Did Trump try to fire Mueller?

[hollodero]

(01-26-2018, 11:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: All of that is most definitely possible.  However, it might also be mentioned that perhaps some of the people used to help the President reach power, had also reached the end of their usefulness, and might have an axe to grind?

Attempting to make trivial human actions into large, newsworthy ordeals only works to embolden those that support the man.  The real question is why the media continues to promote trivial detail stories, when the real news is what's unfolding with the FBI.  

This post stared at me throughout the weekend. This FBI news, as far as I can see it, are not substantial, but I sure try to be open about that. If there are shady things going on, no matter against whom and on who's behalf, they should be exposed, it's just that I don't see them.

Here's what I do not consider shady stuff unfolding, even though Trump and some very loyal people try to spin it.

- The McCabe "scandal". So his wife ran for office and recieved donations. That seems perfectly normal, and FBI agent's wifes sure are not forbidden from running.
- The secret society "scandal". That is based on one joke in a private conversation. (Btw. I do not get why hese chats are public good now in the first place, doesn't seem very freedom-y, but obviously that's how things roll.)
- The release the memo "scandal". This memo is not to be seen, and I guess that remains that way, because no way reality can match the imagination there. It works better when people's minds speculate about the huge things that are in there. What I saw is even the DOJ and republican officials pushing against that memo, and Devin Nunes already has a history of embarrassing stunts even I stumbled across, so I would not see what there is there (or however Americans put it.)
- The Hillary investigation "scandal". Whatever is said there, there's this huge counterargument that the Comey led FBI torpedoed her in the most damaging way by reopening the investigation one week before election time and making that information public - while remaining silent about the Trump campaign investigation. That's hardly a Clinton favor.
- The Mueller "scandal". As if he had huge conflicts of interest. Really, the best Trump could come up with was he worked in the firm that worked for Kushner once and that Mueller is mad about some decade-old golf fees.
- The Strzok-Page "scandal". So those two weren't fans of Trump. Big deal, many people aren't, and I wouldn't know why fbi agents would have no political opinions whatsoever. Also, they were no fans of Democrats either. Also, none of those is part of the Mueller investigation. Also, meh.

What I also see is republicans spinning all kinds of conspiracy theories that do not hold water, are unfounded, exaggerated and seem to serve one obvious purpose: To undermine those investigating the Trump campaign. It looks like a calculated smear on Trump's behalf, and that I find more shocking than everything revealed from inside the FbI. That's actually Kasachstan/Nasarbajev stuff, where one would expect those things. To forestall the question, that's why I care about that specific incident... it looks more and more like pages from the authoritarian playbook are used in the US, which I consider to be astonishing. As is saying Trump firing Mueller is no big deal. He did not just "think about it" and then reconsidered, he actually gave the actual order, so his thought process was finished. That's not trivial.

[BmorePat87]

(01-26-2018, 11:56 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: All of that is most definitely possible.  However, it might also be mentioned that perhaps some of the people used to help the President reach power, had also reached the end of their usefulness, and might have an axe to grind?

Attempting to make trivial human actions into large, newsworthy ordeals only works to embolden those that support the man.  The real question is why the media continues to promote trivial detail stories, when the real news is what's unfolding with the FBI.  

Are you saying that the President ordering his legal team to fire a special counsel is "trivial"? Even if this wasn't directly connected to him but rather just involved Sessions or something, ordering his team to fire him alone is major. Then given the fact that they refused and threatened to quit rather than do it?

[fredtoast]

The whole "FBI scandal" is a big nothing so far.

If they find that any agents fabricated evidence then I will be right there agreeing that they should not only be fired, but also criminally prosecuted.

But so far all they have is some proof that some FBI agents did not like Trump. Somehow Fox News has convinced a lot of people that if an FBI agent does not like Trump then we can not believe any evidence that agent finds. That is ridiculous, but they are doing everything they can to smear and discredit the FBI.

