US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

[JGrimez]

the scope of the investigation is "any links or coordination between Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government" and "...any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".

That's not very clear. It could be literally anything. Does that include a guy Mueller sees jaywalking on the way to the office?
I know many people want Trump gone at all costs, but is that really fair? It was always about Trump specifically and Russian collusion.
None of the charges or indictments so far implicate Trump in any way shape or form.
Considering the soaring cost to taxpayers and need to cut unnecessary spending, how much longer would you personally give Mueller before ordering him to shut it down?

the stuff about cohen's office being raided is so hilarious - i always love watching trump's idiotic responses to people investigating his various crimes.

Real talk pretend it's not Trump - you cool with authorities violating attorney/client privilege?
What's the basis of raiding Cohen's pads?

i really hope that sooner or later he is forced out of office, because he's a disgrace and completely unfit for the job.

Unfit how? He passed his medical with flying colors. The economy is still improving. If there were disasters then maybe different story. What makes a lawyer more qualified than a successful businessman?

it's scary having such a reckless person in a position of such power. he seems indifferent to starting a world war, or a global recession.

It's not really that scary. In fact NK is the least scariest now than they've been in the last 20 years.
Sitting down to talk > standing up to threaten

 

[spacejunk]

To be perfectly honest, i don't care how or why trump goes down.
I know you are a devotee of the hateful old man, and i understand that your whole reason for posting on bluelight seems to be to propogate trump-spam, but i think he's a fascist imbecile who needs to be taken down by any means necessary.

Trump and his lawyer have waived the right to confidentiality by engaging in criminal acts together

He passed his medical with flying colors. The economy is still improving.

Lol - nah.

 

[JGrimez]

To be perfectly honest, i don't care how or why trump goes down.

Damn dude that's cold. You want no law and chaos? Not the right way will make things worse. Gotta do it legally.
And what if in the unlikely event that you were wrong about Trump and he actually brings prosperity and peace. Would you tolerate him then?

I know you are a devotee of the hateful old man

Just devotee of the law. USA needed its corruption checked. It got it. But you're listening to the journalists of the friends of people going down. Of course they're going to diss Trump.

Trump and his lawyer have waived the right to confidentiality by engaging in criminal acts together

For which crime? Funny that the FBI didn't raid Hillary's place after the classified server scandal, but they'll raid Trump's lawyer over...... ? is this a Stormy McDaniels thing??

Lol - nah.

Yea man, check the figures.

 

[cduggles]

This article is about the second time Trump tried to fire Mueller last year, which is only now coming out.

I hope Trump finds a new lead attorney for the Mueller investigation soon.

Trump Sought to Fire Mueller in December

In early December, President Trump, furious over news reports about a new round of subpoenas from the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, told advisers in no uncertain terms that Mr. Mueller?s investigation had to be shut down.

The president?s anger was fueled by reports that the subpoenas were for obtaining information about his business dealings with Deutsche Bank, according to interviews with eight White House officials, people close to the president and others familiar with the episode. To Mr. Trump, the subpoenas suggested that Mr. Mueller had expanded the investigation in a way that crossed the ?red line? he had set last year in an interview with The New York Times.

In the hours that followed Mr. Trump?s initial anger over the Deutsche Bank reports, his lawyers and advisers worked quickly to learn about the subpoenas, and ultimately were told by Mr. Mueller?s office that the reports were not accurate, leading the president to back down.

Mr. Trump?s quick conclusion that the erroneous news reports warranted firing Mr. Mueller is also an insight into Mr. Trump?s state of mind about the special counsel. Despite assurances from leading Republicans like Speaker Paul D. Ryan that the president has not thought about firing Mr. Mueller, the December episode was the second time Mr. Trump is now known to have considered taking that step. The other instance was in June, when the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, threatened to quit unless Mr. Trump stopped trying to get him to fire Mr. Mueller.

The December episode, which has never been publicly reported, has new resonance following the disclosure on Monday that F.B.I. agents had carried out search warrants at the office and hotel room of Mr. Trump?s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen. In that action, the Justice Department seems to have walked directly up to ? if not crossed ? Mr. Trump?s red line by examining something that seems unrelated to Russia.

