of Americans. They will play their game with or without us.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

Not true. They were swearing up and down in the beginning that it was a Russian conspiracy, and even as that died down somewhat, they were insistent that there was some “there there”. As they’ve very slowly realized that there was no Russian conspiracy, they moved on to obstruction – that part is true. But there wasn’t any obstruction either. Even that is gone.

Now we’re here arguing about whether or not Trump explicitly told his attorney to fire Mueller. It’s not obstruction no matter how you slice it, even if you believe the Mueller politically-motivated narrative.

We’re now just debating whether or not Trump looks bad for what he told McGahn. Why?

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

Because it could very well be the basis for a Democratic impeachment attempt.

Also, they’ve always known that collusion was a big nothing. That quote I used is actually from Lisa Page. Like I said, this has been their plan the whole time.

Scope
Member
Trusted Member
Scope

“The game is obstruction and the winner isn’t as black and white as it may seem. It’s now onto Congress to decide whether Trump is guilty or not””

Really? Is that your position after 2 years of no collusion, and you want the collusion investigation to continue with the Democrat House?

“The Democrats have the power to impeach Trump and now they have an excuse that will seem viable to a lot of Americans. ”

The Pelosi Democrats have the ability to impeach Trump because they have the majority in the House. Impeaching Trump has been their goal since Hillary lost in 2016, and Trump won. What will the Dems in the House impeach Trump on?

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

It’s not a position, its just true. Impeachment is an entirely political process, it is not about justice at all. It is entirely about checks and balances, one of the checks the Legislature has on the Executive is that they can impeach him. They can impeach him for any reason or no reason at all, it is a power they are entitled to use at their discretion. Its unprecedented however because usually the American populace would not take to kindly to their elected leader being impeached or removed from office for no good reason, which is why they haven’t already impeached him. Yes, it has always been their plan, anyone who has been paying attention knows this. But the majority of American voters are complete morons who don’t pay attention. Most of us will never know anything about Trump’s obstruction of justice other than what they hear in the MSM,… Read more »

Scope
Member
Trusted Member
Scope

Oh the MSM has talked incessantly about how Trump colluded with Russia, and that he obstructed justice because he fired their FBI god, James Comey.

Isn’t it more than a little interesting that none of the Dem 2020 candidates have seemed to even brought up the Mueller Report? The left knows the Mueller Report put them in a really bad losing position.

SheerPolitics
Member
Noble Member
SheerPolitics

There was a person on the Brian Kilmeade show this morning (w/ guest host) who has a book painting do-nothing Jeff Sessions as a hero who saved Trump from himself by not allowing the firing of Robert Mueller! question facepalmg

Mueller wasn’t fired and now everyone is trying to take credit for holding Trump back! BS. #fakenews

hubman
Member
Trusted Member
hubman

Mueller wasn’t fired and now everyone is trying to take credit for holding Trump back!

SEE!!!! That proves they were successful!!

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

I’ve been warning folks for over a year that Sessions might not be the bad guy that so many Trump fans have decided he was.

There’s a lot of stuff right out in the open that people keep ignoring. Not the least of which is Sessions’ directing US Attorney Huber to investigate the “Hillary emails and dossier” side of this whole “deep state” scandal.

Scope
Member
Trusted Member
Scope

Gee K-Bob, here I thought and read in many places that Sessions tasked Huber with investigating abuses by the FBI. What the hell is the truth here already?

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

The emails & dossier side of things is mostly FBI, but also at least one DOJ person, and several Obama Admin folks. I forget the exact language Sessions used in his memo explaining it.

But Huber’s team has been busy for over a year. Zero leaks. Pretty amazing.

Scope
Member
Trusted Member
Scope

It’s funny that because there have been no leaks from the Huber side of things some, including myself, have questioned whether he has been doing anything. I’m wondering if the Huber Report is the report coming out, along with referrals for prosecution in 2 weeks which Joe DeGenova talked about in an interview a few days ago. Huber was also asked to look into the Uranium One deal, and the Clinton Foundation. In a recent tweet from Paul Sperry he seems to have some sort of inside info on 3 people with the FBI/DOJ that seem to have been blowing the lid off all of the scandals and massive corruption in both agencies. I think it may get pretty interesting here in the next month or so.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

ScopeScope
Definitely.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

MUST READ

25 Questions for Robert Mueller
By Julie Kelly and Liz Sheld| April 24th, 2019

https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/24/25-questions-for-robert-mueller/

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Donald is obstructing my desire to stop talking about this forever.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

Have you tried not clicking on the Trump Mueller links?