[Dill]

(01-29-2018, 11:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: - The McCabe "scandal". So his wife ran for office and recieved donations. That seems perfectly normal, and FBI agent's wifes sure are not forbidden from running.
- The secret society "scandal". That is based on one joke in a private conversation. (Btw. I do not get why hese chats are public good now in the first place, doesn't seem very freedom-y, but obviously that's how things roll.)
- The release the memo "scandal". This memo is not to be seen, and I guess that remains that way, because no way reality can match the imagination there. It works better when people's minds speculate about the huge things that are in there. What I saw is even the DOJ and republican officials pushing against that memo, and Devin Nunes already has a history of embarrassing stunts even I stumbled across, so I would not see what there is there (or however Americas put it.)
- The Hillary investigation "scandal". Whatever is said there, there's this huge counterargument that the Comey led FBI torpedoed her in the most damaging way by reopening the investigation one week before election time and making that information public - while remaining silent about the Trump campaign investigation. That's hardly a Clinton favor.
- The Mueller "scandal". As if he had huge cconflöicts of interest. rEally, the best TRump could come up with was he worked in the firm that worked for Kushner once and that Mueller is mad about some decade-old golf fees.
- The Strzok-Page "scandal". So those two weren't fans of Trump. Big deal, many people aren't, and I wouldn't know why fbi agents would have no political opinions whatsoever. Also, they were no fans of Democrats either. Also, none of those is part of the Mueller investigation. Also, meh.

What I also see is republicans spinning all kinds of conspiracy theories that do not hold water, are unfounded, exaggerated and seem to serve one obvious purpose: To undermine those investigating the Trump campaign. It looks like a calculated smear on Trump's behalf, and that I find more shocking than everything revealed from inside the FbI. That's actually Kasachstan/Nasarbajev stuff, where one would expect those things. To forestall the question, that's why I care about that specific incident... it looks more and more like pages from the authoritarian playbook are used in the US, which I consider to be astonishing. As is saying Trump firing Mueller is no big deal. He did not just "think about it" and then reconsidered, he actually gave the actual order, so his thought process was finished. That's not trivial.

Way too many facts there.  Sounds like you just don't like Trump!

[StLucieBengal]

Whether he wanted to fire him or not is irrelevant he has not stopped the investigation on any levels. The only fallout from firing him would be political. Nothing criminal.

This is why this whole thing is just another dumb leftist fantasy.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-29-2018, 10:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The POTUS ordering the firing of the special counsel tasked with investigating Russian interference in the election he won and possible ties to his campaign is hardly trivial. I, personally, am baffled that could be seen as trivial.

(01-29-2018, 11:11 AM)hollodero Wrote:  That's not trivial.

(01-29-2018, 11:15 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Are you saying that the President ordering his legal team to fire a special counsel is "trivial"? Even if this wasn't directly connected to him but rather just involved Sessions or something, ordering his team to fire him alone is major. Then given the fact that they refused and threatened to quit rather than do it?

Just expressing my opinion on the matter.  Nothing to get excited about.

It's also my opinion that the FBI is in grave danger of being exposed as having some biased agents at or near the top of the chain of command.

I really don't get how my opinion can be condemned for feeling that Trump's desire to fire the special counsel as not being a big deal, by the same folks that seem unwilling to acknowledge the very real possibility of the DOJ, along with our Nation's top Law Enforcement Agency the FBI, being jaded and operating in a biased manner.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2018, 12:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Just expressing my opinion on the matter.  Nothing to get excited about.

It's also my opinion that the FBI is in grave danger of being exposed as having some biased agents at or near the top of the chain of command.

I really don't get how my opinion can be condemned for feeling that Trump's desire to fire the special counsel as not being a big deal, by the same folks that seem unwilling to acknowledge the very real possibility of the DOJ, along with our Nation's top Law Enforcement Agency the FBI, being jaded and operating in a biased manner.

A lot of this forum is us expressing opinions and reacting to the opinions of others. 

This is a thread about the first topic not the second. However, there has been discussion of the second topic in your own thread  http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Clinton-campaign-and-DNC-paid-for-Trump-Dossier

[Dill]

(01-26-2018, 11:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It’s irrelevant if he ordered it.   He changed his mind before it went forward.  Sounds like We are on the same side of the issue here.....   I just don’t see why it’s a big deal.

(01-26-2018, 09:49 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is likely true, I just don't see the merit in making a big deal of it.

I know that I have thoughts, and sometimes articulate them into speech, and then change my mind and decide not to follow through.  Seems like a very human thing to occur.

The point here is--Trump DID NOT change his mind.  His WH lawyer refused to carry out the order and threatened to resign. 