Among the documents the agents sought were some related to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump, and information related to the role of the publisher of The National Enquirer in silencing one of the women.

After learning about the raid, the president again erupted in anger. He told reporters that federal authorities had ?broke in to the office? and he called it ?a disgraceful situation? and ?a total witch hunt.?

When Mr. Trump told Mr. McGahn in June to have Mr. Mueller fired, the president cited a series of conflict-of-interest issues that he insisted disqualified the special counsel from overseeing the investigation. Among the issues Mr. Trump cited was a dispute Mr. Mueller had with Mr. Trump?s Washington-area golf course years earlier. Mr. Trump told Mr. McGahn to tell Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general and Mr. Mueller?s superior, that the time for Mr. Mueller to go had come.

Mr. McGahn believed those issues were not grounds for Mr. Mueller to be fired and refused to call the Justice Department.

Over the next couple of days, Mr. Trump pestered Mr. McGahn about the firing, but Mr. McGahn would not tell Mr. Rosenstein. The badgering by the president got so bad that Mr. McGahn wrote a resignation letter and was prepared to quit. It was only after Mr. McGahn made it known to senior White House officials that he was going to resign that Mr. Trump backed down.

The articles that provoked Mr. Trump?s anger in December ? which were published by Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters ? said one of Mr. Mueller?s subpoenas had targeted Mr. Trump?s and his family?s banking records at Deutsche Bank. Mr. Trump?s lawyers, who have studied Mr. Trump?s bank accounts, did not believe the articles were accurate because Mr. Trump did not have his money there.

The lawyers were also able to learn that federal prosecutors in a different inquiry had issued a subpoena for entities connected to the family business of Mr. Trump?s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The news outlets later clarified the articles, saying that the subpoena to Deutsche Bank pertained to people affiliated with Mr. Trump, who was satisfied with the explanation and dropped his push to fire Mr. Mueller.

The White House did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Acutely conscious of the threat Mr. Mueller?s investigation poses, Mr. Trump has openly discussed ways to shut it down. Each time, he has been convinced by his lawyers and advisers that taking the step would only exacerbate his problems. In some cases, they have explained to Mr. Trump how anything that causes him to lose support from congressional Republicans could further imperil his presidency.

But Mr. Trump?s statements to his advisers have been significant enough to attract attention from Mr. Mueller himself. Mr. Mueller?s investigators have interviewed current and former White House officials and have requested documents to understand whether these efforts show evidence the president is trying to obstruct the Justice Department?s investigation, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Trump?s frustrations have tended to flare up in response to developments in the news, especially accounts of appearances of witnesses, whom Mr. Trump feels were unfairly and aggressively approached by investigators. They include his former communications director, Hope Hicks, and his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski.

The venting has usually been dismissed by his advisers, many of whom insist they have come to see the statements less as direct orders than as simply how the president talks, and that he often does not follow up on his outbursts.

One former adviser said that people had become conditioned to wait until Mr. Trump had raised an issue at least three times before acting on it. The president?s diatribes about Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Mr. Rosenstein and the existence of the special counsel have, for most of the White House aides, become a dependable part of the fabric of life working for this president.

 

[JessFR]

None of that surprises me at all. People like trump can't stand feeling out of control or that they don't have absolute power. They throw a tantrum whenever they feel challenged no matter how trivial and pathetic. But they don't think it through, they tend to react, not intelligently plot. Which is usually what gets them into trouble. Making situations worse for themselves because they overreacted to a non issue or got so focused on reasserting their power over a perceived challenge that they forget all the wider context and how their actions could make things worse for themselves. It's pathetic really.

 

[cduggles]

How the Michael Cohen raid could derail Paul Manafort's defense strategy

? Special counsel Robert Mueller's referral to the Manhattan US attorney's office of information related to President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, may pose a setback for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

? Manafort's defense strategy in the Russia probe consists, in part, of arguing that Mueller overstepped his mandate by charging him with crimes unrelated to Russian collusion.