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

I’ve tried clicking on the Mulligan 2016 button. Over and over and over. It doesn’t seem to be working. sad

Which is terrible, because we seriously need a mulligan on 2016. Like, the entire year.

TheNightmareIsReal
Member
Active Member
TheNightmareIsReal

I certainly wanted Cruz, and I am not happy with things that trump has done, most especially continuing to sign budgets that fund abortion or caving on the budget earlier this year. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t done some good stuff and it doesn’t mean the left and those in power at that time couldn’t have also attacked and tried to destroy Cruz as well.

I hope to see Cruz 2024 be the thing we get, but I don’t think the establishment will ever let that happen. They threw their support behind trump to stop Cruz and the GOPe was prepared to lose to hillary and expected to do so when they embraced trump, but they were wrong there also.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Yea, I would have been OK with Senator Beard R-TX. Though I had serious misgivings about how chummy he is with Glenn Beck. But, as a matter of principle, he was probably the strongest on things like Constitution and Conservative values.

I don’t know about 2024 though. I have a feeling that being the zodiac killer whose dad shot JFK at the behest of his wife Heidi Goldman-Sachs might continue to plague him.

jimash
Member
Member
jimash

Facing a raft of false accusations and questionable prosecutions, one might assume that “Donald Trump” might demand someone’s head. I just don’t see that as anything, if no one got fired.. Obviously neither Mueller nor Rosenstein was fired. Come NEEDED to be fired.
Mueller should have some level of shame over having to dismiss half his hand picked top staff for bias.

TheNightmareIsReal
Member
Active Member
TheNightmareIsReal

He should have just fired all of them.

Factotum
Member
Trusted Member
Factotum

13 million government workers, plus their families and friends make the largest disciplined voting block in this entire country. From your local teachers unions to the massive SEIU and AFSCME. Here is your swamp. Here is the prodigious Democrat fund-raising machine. Don’t let anyone fool you otherwise. This is the swamp and this is the devouring monster that so much wants to get back into power. Deep state: 13 million voters voting as a single, self-interested block. 13 million government workers who have never gotten over Clinton’s loss in 2016. Learn their buzz words, learn how they disguise themselves. Learn how they have attempted to dismantle our system of government for their own personal gain. Learn what a monster we created after JFK unionized the government work force —to lobby, campaign and collectively bargain against us. Even FDR warned us, never unionize government workers. We did not listen; now we… Read more »

Factotum
Member
Trusted Member
Factotum

Each Democrat contender by stealth or direct appeal has been courting the massive public sector union votes, and their equally massive campaign war chests.

Each candidate so far has stumbled badly, most recently SEIU darling Kamala Harris. Is Biden now the public sector unions last great white hope?

Factotum
Member
Trusted Member
Factotum

Trump needs to protect the Office of the Presidency now, for future generations. Could be his finest hour. Democrats have chosen a bridge too far and will pay for their excess.

However, 13 million government union workers, their families and friends and billons of dollars in the public sector employee campaign war chest is a formidable challenge in 2020.

Follow the money, why does the Democrat Party, fronting the massive public sector unions want to be back in power so badly? Their “issues” are total garbage; their real intent is deadly – they want their hands on your tax dollars and have no intention of sharing them with anyone else.

toon
Member
Trusted Member
toon

I can understand the anger and desperation of the Democrats. With the help of a willing press they lost an election they rigged and then they lost an investigation they also rigged.

Factotum
Member
Trusted Member
Factotum

Democrats today are nothing more than a front for the massive public sector unions – all 13 million public sector union members. $2 billion raised and spent just in 2018 to win the House.

There is the 2020 issue. There is the core of Democrat fundraising and GOTV ground troops. Which way are the massive public sector unions going to go.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

If I were to guess what happened with McGahn and Trump, I think Trump was venting to him on how biased and conflicted Mueller is and wondered if he can be fired based on that. McGhan takes it as Trump wants him to fire Mueller and tells his secretary to record that. No one uses their lawyer to fire one of their subordinates. His lawyer is for giving him advice–not to run his administration!!!

