Trump fired Mueller

by Original Quill Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:20 pm

ABC News wrote:Trump demanded Mueller be fired, but backed off after White House counsel refused: Report
By ABC NEWS Jan 26, 2018

Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon ordered the firing of Robert Mueller last June, but he retracted his demand after White House counsel Donald F. McGhan II said he would resign from his post rather than execute the president's order, The New York Times reported Thursday night.

McGahn refused to ask the Department of Justice to fire Mueller, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, because he felt it would it fuel the perception that the White House was attempting to obstruct the Russia investigation, the Times reported.

Trump denied the report on Friday morning as he arrived at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, responding to reporters' shouted questions by calling it "fake news."

"Fake news, folks. Fake news," Trump said. "Typical New York Times fake stories."

When contacted by ABC News, special counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the Times' story.

Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer leading the response to the investigation, told ABC News, "We decline to comment out of respect for the Office of the Special Counsel and its process."

Sen. Mark R. Warner, D-Va., vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the following statement in response to The New York Times report:

"I’ve said it before, and I am saying it again: firing the Special Counsel is a red line that the President cannot cross," Warner said. "Any attempt to remove the Special Counsel, pardon key witnesses, or otherwise interfere in the investigation, would be a gross abuse of power, and all members of Congress, from both parties, have a responsibility to our Constitution and to our country to make that clear immediately."

As ABC News reported in June, Chris Ruddy, a longtime friend of Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon and the CEO of the conservative media company Newsmax, told "PBS NewsHour" in a June 12 interview (video below) that the president was "considering, perhaps, terminating the special counsel, he’s weighing that option."

Ruddy told ABC News at the time that he stood by his comments that the president was considering asking Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to terminate Mueller. "Trump is definitely considering it ... it's not something that’s being dismissed," Ruddy said.

That notion was dismissed hours after Ruddy's PBS interview by senior White House aides, who said that Ruddy does not speak for the president, but it was not met with a denial. However, then-Principal Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters the following day, on June 13, that "while the president has the right to [fire Mueller], he has no intention to do so."

And then-White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a statement at the time, "Mr. Ruddy never spoke to the president regarding this issue. With respect to this subject, only the president or his attorneys are authorized to comment."

I remember Ruddy, a close friend of Trump's, announcing this on national TV, and thinking something is fishy. Ruddy is not Carter Page, running at the mouth, seeking attention. Ruddy is a serious newsman.

Yet, no one seemed to pick up on this as a serious lead. So, dutifully falling in line, I cast it aside too. My bad.

This is significant in many, many ways. First, it's another overt act in a conspiracy to cover up crimes. As with Comey, who actually was fired, this was intended to quell the crime of conspiring with the Russians to steal data and rig the election.

Second, Donald F. McGhan is not the good-guy this story seems to imply. McGhan is a lawyer, and he recognizes the direction this would lead...he would be complicit in a conspiracy to cover up crimes. He's saving his own ass. I believe he leaked this story while Trump was in Davos, to make it appear that he was a hero. But he, of all people, knew that he was involved in a plot, and this move would turn it into a criminal conspiracy at obstruction of justice.

Third, it doesn't matter. Go back to where I used the word "plot". Merely preventing a plot from becoming overt obstruction of justice side-steps the question: What was the purpose of the plot? What were they discussing when the idea of terminating Mueller arose? Weren't they discussion obstruction of justice, anyway? Merely because an illicit conspiracy doesn't reach completion doesn't matter. It's still against the law.

The other interesting thing is that Trump wouldn't give the order to fire Mueller himself. Why? Is he a coward? He ordered McGhan to do it. And when McGhan refused, Trump changed his plans rather than have to do the dirty deed himself. 'Chicken-shit' isn't a name that Trump will be proud of.

Trump says he will testify before Mueller and his group. Whether or not it is under oath is irrelevant. Simply lying to a federal officer is perjury, whether you are under oath or not. 18 USC §1001. Trump thinks he can steer away from tough questions (a 'perjury trap') by negotiation through his attorneys. He's kidding himself; Mueller needs only subpoena him before a Grand Jury...forget negotiations.

February will be fun.

by JulesV Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:02 pm

So typical of the crazy 'Wizard of US' .

"You're fired" was his catchphrase in his TV reality show - he's still in character!!

Trump fired Mueller 2418298

by Original Quill Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:51 pm

Jules wrote:So typical of the crazy 'Wizard of US' .

"You're fired" was his catchphrase in his TV reality show - he's still in character!!

They say that he still says to people, 'You're Fired!" (in jest, I presume) as he wanders the halls of the White House.

by veya_victaous Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:14 am

Grounds for impeachment if Trump lied about trying to fire Mueller – Ken Starr

If Donald Trump lied to the American people when he called reports he tried to fire Robert Mueller “fake news”, that would be grounds for impeachment, the independent counsel who investigated the Clinton White House said on Sunday.

Ken Starr, who used Bill Clinton’s false statements about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky as grounds for impeachment, told ABC’s This Week: “Lying to the American people is a serious issue that has to be explored. I take lying to the American people very, very seriously, so absolutely.”

Starr said: “That is something Bob Mueller should look at.”

Mueller, the special counsel, is investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, including alleged collusion between Russian officials and Trump aides, and numerous instances of possible obstruction of justice by the president.

The New York Times and others reported this week that in June 2016, Trump ordered White House counsel Donald McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn reportedly said he would resign rather than carry our the order, which he said would have a devastating effect on Trump’s presidency.

Trump publicly dismissed the Times report, calling it “fake news”. Since June, the president has repeatedly denied publicly that he was considering firing Mueller. White House officials have also repeatedly claimed the president has not discussed firing him.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/grounds-for-impeachment-if-trump-lied-about-trying-to-fire-mueller-%e2%80%93-ken-starr/ar-BBImkH7?li=AAgfYrC&ocid=ientp

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:29 am

But Starr also said this morning on Meet the Press, it was not obstruction for Trump to fire Comey...even though Trump openly stated the Comey firing was to stop the investigation.

I think senility has set in with Starr.

by veya_victaous Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:38 am

Starr says it's the denial (lie) that is grounds for Impeachment, not the firing or threat to .

used Bill Clinton’s false statements about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky as grounds for impeachment

Just like Bill, if Trump has made False statements about who he is screwing than that could be grounds for impeachment

by Original Quill Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:26 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Starr says it's the denial (lie) that is grounds for Impeachment, not the firing or threat to .

used Bill Clinton’s false statements about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky as grounds for impeachment

Just like Bill, if Trump has made False statements about who he is screwing than that could be grounds for impeachment

That's Starr’s error. A denial is just the memorialization of an act. If the act isn't unlawful, then the denial isn't material, and the denial isn't even obstruction.

We measure unlawful activity by acts. The act is by far the more important when it comes to obstruction. I think Starr is just wiggling his way out of a dilemma of his own creation. He, in his case, dealt with a situation of Clinton lying under oath...that was a rather scant violation of a remote (utilitarian) law. That is because there was no underlying crime: sex with Monica is not itself illegal. When the underlying act is really a wrong, as in Trump's case, you don't need perjury laws, except in the utilitarian sense.

Starr is trying to skate a course in which he finds Clinton wrong, but not Trump. It’s poor lawyering. Trump money-laundered for organized crime, while never having gone under oath in the matter. See the narrow line Starr is trying to trace?

by Sponsored content

Trump fired Mueller

Trump fired Mueller

Re: Trump fired Mueller

Re: Trump fired Mueller

Re: Trump fired Mueller

Re: Trump fired Mueller

Re: Trump fired Mueller

Re: Trump fired Mueller

Re: Trump fired Mueller