If you are a WH PROFESSIONAL then this is a big deal for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the echoes of Watergate, when Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson  to fire Archibald Cox (the special prosecutor investigating Watergate), and Richardson resigned. Then Nixon ordered William Rukelshaus to do it and he also resigned rather than carry out an unconstitutional act. That was the beginning of Nixon's end.

So what Trump supporters see as "no big deal," the WH lawyers see as a president bent on creating a constitutional crisis which would precipitate impeachment.

Worse still for the Trumpsters, Mueller will eventually go one-on-one with the erratic Trump. Don't expect an ignorant, angry and confused Trump to perform like Hillary did for 9 hours before the House Benghazi committee.  His legal team is doing all they can to prevent that one-on-one, while at the same time keeping Trump from destroying his own presidency.

Though there is probably already enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction of justice, FOX and Hannity are doing their best to muddy the waters with innuendo and unsupportable claims about FBI "bias," while insisting the president has a Putinesque right to fire whomever he will--even special prosecutors looking into Trump's own potentially illegal actions. This will keep Trump supporters on board and confused until the very end.

But there is a problem when presidents use their power as a means of curtailing investigations into their own behavior, and the majority of Americans--and some Republicans--will recognize this, as they did in Nixon's case. We are not Russia yet.

[hollodero]

(01-29-2018, 12:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Just expressing my opinion on the matter.  Nothing to get excited about.

It's also my opinion that the FBI is in grave danger of being exposed as having some biased agents at or near the top of the chain of command.

I really don't get how my opinion can be condemned for feeling that Trump's desire to fire the special counsel as not being a big deal, by the same folks that seem unwilling to acknowledge the very real possibility of the DOJ, along with our Nation's top Law Enforcement Agency the FBI, being jaded and operating in a biased manner.

We all just express opinions... I for one was not aiming at condemning yours. i just do not really understand it that's all. Mainly the "the real news is what's unfolding within the FBI" part. However, maybe I missed some real news.

AS far as I can see, it is likely that some FBI agents are somehow politically biased, sure thing, I would consider it strange if they had no political opinions at all (I always thought they were more republican than democrat though). It's just that itself doesn't mean quite as much. It doesn't mean these agents can't do their job objectively, it doesn't mean an investigation is steered, it doesn't mean that evidence is forged or destroyed. All these implications seem to go way beyond what's actually visible.

And those republicans who paint that picture do it for an obvious purpose (which would be to give Trump a counternarrative and/or a pass beforehand, just in case something critical comes up in the end), which to me seems to be way more questionable in its intent.  Nunes, Johnson, Meadows and whoever are definitely heavily biased and I would not take their assumptions and narratives over an FBI agent's word or an FBI agent's honor. I feel they go way too far in promoting these interests when they try to undermine the investigation's credibility or try to shake the public's trust based on nothing substantial, I also think that's quite a dangerous path, hence I express my opinion on that matter. It's not aimed against you or anyone.

[fredtoast]

(01-29-2018, 12:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: the same folks that seem unwilling to acknowledge the very real possibility of the DOJ, along with our Nation's top Law Enforcement Agency the FBI, being jaded and operating in a biased manner.

Just curious, but what makes you think this is a "very real possibility"?  Nothing more than the fact that a couple of agents have political positions opposite of Trump?

Do you really think that in government agencies full of political appointees like the DOJ and FBI everyone is going to be politically neutral?

Like I said, if they ever come up with any proof of any evidence being manufactured then I will be screaming for the agents to be prosecuted.  But so far all I have seen is Fox News and the other conservative news sources squealing about some FBI agents having political positions and claiming that is enough to prove they are crooked.

If you were sitting on a jury and my defense of my client consisted of "You can't believe anything that officer says because he thinks my client is a crook" would you vote "not guilty"?

James Comey is a life long republican who was appointed as a federal prosecutor by George Bush and even served as acting attorney general under Bush when John Ashcroft was ill, but now he is supposed to be working for the Democrats?

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2018, 12:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I really don't get how my opinion can be condemned for feeling that Trump's desire to fire the special counsel as not being a big deal, by the same folks that seem unwilling to acknowledge the very real possibility of the DOJ, along with our Nation's top Law Enforcement Agency the FBI, being jaded and operating in a biased manner.

No one is going to be unbiased, but I don't see the evidence of the blatant bias being reported in right-wing media. Especially given that there was a thumb placed on the scales during the election by the FBI/DOJ, but it was in Trump's favor. The fact that during the election there was an investigation into both main candidates but the only one mentioned was Clinton's is clear evidence of this.