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Clinton fired the prosecutor that was after one of his big allies. In fact, he fired 93 of them on the same day. Why was that not obstruction?

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Unless there was a witness to Trump telling McGahn to fire Mueller, IMO it shouldn’t have been put in the report. It’s hearsay and there’s no way to know if it was actually said. It was probably added in to add fuel to the fire. As Levin said, the so-called Part II should never have even been written and it is not the norm.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

The fact of a witness wouldn’t make it not hearsay. But if Trump were tried, it would be fully admissible and not hearsay.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarslantry The rules of the DOJ should have been followed. Trump was not charged with any crime so there shouldn’t have been a book written about him in the report. Barr should have told the Democrat Congress to go pound sand because the report is now going to be used to attempt to destroy someone who wasn’t even charged with anything. Mueller didn’t come through with obstruction so the Dems want a do-over.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

Not trying to change the subject, but do you feel the same way about Hillary Clinton? Was Comey’s press conference completely inappropriate?

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarslantry Yes it was and I’ve always said that. IMO he did it to save Loretta Lynch from having a dilemma on her hands. The difference with Hillary is that they found crimes that she committed. Additionally, wiping thousands of emails and smashing hard drives was excused by Comey as “careless” instead of criminal intent. Hogwash. If that doesn’t show intent I don’t know what does.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

Smashing hard drives took place before the investigation and was only careless in the sense that it actually didn’t comply with standards for secure destruction of data. Which is to say, her staff should have gone farther.

The bleachbit thing is its own story. Whether you believe the server admin who did it is up to you, but that’s what the investigation turned up.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarslantry But she still deleted thousands of emails that were ordered to be turned over to the FBI. They also found top secret documents she wasn’t supposed to have on the private server.

You seriously can’t be making the argument that Comey didn’t turn his head on massive violations of the law.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I’m saying that the factual record isn’t as clear as to what happened, when it happened, and why it happened, than some would like to believe.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

And it’s not at all disconcerting to know that the reason we don’t know those things is that a proper investigation was never done. No one was raided at their homes or offices to preserve evidence. Although we know that some of the Clinton people lied, no one was indicted on process crimes to try to force them to “flip” on higher ups. When evidence like the Weiner laptop with classified information showed up, they ignored it for over a month because at that point they were too busy chasing after the Trump-Russia hoax.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that no matter what we know of the Hillary situation, the truth is likely much worse than what her admitted defenders like Comey were willing to tell us.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

trytothinktrytothink Unfortunately I think that ship has sailed. If any case deserved a special prosecutor it was Hillary’s. It’s rather unnerving that the Republicans didn’t have the balls to take it beyond Congressional testimony so they could make hay out of it, yet they had no problem allowing the Dems to go after Trump on a fishing expedition when there wasn’t even evidence of a crime being committed.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

No, the difference with Hillary is that she’s had enough. Donald said so.

Nobody’s said that about Donald. He can clearly take more.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

Seriously, are you no better than a repeated and dumb TDS talking point?

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Donald’s the one that said it. Take it up with him.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

Yeah, he said it after winning a Presidential election when he was being magnanimous and thinking that he could move on with his agenda while avoiding the trap of having a President pursue prosecution of his recently-defeated political opponent.

Little did he know that over 2 years later he’d still be dealing with the hoax started by that political opponent as well as her unending presence on the political stage. But don’t let that stop you from repeating your knee-slapper every time you can.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

But the point is that he forgave all her transgressions because she had enough. Whining about them two years later because being a bad president is hard seems disingenuous.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

ATAT Trump’s comment has nothing to do with reality or what should be done.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

The king has spoken, kong. There will be no further discussion. Or would you rather spend time in the dungeons?

