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.

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.

Obstruction doesn't require actual obstruction. Just intent. Or, in this instance, attempt.

I'd check on how to prove intent. And attempt.

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.

Traitor

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know which sources shared this scoop with the NYT. Bannon? Can't imagine he's worried about pissing anyone off at this juncture.

Anonymous sources! The best kind!!

As soon as a source is named, you will undoubtedly have a hissy fit that information was leaked. You'll start up a congressional investigation to find and prosecute the leaker, not for a moment asking yourself how it would be illegal to leak this information. Then you'll follow up with the standard set of tall tales (he vacations with George Soros, his favorite restaurant on Yelp is Comet Ping Pong).

But does it really matter? Ty Cobb has not shied away from denying various claims in the past, gives a fancy "no comment". That means either he knows its true, or he doesn't have the information to prove that it's false.

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.

Not so fast...
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/10/paul-ryan-reelection-democrat-internal-poll-randy-bryce-288639

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.

Right! Attempted murder is not murder!

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.

Obstruction doesn't require actual obstruction. Just intent. Or, in this instance, attempt.

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.

1. He’s not going to be Speaker as of January 2019. And he’s not going to stick around while the GOP implodes, regardless of Ryan’s ties to Russia.

2. Trump is going down in flames and Pence is balls deep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Aaah, was wondering when you'd show up.

The trolls have been noticeably slow to show up on this thread. Seeing as it's the middle of the night Moscow time, and this bombshell was unexpected, it will probably be a few hours before they get their talking points and descend on us. Enjoy it while you can.

This troll was knitting

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Aaah, was wondering when you'd show up.

The trolls have been noticeably slow to show up on this thread. Seeing as it's the middle of the night Moscow time, and this bombshell was unexpected, it will probably be a few hours before they get their talking points and descend on us. Enjoy it while you can.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Aaah, was wondering when you'd show up.

Again, so what?

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

Aaah, was wondering when you'd show up.

I think there’s a fair inference to be made that Trump is reconsidering his decision not to fire Mueller, in part, because of Cobb walking back Trump’s professed willingness to be interviewed “under oath” — which is irrelevant because making a false statement to the FBI is itself a crime. This is pure Trump made-for-TV spectacle. He never had any intention of appearing voluntarily and will roll the dice with his base by taking the Fifth if subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. McGahn is bailing on Trump. Priebus also is likely behind the story. And Kushner is scared shitless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, he cannot fire Mueller directly.

But he can easily order it to be done.

Obviously not very easily.

Pretty easily. Order Rosenstein to do it. Done and done. If he refuses, fire him until a Robert Bork emerges.