[BmorePat87]

McCabe stepped down. Word is he was told to.


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/371216-deputy-fbi-director-mccabe-stepping-down-report

[GMDino]

(01-29-2018, 03:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: McCabe stepped down. Word is he was told to.


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/371216-deputy-fbi-director-mccabe-stepping-down-report

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/29/fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-is-stepping-down-from-bureau-fox-news-has-learned.html

Quote:Top FBI official Andrew McCabe has been "removed" from his post as deputy director, Fox News is told, leaving the bureau after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans including President Trump.


A source confirmed to Fox News that McCabe is taking “terminal leave” – effectively taking vacation until he reaches his planned retirement in a matter of weeks. As such, he will not be reporting to work at the FBI anymore.
The move was first reported by NBC News.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2)]Video
Who is FBI's Andrew McCabe?[/color]
McCabe has long been a controversial figure at the bureau.

Republicans have questioned McCabe’s ties to the Democratic Party, considering his wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015 and got financial help from a group tied to Clinton family ally Terry McAuliffe.

McCabe was former FBI Director James Comey's right-hand man  (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)
Trump himself tweeted in December: “How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?” 

Quote:[/url]


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in charge, along with leakin’ James Comey, of the Phony Hillary Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted emails) be given $700,000 for wife’s campaign by Clinton Puppets during investigation?
3:27 PM - Dec 23, 2017

• 
   35,50235,502 Replies
   
• 
   36,66436,664 Retweets
   
• 
   122,591122,591 likes
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy



White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said during Monday’s press briefing that Trump “stands by” his previous criticism of McCabe but was not involved in the departure. 

“The president wasn't part of the decision-making process,” Sanders said. 
On Monday, Democrats defended McCabe after news of his retirement broke.

Controversy erupted when a PAC tied to then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliff, an associate of the Clintons, donated money to McCabe's wife's state legislative campaign- even as McCabe investigated Clinton  (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)
“FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is, and has been, a dedicated public servant who has served this country well,” tweeted former Attorney General Eric Holder, who worked in the Obama administration and has become a frequent Trump critic.

Quote:

[url=https://twitter.com/EricHolder/status/958031615929626625]
Eric Holder

@EricHolder

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is, and has been, a dedicated public servant who has served this country well. Bogus attacks on the FBI and DOJ to distract attention from a legitimate criminal inquiry does long term, unnecessary damage to these foundations of our government.
12:38 PM - Jan 29, 2018

Added Holder: “Bogus attacks on the FBI and DOJ to distract attention from a legitimate criminal inquiry does long term, unnecessary damage to these foundations of our government.”

McCabe’s exit follows recent news of other changes in top FBI roles, as Trump has taken aim at other senior FBI officials who worked under the former director, James Comey.

FBI DIRECTOR REPLACES COMEY-ERA CHIEF OF STAFF

FBI Director Christopher Wray said last week that his chief of staff, James Rybicki, was leaving the bureau. Department of Justice officials also told Fox News that Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia who is also the acting head of the DOJ’s National Security division, has been selected to step in as the FBI’s next general counsel. James Baker, who had served as general counsel, was reassigned late last year. 

McCabe's name has surfaced in connection with several other controversies.

The Daily Beast reported that a GOP memo alleging government surveillance abuse named McCabe, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and ex-FBI boss James Comey.

Incidentally, the McCabe removal comes after Wray viewed the memo Sunday on Capitol Hill, as reported by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge. The removal also comes ahead of a DOJ inspector general report regarding the handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe. 

Several Republicans also want to know what McCabe knew about anti-Trump text messages between two bureau officials, including one that seemed to reference an “insurance policy” against Trump winning the 2016 election. 

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way he gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” FBI official Peter Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way he gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Peter Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” 

Some lawmakers think "Andy" was a reference to McCabe. 

Late last year, Trump drew attention to news stories about McCabe's rumored agency exit.

“FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits,” Trump tweeted. 

The Washington Post last week reported that Trump, during an Oval Office meeting last spring, pressed McCabe, who was then acting FBI director, about whom he voted for in the 2016 election. McCabe, according to the outlet, told the president he didn’t vote.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-29-2018, 12:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: A lot of this forum is us expressing opinions and reacting to the opinions of others. 