Stop being disloyal. You know he hates that.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

@at I support him overall but I most certainly don’t support him on everything or agree with everything he says. He’s just a man, not an idol.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Heresy. HERESY.

hubman
Member
Trusted Member
hubman

If Trump were tried — he won’t be, because there was never enough evidence to take this to trial — and if it were admissible — which depends on the circumstances — Trump’s team would of course have the opportunity to impeach and rebut the testimony. Trump’s team had no such opportunity in the Mueller report. It would be foolish to presume that the Mueller report is accurate. I can point to multiple sections in the Mueller report where they ignored contradictory testimony that would have undercut the narrative.

There’s a reason why the Steele dossier somehow never gets mentioned in the Mueller report, even though it was the entire basis for a FISA warrant on Carter Page and the only real evidence used for the whole collusion investigation.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

On what circumstances would the admissibility of an adverse party’s statement depend?

hubman
Member
Trusted Member
hubman

I think you know that the admissibility of hearsay evidence hinges on the exact circumstances surrounding it. Broadly speaking, hearsay is inadmissible, but it can be admissible in certain circumstances. Which is all hypothetical, since there was no evidence of collusion, and even after Rosenstein and Barr assumed for the sake of argument that Mueller’s — well, really Weissman’s — pet theory of obstruction was correct, in spite of the fact that Barr had already made clear it wasn’t — they still didn’t find actual evidence of obstruction. It’s impressive how hard you’re working to try to resurrect the hopes dashed when Mueller was unable to prove any elements of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory, but it’s time to give it up. Besides, I could probably give you half a dozen good-government reasons to fire Mueller and name a more neutral investigating team. You know, preferably NOT staffed with members… Read more »

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I’m not trying to resurrect anything.

Under the federal rules of evidence, adverse party statements are exempted from the definition of hearsay. They are always admissible. There is no gray here.

hubman
Member
Trusted Member
hubman

Sure you are. The collusion theory turned out to be a conspiracy theory that didn’t depend on evidence. The obstruction theory also doesn’t depend on actual evidence. It’s just more after-the-fact arguments that Trump must have been guilty of obstruction, since he wasn’t guilty of collusion.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I haven’t said that he’s guilty of anything. All I said is that I don’t believe his assertion that he didn’t order McGahn to get Mueller fired.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

The whole investigation should have ended the moment Mueller realized that the Russian collusion narrative was totally unsupported.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

trytothinktrytothink No doubt, but he had to justify the $35 million and he didn’t want to come out empty handed….which he did anyway.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

From the very beginning, Levin said that Mueller had no case but was just trying to find anything at all that could be used as impeachment fodder by the Democrats.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

trytothinktrytothink It appears he was right.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy
trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

Wow, the Mueller team couldn’t be bothered to look into the obviously shaky and fake origins of their whole investigation. They had people on their team who were obvious Trump haters who only were removed after their Trump hating surfaced… but I’m expected to believe the Mueller Report’s characterizations as though those people were truthful and impartial?

Yeah, right.

bronx
Member
Active Member
bronx

As time rolls on there are going to be lots of reports that are going to bring out the truth of this democrat Russian hoax. I believe Mueller will never be called before congress because he will have to face the truth but this time he will get the ping pong treatment because it will be coming from both sides.

The hunters will now be hunted.
GEORGIAN BUSINESSMAN RELEASES TEXTS WITH COHEN THAT WERE LEFT OUT OF MUELLER REPORT
https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/24/giorgi-rtskhiladze-texts-cohen-mueller/

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

Yep going to see more of that.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

Is it obstruction when the investigation is based on a hoax?

It would have been justice to stop the fraud investigation yet he cooperated.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

Yes! He tried to obstruct a hoax, Tracy! /s

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

Yes, you can still obstruct an investigation even if you’re innocent of whatever’s being investigated.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

How is stopping a hoax investigation obstruction?

Mueller knew right away there was no there there, yet he continued.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

Because obstruction is committed prior to the completion of the investigation and is not tied to the outcome of that investigation. From a logical perspective, investigations are a lawful function of government so it makes sense to criminalize attempts to interfere with that function.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

But talking mess isnt the same as smashing blackberries, wiping servers with beachbit or deleting subpoenaed emails. Is it?

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

It can be.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

But it’s not, Slantry.

How in the world do you expect us to take the Democrats seriously on the rule of law after that?

Kathleen
Member
Trusted Member
Kathleen

What exactly did Trump obstruct?