? Experts said that in response, Mueller can point to the Cohen referral as proof that when he comes across information outside his purview, he hands it off to the Department of Justice instead of pursuing it himself.

The FBI's raid on President Donald Trump's personal lawyer's home and office may yield some unintended consequences for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

In a monumental development, investigators working with the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York raided Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's property Monday morning upon receiving a referral from the special counsel Robert Mueller.

According to The New York Times, Mueller's office made the referral after it likely uncovered evidence of potential wrongdoing related to Cohen that fell outside the special counsel's investigative focus.

The revelation could pose an obstacle to the key pillar of Manafort's defense strategy in the Russia probe.

The majority of the criminal charges against Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates relate to their lobbying work for the Ukrainian government and former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.

Gates pleaded guilty to two counts in February and became a cooperating witness in the Russia investigation.

Manafort maintains that he is innocent and has mounted an aggressive defense against Mueller.

A critical part of Manafort's legal strategy rests on the argument that Mueller overstepped the bounds of his mandate by charging Manafort with crimes that are not directly connected to Russia's interference in the 2016 US election.

In response, experts said Mueller can point to the Cohen referral as proof of how he manages information that may be outside his investigative focus.

"Mueller obviously came across something [on Cohen] and determined it wasn't within the scope of his mandate," said Jeffrey Cramer, a former federal prosecutor who spent 12 years at the Department of Justice. "Keeping in mind that Manafort has a motion going right now that Mueller is overstepping his bounds, this Cohen referral is a great argument for Mueller."

"Mueller can now say: 'I'm not violating my mandate. When I come across something outside my purview, I hand it off,'" he added.

Andrew Wright, who served as an associate in the White House counsel's office under President Barack Obama, agreed.

"Mueller's referral of matters related to extramarital affair hush money does lend credibility to Mueller's argument he is staying in his lane" and is "referring out matters beyond his core mission," Wright said.

The Manhattan US attorney's office is said to be investigating Cohen for possible bank fraud, wire fraud, and violations of election law, The Washington Post reported. The criminal investigation into Cohen deals, in part, with payments made to two women, the adult film star Stephanie Clifford and the former Playboy model Karen McDougal, both of whom claim to have had an affair with Trump.

When they raided Cohen's property, FBI agents reportedly also sought records related to a 2005 "Access Hollywood" tape Trump is featured in as part of an effort to determine whether Cohen tried to quash damaging information about the president.

Manafort's 'factually weak' defense


Trump often rails against the Russia investigation, calling it a "hoax" and a politically motivated "witch hunt." But the Cohen raid appears to have elicited an unprecedented level of fury from the president.

His anger ratcheted up another notch when it surfaced on Tuesday that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein personally greenlit the FBI's decision to raid Cohen's home and office. Since finding out about the operation, Trump has reportedly fumed in private to his advisers and mused about firing Rosenstein, who he believes is not doing enough to shield him from Mueller.

"Trump is having a hard time delegitimizing the Cohen raid because it wasn't conducted by the Mueller team ? it was pursued by career prosecutors in the Southern District of New York," said Jens David Ohlin, a vice dean at Cornell Law School who is an expert in criminal law.

"And a similar point applies to the Manafort case ... those charges were signed off on by career prosecutors as well, so that even if the Mueller investigation is shut down, the mainline prosecutors would pick up the case," he added.

In addition to arguing that Mueller breached his mandate, Manafort's attorneys have argued that the special counsel's mandate itself is too broad and amounts to a carte blanche.

Wright described Manafort's argument as "factually weak."

"If you are investigating suspicions that someone is a Russian sleeper agent or acting under the influence of Russian intelligence, you are going to probe that person's history with Russia and Russian-affiliated persons all the way back to the beginning, whatever the current controversy," he said.

When he appointed Mueller as special counsel last year, Rosenstein authorized him not only to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with Trump's campaign, but also to examine "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

Legal experts have long said Mueller's mandate allows him to investigate Manafort's activities in Ukraine. Rosenstein also wrote a memo to Mueller last year which specifically authorized him to investigate allegations related to Manafort's lobbying work in Ukraine. The Cohen referral could serve to further bolster the special counsel's case.