This is a thread about the first topic not the second. However, there has been discussion of the second topic in your own thread  http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Clinton-campaign-and-DNC-paid-for-Trump-Dossier

Well Pat, not to keep deliberately crossing thread lines but, check this out..


http://politicsnote.com/stunning-every-dem-on-intel-committee-votes-against-letting-congress-see-fisa-memo/

Quote:The loyalty of America’s lawmakers is supposed to be to the country, and to the truth. People can of course disagree about policies and politics, but at the end of the day, all elected officials should serve the Constitution and the people.

It looks like truth has taken a back seat to partisan games. In a stunning development to the Department of Justice wiretapping scandal, every single Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee just voted to cover up evidence of what could be the biggest story since Watergate.
At the center of the scandal is a warrant application filed by the Obama administration to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, commonly known as FISA. Before Trump was elected, the Obama DOJ sought permission to wiretap conversations that included American citizens.
There’s strong evidence that the entire operation was being used to gather information that could be used against Donald Trump in the election… and that a now-debunked Russian dossier was used as justification for the warrant.
Members of the House Intelligence Committee wanted to know if that was true. After fighting an uphill battle just to get access to the documents, some members of Congress did get to see the FISA warrant — but only a handful.
“But they didn’t get to keep copies,” explained Canada Free Press. “They were only allowed to view them and take notes.”
“As a result, some committee members drafted a memo summarizing the facts they learned from viewing these documents. And on Thursday, the committee voted to make these memos available to all House members,” continued that report.
You would think that letting everyone in the House see the notes about the warrant would be a good thing. After all, they are the people’s representatives, and hiding key information from Congress is the equivalent of pulling the wool over the eyes of every American citizen.
Yet every single Democrat on the committee voted to keep the notes a secret.
“Every Democrat voted against letting the rest of the House see a memo that will list the facts about the FBI’s use of FISA warrants to surveil members of the Trump campaign in 2016,” reported The Wall Street Journal. “Strange. What are Democrats afraid of?”

[BmorePat87]

(01-30-2018, 12:10 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well Pat, not to keep deliberately crossing thread lines but, check this out..


http://politicsnote.com/stunning-every-dem-on-intel-committee-votes-against-letting-congress-see-fisa-memo/

Because it's a politically motivated memo not some nonpartisan investigation. It's the same reason all of the Republicans voted to not release the Democrat's memo. It's also the reason why the GOP refused to release it to the DOJ and refused to be briefed by the FBI. 

This is why we have professional investigators look into this, not politicians. 

[SunsetBengal]

(01-30-2018, 01:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because it's a politically motivated memo not some nonpartisan investigation. It's the same reason all of the Republicans voted to not release the Democrat's memo. It's also the reason why the GOP refused to release it to the DOJ and refused to be briefed by the FBI. 

This is why we have professional investigators look into this, not politicians. 

Ha!  I knew that the Left would have a ready, canned excuse..

[hollodero]

(01-30-2018, 01:11 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ha!  I knew that the Left would have a ready, canned excuse..

Your DOJ argues it should not be released, because sources could be compromised etc. Democrats claim it's a partisan piece. What I'd argue is that it would probably be best to not release anything confidential, but if there's a publication, both memos should be published. To release the republican version and not release the democratic version looks like, well, partisan politics, doesn't it.

[On a related note, how is the Steele dossier (which as far as I know wasn't the sole basis for an investigation, see Stephanopoulos) "debunked". I thought it was in parts unconfirmed, which is something entirely different.]

[ballsofsteel]

Drumph and most of the Repubs are throwing anything out there they can to muddy the waters. When the Mueller investigation is over Drumph will be guilty of obstruction and collusion. It won't matter though, the Repubs won't impeached impeach him. They will just use all that mud they laid out as an excuse to say the fbi and the doj were biased and crooked. The Repubs will pick party over country.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 01:11 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ha!  I knew that the Left would have a ready, canned excuse..

I don't care if you disagree with his argument, but you ought to have a reason why. You claim his response is canned when all you offer as a retort is canned and provides no actual rebuttal to his statement.

[Belsnickel]

A couple of interesting posts from Axios:

https://www.axios.com/release-the-memo-mueller-russia-effects-552b2b97-93ca-4036-8b36-29aa54cc9b3e.html

https://www.axios.com/10-undisputed-facts-behind-russia-probe-trump-977b4986-9580-429b-b8c6-a0f22f5eee9d.html