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

The theory is that he endeavored to obstruct the underlying investigation. It doesn’t matter whether he succeeded or not.

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

If he didn’t succeed, wouldn’t that make it attempted obstruction of justice?

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

Yes. But the substantive crime captures both attempts and actual acts and does not distinguish between them.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

Mueller didn’t even report to McGahn, so what authority would he have to fire him?? McGahn just wanted to look like a hero lawyer in front of the Special Counsel as the one who stopped Trump from firing Mueller. If Trump wanted to fire Mueller, he would have been fired like he fired Comey–via twitter.

Also, if Mueller was fired, it wouldn’t have been a big deal because Rosenstein would just have appointed another one to replace him, so I wouldn’t think it would be illegal to fire Mueller for his bias, but the optics wouldn’t have looked good and the press would have gone berzerk!

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

McGahn was ordered to order Rosenstein to fire Mueller, not to fire him directly.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

It’s not illegal to fire someone.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

Again, Rosenstein doesn’t report to McGahn, so how can this be a legitimate order. It makes no sense!

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

McGahn would be acting as a conduit between Trump and Rosenstein.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

So he didnt need Mcgahn though. He could pick up the phone himself.

I am sure Trump was venting to him. But since mcgahn never fired him and Trump didnt do it himself through Rosenstien it wasnt obstruction.

I cant believe that this is the raging scandal of the time after everyone slept through the Obama Clinton scandals that actually got people killed and harmed our nation.

Trump is guilty of being a loudmouth.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

BS. No one uses their attorney to fire someone. And I certainly don’t think Trump functions that way. Even if that really happened, Rosenstein or Mueller would ignore him because he doesn’t have the authority to fire him. It would make more sense if he told it to his Chief of Staff at the time.

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

That’s the theory, but how are you supposed to prove that? If Mueller was able to, surely he would have put something in his report.

That said, I don’t think the Democrats would need proof to impeach him, which is what this all is really boiling down to since sitting Presidents can’t be indicted.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarslantry Supposedly. Were there witnesses to it? Was it put on record anywhere? How many times do we see ex-whatever making claims that aren’t true? A lot.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I mean McGahn documented it and then conveyed that information in a setting in which lying is a felony. What kind of record are you envisioning?

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarslantry I’m talking about a record of the conversation when it happened. A recording or something. A witness even. As if saying something under oath stops people from lying their arses off.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

If that were the standard, the prisons would be empty.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarslantry But this is merely a report of an investigation where no charges were filed. Trump is not on trial….but the Dems will use it to put him on trial in the leftist media. Of which, he will promptly be found guilty. I just think it’s wrong to use the report to destroy someone unjustly that had no charges brought against him….and not because they whitewashed it like they did Hillary.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

Mueller’s op-ed is all opposition research for the 2020 Democrat presidential candidate… the bottom line is there was no obstruction and no collusion.

Had there been evidence, Mueller would have indicted. The anti-Trump crew, on the Left and Right, are throwing away one of the basic principles in our judicial system… INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Trump was found INNOCENT.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

I really hope they come back soon with the IG reports and Barr’s view on it so they can declare a special counsel who can start with the indictments.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

Hmm… so on the one hand we have the statements of several witnesses who don’t really have an incentive to lie plus contemporaneous notes documenting the incident in question. On the other hand, we have a denial by a guy who repeatedly and provably lies without hesitation about even stupid things that he has no need to falsify.

Hmmm… whom to believe…

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

In the end, it doesn’t matter… the bottom line is Trump is innocent. This is another attempt by the anti-Trump to say Trump is guilty until proven innocent.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I mean since he can’t be indicted, this has to be decided in the court of public opinion, where there are fewer protections for the accused. And all I know is that if a Democratic president had done half this stuff, people on this site would be out for blood.

Ciceroni Excogitatoris
Member
Noble Member
Ciceroni Excogitatoris

The reality is the public doesn’t give a hoot about the Russia hoax…. only the anti-Trumpers on both sides. We had a Democrat POTUS who used the IRS to target conservatives, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc… and nothing happened. Trump peccadilloes are peanuts compared to what Obama got away with… and Hillary!

Then again, we have a two-tier justice system and this Mueller hoax was about delegitimizing the 2016 election.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

I cant speak for others here but yes I was incensed that lawless Democrats never paid a price.