"I can't imagine Manafort wins on a 'Ukraine is not Russia' or 'conduct before the campaign,'" Wright said. "It fails as a matter of facts, which then makes it fail as a legal argument."

 

[JGrimez]

If I wanted to fire Robert Mueller in December, as reported by the Failing New York Times, I would have fired him. Just more Fake News from a biased newspaper!

Mueller Investigating $150K Donation To Trump From Man Who Gave Clintons Millions

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating a $150,000 donation to President Donald Trump?s charity in 2015 from a Ukrainian businessman who has given tens of millions of dollars to Bill and Hillary Clinton, according to a new report.
The donation, from Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, came after ?then-candidate Donald Trump gave a 20-minute speech at a European conference that promoted closer ties between Ukraine and the West,? Business Insider reported.

 

[cduggles]

Can Trump Fire Mueller?

QUESTION: Can the president fire the special council himself or does he need the acting FBI director to do the firing at the president?s bidding?

ANSWER: When a confidant of President Trump said on PBS on June 12 that the president was ?considering perhaps terminating the special counsel,? it set off a wave of speculation about the political fallout of such a move. It also raised the question, ?Can he??

On June 13, Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the president has the ?right? to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, but won?t.

?While the president has the right to, he has no intention to do so,? Sanders told a gaggle of reporters aboard Air Force One.

Others disagree. On MSNBC?s ?Morning Joe? on June 15, Republican Sen. John Thune, for example, said, ?I don?t think legally he can.?

There is a good bit of debate and some disagreement among constitutional scholars about the ways the president could remove Mueller if he wanted to, and the legality of such steps. But one thing is clear, it would not be as simple as firing off a termination letter, as the president did to remove FBI Director James Comey.

Just days after Trump fired Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made the decision to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director, as special counsel to investigate any possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government?s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

The president has called the investigation a ?witch hunt,? and on June 12, Christopher Ruddy, CEO of the conservative Newsmax Media and a friend of the president, told PBS NewsHour?s Judy Woodruff: ?I think he?s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. I think he?s weighing that option.? Later that night, the White House said only that Ruddy ?never spoke to the president regarding this issue.? The following day, the New York Times reported ? based on interviews with several anonymous sources ?with direct knowledge of Mr. Trump?s interactions? ? that Trump entertained the idea of terminating Mueller, but that staff persuaded him against it.

Trump himself has not publicly acknowledged or denied that he considered firing Mueller, and as we said, Sanders said the president has the ?right to? but that ?he has no intention to do so.?

On June 14, the Washington Post reported that Mueller has expanded the probe to include whether Trump tried to obstruct justice. In response, Trump fired off two tweets, describing claims of collusion and obstruction of justice as ?phony? and calling the investigation, ?the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history ? led by some very bad and conflicted people!?

But could he legally squash the investigation if he wanted to?

Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation, the decision to appoint a special counsel fell to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. In his order making the appointment, Rosenstein cited federal regulations issued by the attorney general in 1999, 28 C.F.R. ? 600.4-600.10. The rules were drafted in the wake of the Kenneth Starr investigation of President Bill Clinton.

According to those regulations, a special counsel ?may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General? (or in this case, the acting attorney general). And Rosenstein can?t just do it on a whim, either. According to the regulation, special counsel can only be removed ?for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.?

In a Senate hearing on June 13, Rosenstein said he alone exercises firing authority, and that he had not seen any evidence of good cause for firing Mueller.

?It?s certainly theoretically possible that the attorney general could fire him, but that?s the only person who has authority to fire him,? Rosenstein said. ?And in fact, the chain of command for the special counsel is only directly to the attorney general, in this case the acting attorney general.?

In a House hearing that same day, Rosenstein again said that the decision to fire Mueller was his, and that he would not be swayed even if Trump ordered him to fire Mueller.

