Trump tried to fire Mueller in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


People!

This is why Trump walked into the White House press room without warning and told them "on the record" that he would love to talk to Mueller!

Damage control. Trump knew the news that he had tried to fire Mueller was about to spill.

Good point. He wanted to mitigate it in any way he could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumors that Ryan won't seek re-election.

Hmmm

These have been rumors for a while. Admittedly, Ryan is a pretty lousy Speaker, but then, it's a hard job. I thought he was in a solid district, I don't know why he's thinking of not running again.

He has a strong challenger who is a vet and blue collar guy, and frankly, most of his district hates him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
People!

This is why Trump walked into the White House press room without warning and told them "on the record" that he would love to talk to Mueller!

Damage control. Trump knew the news that he had tried to fire Mueller was about to spill.

Nah, more likely, Trump is getting ready to try to fire Mueller again, and McGahn leaked this story to prevent it.

[Anonymous]

Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And he would have had every legal right to do so. So what?

He has the right to fire his subordinates. He does not have the right to obstruct justice. If he fires someone in order to obstruct justice, it is a criminal act. You, as an employer, can fire someone because you don't like them, but you can't fire them because they are black or Jewish.

Hope that helps, but I'm guessing not.

No firing, no obstruction. Mueller wasn't fired. Got it? What he wanted to do and what he did do are two different things.

Despite what Hannity said tonight, even contemplating obstruction is obstruction under the law. But sure, you can live in your own legal world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

I saw on twitter that Hannity also had the hot news of Clinton on the tarmac. From almost two years ago. Timely stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

They are indeed also distracting. Did the New York Times write anything about the new texts about how the FBI was going to go soft on Clinton because she would probably be the next President and take it out on them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

He’s lost the will to be a racist. Sad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And he would have had every legal right to do so. So what?

He has the right to fire his subordinates. He does not have the right to obstruct justice. If he fires someone in order to obstruct justice, it is a criminal act. You, as an employer, can fire someone because you don't like them, but you can't fire them because they are black or Jewish.

Hope that helps, but I'm guessing not.

No firing, no obstruction. Mueller wasn't fired. Got it? What he wanted to do and what he did do are two different things.

Despite what Hannity said tonight, even contemplating obstruction is obstruction under the law. But sure, you can live in your own legal world.

We've heard this over and over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

They are indeed also distracting. Did the New York Times write anything about the new texts about how the FBI was going to go soft on Clinton because she would probably be the next President and take it out on them?

We’re not distracted by shiny things. #ConspiracyToObstructJustice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

They are indeed also distracting. Did the New York Times write anything about the new texts about how the FBI was going to go soft on Clinton because she would probably be the next President and take it out on them?

The FBI, via Comey, in an unusual step, publicly explained what they were doing with respect to Clinton.

They were totally silent, with no leaks, about what they were doing with the other presidential candidate, who was also under investigation at the time. Would you have preferred Comey to make a statement about Trump, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Partially tied to Mueller having resigned his membership at Trump National previously.

Was the pretext Trump wanted to use to fire Mueller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hannity faceplants on the issue:

Sean Hannity: The New York Times is trying to distract you. They say Trump tried to fire Mueller, but our sources aren’t confirming that!

[Minutes Later]

Sean Hannity: Alright, yeah, maybe our sources confirm Trump wanted to fire Mueller. But so what? That’s his right. Anywho...

They are indeed also distracting. Did the New York Times write anything about the new texts about how the FBI was going to go soft on Clinton because she would probably be the next President and take it out on them?

The FBI, via Comey, in an unusual step, publicly explained what they were doing with respect to Clinton.

They were totally silent, with no leaks, about what they were doing with the other presidential candidate, who was also under investigation at the time. Would you have preferred Comey to make a statement about Trump, too?

I'm sorry, what? Are you aware of the new information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone wonder why the GOP is going to such great lengths to protect him? It can't be just for political reasons. This must go way beyond that. This is why I have no faith in them EVER impeaching him no matter what comes out. They are actively trying to cover things.

'

We already know the answer:

1) GOP has taken millions of dollars directly and indirectly from Russians, both through SuperPACs and NRA etc.
2) GOP emails were hacked too, kompromat


Trump is holding the contents of the emails over the victims. Rather than go to the authorities, they have played along thinking they could come out ok.

They were wrong.

So far they've gotten a tax cut and a Supreme Court justice out of it. Looks pretty OK from a Republican perspective to me.

They would have gotten the tax cut a a conservative SCOTUS pick out of Pence.

[Anonymous]

It does two things:

1. It establishes Trump's intent with respect to the firing of James Comey. Here you have Trump trying to fire Mueller to stop the investigation and using a bunch of half baked excuses to justify it. A grand jury is going to see this as a pattern.


2. It guarantees that he can't fire Mueller going forward.