I dont think Trump is guilty of anything worse than what Obama did, and many times over.

But if it wasnt important to Democrats then I sure as hell dont care what they say now.

Agesilaos
Member
Active Member
Agesilaos

And all I know is that if a Democratic president had done half this stuff, people on this site would be out for blood.

And we all know that if a Democrat president had done half of this stuff, we’d either never know about it or it would be downplayed and dismissed, because the Media would be running defense for him and leftists would look the other way..

Agesilaos
Member
Active Member
Agesilaos

serious question: if you believe that the people on this site are hypocrites, why bother stop in and post here? It seems to me that the NeverTrumpBlender would be a better fit for you.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I show up there occasionally, but I prefer debate.

Agesilaos
Member
Active Member
Agesilaos

So, you want to debate with people you regard as hypocrites. Got it.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

Hey I show up at the other site and mix things up a bit. I dont mind Slantry because he is respectful. I give him props for that

Kathleen
Member
Trusted Member
Kathleen

I agree with you 99% of the time but Slantry is not respectful. He/she is condescending but if it floats his/her boat.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

@Kathleen the other 99% are way more important anyway razz

Agesilaos
Member
Active Member
Agesilaos

Tracy, he just called everyone here hypocrites. I don’t take this as a sign of him respecting us.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

I dont take it as calling someone a hypocrite to point to what he sees as a double standard.

And he is also using a double standard because he is explaining away Hillary/Comey/Lynch bs above.

So maybe I just dont care what people think about me but argue on what is being said. He isnt always respectful but compared to our previous trolls he’s is not so bad.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I’ll take it, although I reject the assertion that, because I’m trying to parse different sets of facts, I’m using a double standard.

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

Welp, maybe some of us are hypocrites. I think I am.

Not on this issue though. I really don’t think Trump did anything at all.

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

You can’t debate with people who agree with you on everything.

Kathleen
Member
Trusted Member
Kathleen

I think you have a Napolean complex.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

And you never have debated the crew there whose narratives have now been shown to be fundamentally incorrect? You’re obviously very intelligent. Doesn’t the wrongness of that crowd and your tacit approval of their delusions over the last couple of years cause you to stop and reassess your assumptions? The Russian collusion narrative was a hoax. We know that now. Mueller had nothing. We told you so. That other crowd was insistent that there was something there. They were insistent… but oh so wrong. If Trump had been guilty of a conspiracy of working with the Russians, I think I would have apologized to the people I had said were wrong, I would have apologized for being wrong, and I probably would have done some serious soul searching. I would have withdrawn even my nominal support for his Presidency and been a part of the crowd insisting on his impeachment.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

Having read the entire report I don’t think it’s so clear cut to say that nothing happened. Whether any of it was criminal is a separate issue. But I’ll debate people there too.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

Nothing happened. The contention that Trump and his key campaign staff colluded with the Russian government to manipulate the US presidential election in 2016 is undeniably false. Mueller had nothing noteworthy along those lines. The first part of the Mueller report confirms that over and over. So many little things that the Left speculated on as evidence of Russian collusion were shown to be non-issues, like that platform change by the RNC and many others: https://nypost.com/2019/04/19/top-10-things-the-media-got-wrong-about-collusion-and-obstruction/ The claim that Trump couldn’t be indicted is not even a small defense of the Russian collusion narrative. Trump’s people could have been indicated. Not a single person in Trump world was indicted for anything to do with Russian conspiracy. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the DNC did far more coordinating with foreign powers (including the Russians) to attempt to alter the outcome of the 2016 election and then to impact the Presidency of Donald… Read more »

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

AgesilaosAgesilaos
We are way more entertaining

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

That too.

Kathleen
Member
Trusted Member
Kathleen

No doubt, I despise Leftists. You seem to think that everyone here supports Trump like those on the Left support anything labeled Left. Tell me the similarities between Trump and:

Clinton and email server;
Holder announcing his allegiance to Obama – not the Constitution;
Obama using the IRS as a weapon;
Clapper lying;
Brennan and a host of others labeling the President a traitor and treasonous.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

That isn’t what we’re talking about, but you know, it’s possible for more than one thing to be bad.