?I have a federal regulation and I?m going to faithfully enforce that regulation,? Rosenstein said. ?The regulation provides that a special counsel may be removed only for good cause and so it doesn?t matter who gives me an order, what that order is, if there isn?t good cause, I would not fire the special counsel.?

In other words, Rosenstein argues that Trump could not fire Mueller directly. He could call on Rosenstein to do so, but if Rosenstein concluded there was no ?good cause? to fire Mueller, he could refuse.

If he wanted to, wrote Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and co-founder of Lawfare, Trump could then fire Rosenstein. In that case, the authority over Mueller would fall to the associate attorney general. In theory ? and ignoring the political consequences of doing so ? Trump could keep firing people until he got someone to follow through on an order to fire Mueller.

?That means it could go down the line until an assistant attorney general did not resign and instead carried out the President?s order,? Goldsmith wrote.

That?s highly unlikely, wrote Marty Lederman, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice?s Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010.

?f Trump wants to get rid of Mueller, he?d have to somehow get to a point where he?d have in place an Acting Attorney General who was willing either to find ?good cause? for the removal or rescind the good-cause regulation, and then also fire Mueller,? Lederman wrote.

As we said, Rosenstein is now on record saying he does not believe there is cause to remove Mueller, and he would not make such a move unless there was, even if the president ordered it. Lederman doubts anyone in the attorney general?s office who might replace Rosenstein would either, and ?risk the likely ruination of his or her professional and moral reputation.?

There?s yet another route the president could take, Neal Katyal, a professor of national security law at Georgetown University, wrote in a piece for the Washington Post on May 19: ?Trump could order the special-counsel regulations repealed and then fire Mueller himself.?

Katyal said he would know, because back in 1999, he was tapped by then-Attorney General Janet Reno to head an internal working group on the issue of special counsel ? and he helped write the regulations now being cited by Rosenstein.

?The rules provide only so much protection: Congress, Trump and the Justice Department still have the power to stymie (or even terminate) Mueller?s inquiry,? Katyal wrote.

According to Goldsmith, ?There are good constitutional arguments in support of this possibility. There are also countervailing arguments grounded in the principle that only the agency head that appoints the officer, and not the President, can remove the officer.?

?I will leave it to others to sort that out, but raise this final question: If Trump tries to blow through the regulation and fire Mueller himself, would DOJ or Mueller accept the termination or instead challenge and litigate the purported removal?? Goldsmith wrote. ?That litigation would be ? interesting.?

 

[alasdairm]

That's not very clear. It could be literally anything.

not really.

Does that include a guy Mueller sees jaywalking on the way to the office?

no, because that has nothing to do directly with the investigation.

It was always about Trump specifically and Russian collusion.

no. again, it was about "any links or coordination between Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government" and "...any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".

Considering the soaring cost to taxpayers and need to cut unnecessary spending...

how much has the investigation cost so far?

two wrongs don't make a right but are you as indignant about the massive (compared to obama) cost of trump's frequent vacations?

...how much longer would you personally give Mueller before ordering him to shut it down?

as a guide, the kenneth starr special counsel investigation took about 4 years so maybe a couple more years.

Real talk pretend it's not Trump - you cool with authorities violating attorney/client privilege?

if it's done by the book with the correct authority and procedure, yes.

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

no. again, it was about "any links or coordination between Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government" and "...any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".

This just proves to me that it was a sham investigation from the start.
Shouldn't it be criminal links?
Would you agree that it would be normal and acceptable for a presidential candidate, and especially an incoming administration, to have SOME links with a foreign government?
Isn't that actually expected and part of their responsibilities?
Going after any link is a waste of time and it becomes more apparent by the day that this investigation was based on nothing solid, it is to excuse Trump's win, obstruct him and to have an avenue to dig around and latch onto anything they can find to attack him with even if it has nothing to do with Russia. Fruit from the poisonous tree.
Comey gone, McCabe gone, Rosenstein about to go then it'll probably be Mueller. This investigation has been going on for a very long time now. All they have to do is leak something, anything, even a tiny little tidbit of info or evidence that they've found that will tie Trump himself to unlawful activity with the Ruskis. But they haven't and that tells me they don't have (and won't find) evidence that proves their original accusation: Trump conspired with Russians to alter election results.