Kathleen
Member
Trusted Member
Kathleen

You’re comparing Trump’s conversations with staff the same as the incidents cited above.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I’m saying that people are not being consistent in how they treat malfeasance. That is not the same thing as equating malfeasance.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

They arent even in the same league.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

“if a Democratic president had done half this stuff”

Jeez… Trump didn’t break the law, didn’t exert executive or even client-attorney privilege, but he has been crucified.

Obama’s people *broke the law* multiple times, Obama exerted executive privilege left and right while being protected by his “wing man” Holder and then by Lynch. Holder was even held in contempt for not turning over basic documents that should have been readily available.

But yeah, I can totally see where your implication comes from that we’re hypocrites on this site for being upset that Trump’s non-crime is being pounded relentlessly by the Democrats and the MSM (redundant, I know).

Covfefe
Member
Active Member
Covfefe

If a Democratic president had done twice this stuff we would never have heard of it.

hubman
Member
Trusted Member
hubman

So having no evidence that could face a courtroom — not even enough to indict, much less to convict — the proper response is to throw it into a trial in “the court of public opinion?” That’s just sloppy after-the-fact justification. Mueller was appointed to investigate links and/or coordination. He admits to finding no evidence of collusion, and admits he doesn’t have enough evidence to indict for obstruction, but writes a report that he knows will be made public to encourage others to go beyond the law and the evidence. The whole second section of the Mueller report confirms to all that this was never about a lawful investigation, but about finishing the work of the previous Obama administration to try to destroy the political opposition. There was never any collusion. There was never any evidence of collusion that justified opening an investigation, as admitted by Clapper in March of… Read more »

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

The notes are from one witness. Don Megahn who would dictate to his secretary what he thinks the president said after the fact. I don’t dispute that the topic of Mueller authority and Presiden’ts authority to fire him came up. I know if I was in his position, I would look at all options to protect myself from an unjust witch hunt. But I don’t think for a second that Trump asked him to fire Mueller and that’s because only the President can fire Mueller like he fired James Comey, so if he wanted to fire him, he just needed to tweet it out–HE NEVER DID THAT!

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I mean, his authority to fire Mueller directly isn’t actually such a clear issue, and he’d probably have to order the special counsel regs repealed to pull it off.

McGahn also spoke to people at the time who confirmed that he had said these things, which is usually useful corroborating evidence. Why would he have made it up at the time, and why would he have been so elaborate about it?

Meanwhile, all indications are that McGahn takes his own notes. Which makes sense, seeing as notetaking is basically an instinctual practice for lawyers.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

So you are giving weight to hearsay as evidence? Aren’t you a lawyer? If so, can you please educate us on why hearsay is not admissible in court?

In regards to why he would have made it up, I think he exaggerated it. Like I said, I don’t doubt the topic came up and McGahn somehow inferred that Trump wanted him to fire Mueller. Don’t you ever tell someone something and they completely twist it and make it into something totally different than what you told them? I think that’s what happened here, but for some people to take this hearsay as evidence just shows their bias.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

The hearsay rule is much more complicated than people realize.

McGahn’s statements about what Trump said would be fully admissible in a trial where Trump is the defendant. This is why “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

McGahn’s contemporaneous statements would not be admissible to prove the actual truth of the assertion (“Trump told me X”) unless his credibility were attacked and the statements were deemed to have been made before whatever motive to lie is imputed to him would have formed. In either case, they would be admissible to prove that McGahn said what he said.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

I don’t think any reasonable judge would allow as evidence what McGahn told to person x on what Trump told McGahn if person x wasn’t even there! And this is what you are passing as evidence! And frankly, the dispute isn’t if McGahn believes what he says, the dispute is that McGahn misunderstood, so he can tell a million people what he thinks he heard, but it really still comes down to McGahn’s word vs. Trump’s word. And so far Trump’s word makes much more sense for all the reasons I listed previously in regards to 1) Trump’s inclination to fire people via Twitter and 2) Lack of direct authority on McGahan’s part to fire anyone in DOJ!

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

It would be allowed to prove that McGahn told that person that Trump told him X; it would not be allowed to prove that Trump told McGahn X unless McGahn’s credibility were attacked, in which case it would be admissible substantively. Judges follow FRE801(d)(1)(B).

However, McGahn could testify to what Trump told him, and that would be fully admissible under all circumstances.

hubman
Member
Trusted Member
hubman

The president can fire anyone in the executive branch, bar none. Mueller was a DOJ employee who reported to the Attorney General. Rosenstein was his direct superior only because Sessions had recused himself. So Rosenstein could have fired him. Sessions could have fired him, though he would have had to unrecuse himself first. And Trump could fire him. We keep talking about the Special Counsel regulations, but they’re not actually binding, even on the DOJ, as Manafort found out when he pointed out that Mueller’s appointment violated the Special Counsel regulations. The judge was obviously sympathetic to that argument, but declared that the court could not enforce the so-called regulations. What kind of “regulations” are they if the DOJ issues them, but isn’t required to follow them, and their failure to follow them can’t be adjudicated by anybody? These are more policy statements as to how the DOJ intends to… Read more »

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I don’t really have time to get through all of these assertions, but the vast majority of regulations don’t create substantive rights enforceable by private parties.

hubman
Member
Trusted Member
hubman

Then stick to the simple one. DOJ regulations that even the DOJ doesn’t always abide by are certainly not binding on the actions of the president who is above the DOJ.

Bottom line: Trump could fire Mueller, just like he fired Sessions and could have fired Rosenstein.

And arguably should have, in all three cases.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I don’t really subscribe to the unitary executive theory.

hubman
Member
Trusted Member
hubman

Doesn’t matter if you do. There is no limit on the president’s power to fire executive branch employees.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

I don’t really subscribe to the strong unitary executive theory.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

He is right tho, he didnt need mcgahn to fire Mueller.

slantry
Member
Active Member
slantry

He needed Rosenstein though.

Kathleen
Member
Trusted Member
Kathleen

Are you genuinely perplexed? btw, the conversations among ‘a guy who repeatedly and provably lies without hesitation…’ and his staff that resulted in – nothing illegal. Perhaps we should look to Bill Clinton… you know, it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. Yeah.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

I don’t believe Mueller and his team any further than I would absolutely have to. They were obviously politically motivated. The whole notion that Mueller spent well over a year investigating “obstruction” when he could have come out and cleared the President on “Russian collusion” a year before the midterms shows that Mueller is a political animal who was looking to give as much impeachment ammo to a Democrat controlled House as possible. Sure, Trump is a liar. But Comey is a liar and a leaker. Rosenstein was heavily conflicted and complicit in starting the hoax counter intelligence investigation. Mueller had a team full of people like Stzok… who is an obvious liar. Schiff is a liar. Maxine Waters is a liar. Schumer is a liar. Pelosi is a liar. Are there any people who are fairly honest in all this? Nunes has been pretty honest. Gowdy turns out to… Read more »

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

His sham investigation should have led him to investigate the real collusion. The dossier was based on Russian disinformation.

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

But strangely, what was obvious to people out in the cheap seats like we have been was not even a curiosity to Mueller. Weird, huh? It’s almost like he was deliberately looking the other way.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

Yep. It was an attempt to coverup the real collusion.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Noble Member
Dr. Strangelove

Good. Fight them on the beaches, fight them on the landing grounds, fight them in the fields and on the streets…

Teri Smith
Member
Noble Member
Teri Smith

I’m starting to believe that it will never end…just on and on and on. The only good news to me is that the Democrats have no one to run for President. Just no one.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

They do have that Butt guy!

BlackR1
Member
Trusted Member
BlackR1

On this I 100% agree with Trump.

The statement in Volume 2 of the report suggesting Don McGahn stated he was asked to fire Mueller NEVER made sense to me for reason Trump just pointed out.

I suspect Volume 2 was written to undermine the rest of Trump’s presidency and to be used as fodder and fake “evidence” of obstruction (to a crime that NEVER HAPPENED, mind you) by the Democrats and most of the Network News, but I can’t help but think that Mueller, being the sleazy, detestable, loathsome political HACK that he is decided to toss a few “proverbial” Grenades into the Oval Office on his way out the door.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

Volume 2 is a gift to Democrats running in 2020. It’s essentially a dossier for 2020

Back to Top of Comments