 

[alasdairm]

you seem to be making a lot of assumptions. i'm going to defer to mueller and see what he concludes.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

If trump has nothing to hide then he shouldn't be at all concerned about being investigated.

 

[JGrimez]

If trump has nothing to hide then he shouldn't be at all concerned about being investigated.

No Jess.
How would you feel if you did nothing wrong, but there was a vindictive cop who wanted to get you on something at all costs?
What if he claimed that you did something illegal, didn't say what exactly or give probable cause, yet was able to organize surveillance on you?
What if he was following you around 24/7, watching you like a hawk and just waiting for you to slip up, like park in the wrong area or cross the road when you weren't supposed to?
What if you came and complained about all this and I just said "Well Jess, if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be at all concerned about being investigated. Just live with it"

 

[cduggles]

JGrimez,

Among other things, it might be helpful to familiarize yourself with the difference between a Special Counsel and an Independent Counsel.

Also, you might check out the average length of the previous Special or Independent Counsel (they are distinct) investigations over multiple presidencies, the number of indictments they have historically produced and the cost.

It might be helpful.

 

[JessFR]

No Jess.
How would you feel if you did nothing wrong, but there was a vindictive cop who wanted to get you on something at all costs?
What if he claimed that you did something illegal, didn't say what exactly or give probable cause, yet was able to organize surveillance on you?
What if he was following you around 24/7, watching you like a hawk and just waiting for you to slip up, like park in the wrong area or cross the road when you weren't supposed to?
What if you came and complained about all this and I just said "Well Jess, if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be at all concerned about being investigated. Just live with it"

If I were the president of the United States during all that, and I truly had nothing to hide, I'd let him and play it cool. I wouldn't try and fire him cause it'd only validate him and I wouldn't throw childish tantrums over it.

If I were president, id recognize I don't exactly have the kind of privacy expectation normal people do and I'd be totally open. The people have a right to know their leaders. And if someone were on a witch hunt, and I've done nothing wrong, being open and civil and mature about it can only be to my benefit.

But I'm not a narcissist that can't stand anything I can't control or that challenges me and I don't throw childish temper tantrums over it every day and cry on Twitter.

I wouldn't complain about it, I'm president, being closely watched and scrutinized is part of the job. What's important is how you handle it. And the best way to handle it when you haven't done anything wrong is to be totally open and straight forward and if anything help my accusers investigate me. It can only benefit me to do so.

 

[JGrimez]

JGrimez,

Among other things, it might be helpful to familiarize yourself with the difference between a Special Counsel and an Independent Counsel.

Also, you might check out the average length of the previous Special or Independent Counsel (they are distinct) investigations over multiple presidencies, the number of indictments they have historically produced and the cost.

It might be helpful.

cduggles,

Can you please give me an example of a previous Special Counsel and most importantly, the reason why it was established?
Actually just to save time I did it for you.

In the United States, the Whiskey Ring was a scandal, exposed in 1875, involving diversion of tax revenues in a conspiracy among government agents, politicians, whiskey distillers, and distributors. The scheme involved an extensive network of bribes involving distillers, rectifiers, gaugers, storekeepers, and internal revenue agents. Essentially, distillers bribed government officials, and those officials helped the distillers evade federal taxes on the whiskey they produced and sold.

The Star Route scandal involved a lucrative 19th-century scheme whereby United States postal officials received bribes in exchange for awarding postal delivery contracts in southern and western areas.

The "Teapot Dome Scandal" was a government scandal that took place in the United States during 1921?1923, and was a bribery incident involving the administration of then President Warren G. Harding. Secretary of the Interior Albert Bacon Fall had leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and two other locations in California to private oil companies at low rates without competitive bidding.

The Watergate scandal was a major political scandal that occurred in the United States during the early 1970s, following a break-in by five men at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972, and President Richard Nixon's administration's subsequent attempt to cover up its involvement.

Notice that these special counsels were set up for a reason. They was an observable crime that needed to be investigated. With Mueller, the reason it was set up was because of Russian interference in the election. One can say that we don't know what Mueller has but that's a load of shit and we all know it. If anything important was there it would have been leaked, or we would at least know something about it. After this long (and after Trump's team was surveilled) Mueller was only able to charge a dozen Russians who ran a troll farm. What they did was post FB ads and memes. One of them was Jesus arm wrestling with Satan. Some were of Kitty Kat memes, some were pro-Sanders, some anti-Hillary and they even organized an anti-Trump rally! Michael Moore attended it, why isn't he being investigated. A lot of what they posted was after the election. So even if you wish to claim that these FB posts (some had approx. 20 likes) altered the result of the election (lol), what does that have to do with Trump? Why are they investigating him? Can you give me one good reason, with any evidence at all, that doesn't lead back to the claim "well we don't know what Mueller has" ?

 

[JGrimez]

If I were the president of the United States during all that, and I truly had nothing to hide, I'd let him and play it cool. I wouldn't try and fire him cause it'd only validate him and I wouldn't throw childish tantrums over it.

If I were president, id recognize I don't exactly have the kind of privacy expectation normal people do and I'd be totally open. The people have a right to know their leaders. And if someone were on a witch hunt, and I've done nothing wrong, being open and civil and mature about it can only be to my benefit.

But I'm not a narcissist that can't stand anything I can't control or that challenges me and I don't throw childish temper tantrums over it every day and cry on Twitter.

I wouldn't complain about it, I'm president, being closely watched and scrutinized is part of the job. What's important is how you handle it. And the best way to handle it when you haven't done anything wrong is to be totally open and straight forward and if anything help my accusers investigate me. It can only benefit me to do so.

Nope, because as soon as you help your accusers investigate you, you're screwed. They will take your interview, and because they're experienced cops they will be able to twist your words, and ask you questions 10 different ways until eventually you say something that doesn't match up with something you said previously and so they can then bust you for perjury. Why would you cooperate with dirty cops that have an agenda to put you away? It's madness. If you can't understand this then you're just being an ignorant partisan that wants Trump charged with anything at all costs, due process be damned. If this crap was happening to Obama (and we have evidence of his crimes) Democrats would be absolutely livid.

 

[Noodle]

Trump is more an opportunist than a partisan. He, with the help of many, played the GOP and the American taxpayer. Anyone that
espouses otherwise is in on the take or an uncompensated tool.

 

[JessFR]

Nope, because as soon as you help your accusers investigate you, you're screwed. They will take your interview, and because they're experienced cops they will be able to twist your words, and ask you questions 10 different ways until eventually you say something that doesn't match up with something you said previously and so they can then bust you for perjury. Why would you cooperate with dirty cops that have an agenda to put you away? It's madness. If you can't understand this then you're just being an ignorant partisan that wants Trump charged with anything at all costs, due process be damned. If this crap was happening to Obama (and we have evidence of his crimes) Democrats would be absolutely livid.

Once again you are taking a scenario involving an ordinary situation and using it for a President. Acting like Trump will be dragged into an an interrogation room or something. It's ridiculous. And at this point I've lost interest in arguing something this inane. You asked and I answered. The president doesn't have to worry about corrupt cops taking half thought out comments said in private without representation out of context and going to jail. It's a stupid comparison to suggest this is like a normal situation. That you're talking about corrupt cops at all tells me how detached from reality your view of this is. So I'm done.

 

[JGrimez]

Once again you are taking a scenario involving an ordinary situation and using it for a President.

You do this all the time. It's to help you understand what's happening.

And at this point I've lost interest in arguing something this inane.

I know, the Russia investigation is insane.

The president doesn't have to worry about corrupt cops taking half thought out comments said in private without representation out of context and going to jail. It's a stupid comparison to suggest this is like a normal situation. That you're talking about corrupt cops at all tells me how detached from reality your view of this is. So I'm done.

That's exactly what happened to Michael Flynn, so please tell me more about how stupid the comparison is.