“Fake News, Fake News”: Trump Denies That He Wanted To Fire Mueller In June

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedAt the Davos conference in Switzerland, President Donald Trump denied the New York Times account that he ordered the firing of Special Counsel in June but was prevented by doing so when White House Counsel Don McGahn threatened to resign.  It is a highly disturbing allegation since such an act would have been catastrophic for the Trump Administration.  Now however President Trump is denying the story — responding to reporters with “fake news, fake news.”  What is curious is that the White House and particularly the White House Counsel did not deny the story.

If this story is false, it would be major news in its own right. It would be a hit job from a major media organization.  Conversely, if the story is true, the President’s denial would magnify the concerns over his judgment and veracity.  The matter can be put to rest by Don McGahn.


The New York Times first reported Thursday on Mr. Trump’s alleged order.

440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_III-1Notably, Mueller was appointed late May and, on June 14, 2017, the Washington Post reported that Mueller’s office is also investigating President Trump personally for possible obstruction of justice.  According to this report, Trump wanted to fire a special counsel who was investigating him for obstruction, That is different from Comey who reportedly told Trump that he was not under investigation.

Does the order constitute obstruction of justice? No.  Trump had grounds to object to Mueller’s appointment and his firing did not necessarily mean that Trump would fire any Special Counsel. Mueller had just started and, if the President would have accepted another Special Counsel, he can claim that he was not obstructing the investigation. However, it obviously fits an opposing narrative after Trump unwisely terminated Comey in the midst of the investigation. Timing can be everything in the law.  Trump could have fired Comey when he came into office without much controversy.  He could also have fired him after the conclusion of the Russian investigation (which likely would have been concluded faster absent the firing of Comey).

The White House will not put this controversy to rest with a mantra of fake news.  McGahn is going to have to be heard if they want to end the story.  They could then go on the offensive if the story is untrue.  If not, we could see a serious fight over executive privilege brewing over what happened in the Oval Office.  Mueller can get this information because it is arguably material to the obstruction investigation.  Many in Congress however will likely demand confirmation of McGahn account and whether he did threaten to resign to prevent this order from being carried out.


279 thoughts on ““Fake News, Fake News”: Trump Denies That He Wanted To Fire Mueller In June”

  1. Enjoying my discovery of your website! Many topics and all hit my interest button.
    Obstruction of Justice is far from the biggest crime possibly, even likely, committed here. The way goes through Manafort, Ukraine, Alfa Bank, and Kushner.
    We are likely looking at a money laundering issue, and a president who along with his friends and family never intended to be president, Only to be enriched.

      1. I don’t think the media at large has discussed this nearly enough. The focus on obstruction and “collusion” as a term of art has been the general discussion topic.

    1. Russian operatives used Facebook during the 2016 election to reach 340,000 people in the U.S. At Media Matters, Melissa Ryan has a link we can use to see if it was likely that we were among the 300+ thousand who had no idea that the Kremlin was behind the messages that stroked racial, cultural and political tensions.

      While there are commenters at this blog who don’t identify themselves as Russian, they are easy to spot.

      1. Linda – methinks thou dost protest too much. BTW, did you just out yourself as an employee of Media Matters?

        1. The first group dumped, after they helped get Trump votes, was the Neo Nazi’s (Nehlen). The reason was they don’t bring money to the table. Adelson and Kushner, on the other hand, direct policy at the WH.
          No Dem moved the US embassy in Israel.

        2. When Media Matters failed to identify Gates, Eli Broad, and the Waltons as education privatizers in an article that listed GOP privatizers, it became clear that they, unlike Fox which lies, are guilty of sins of omission.

  2. What is interesting is how many on this blog rush to defend Trump for his right to do this or think that or comment on thoughts, etc. This is all moot as there is no way to obtain closure. If someone says Trump did or said this or that, Trump will accuse the accuser of lying and an unrelenting list of other travesties. Trump has proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is a pathological liar-2000 lies and counting. If ten people said Trump did something, Trump would call them all liars. If he likes something it becomes the gospel. If he doesn’t, then it’s fake news.

    This has been established beyond belief. Regardless of whether one agrees with Trump’s policies, 99% of Trump is self aggrandizement and lies. There is no way to find out for sure and it appears to be only more of Trump’s tough guy routine, which his dupes love.

    1. ” It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them” FDR.

    2. You are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Your hate consumes whatever little intelligence you might have at some point in your life. Did you cry after election night? Do you think Trump has a super secret deal with Putin to undermine the US? If so, then go see a therapist.

      1. Ivan, a close friend of mine is a therapist – she has a client who has TDS – she’s been trying to help this person since the election with 0 progress. So maybe there is no hope for that disorder in certain cases.

        1. I see it everywhere here on the East coast. Liberals have abandoned classic liberalism and embraced marxism. This isn’t ending soon and it certainly won’t end well.

          1. The greatest promoters of Marxism are those concentrating wealth and power. With labor receiving the lowest share of national income in recorded U.S. history, the richest 0.1% are writing their own epithet.
            One of the bad moves was turning to the Russian oligarchy for help.

    1. Pseudopatriot (anti-musician), you forgot the most fundamental equation. This is not surprising considering the fundamental relevant equation itself:

      Pseudopatriot (anti-musician) = Leftist Ultrasubcretin

      This renders any equation, any thought, and any post coming from you meaningless.

    2. The Israelis have not committed a final solution to the Palestinian question, even they do not have the chutzpah to do that, rather they are using Genocides little brother called Ethnic Cleansing.

      1. That is sooo horrible!!! The Jews should be ashamed of themselves!!! Can you give us all some numbers about the Palestinian Population decline, sooo we can know how many the Jews have killed???

        Like, how many Palestinians there were in maybe 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2018??? Because I bet there are millions less Palestinians now!!!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky, it’s been noted many times that if the Israelis’ have been purportedly doing some “ethnic cleansing,” as the Lefty dupes and dopes claim they have been doing, then they must be doing a piss-poor job of it, as the Palestinian population has been exploding. So, apparently, according to the Lefty dupes and dopes, the Israelis must be incompetent at “ethnic cleansing” even though they demonstrate extraordinary competence at everything else they do from technology to medicine.

          1. Ethnic cleansing is not the same as genocide, one could argue that is more cruel.

            A Jew once processed through the zyklon B shower blocks of wartime Europe could not suffer anger and depression at his dispossession and murder, while Palestinians confined to refugee camp ghettoes experience extremly unpleasant states of mind as they watch their enemies gobble up the land that used to bee theirs.

            Humans are intelligent animals so if they have satisfying lives they have so many sources of distraction that they may forget to reproduce, but for members of an underclass in a ghetto sex is one of the few dopamine hits available with the result that they breed out of wedlock as Manson girl constantly complains.

        2. “Can you give us all some numbers about the Palestinian Population decline, sooo we can know how many the Jews have killed???”

          Again Manson Girl you have understood from my post something which I nether said nor implied. Ethnic cleansing does involve killing enough to get the others to move but not in the large proportions involved in genocide. In the case of the Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1948, about 7000 were killed by Jewish death squads (today renamed the IDF) to get 700,000 to flee that is about 1% kill rate.

          Genocide and ethnic cleansing stem from the same eliminationist motive that is to rid areas of unwanted populations of those not acceptable to the ruling group but ethnic cleansers are satisfied if the unwanted end up concentrated in ghettos in areas not part of the expelling country. There are Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and before 1967 in The West Bank and Gaza and none of them were of concern to Israel but now Israel does not hide its intention to annex the West Bank and Gaza and now the Palestinian inhabitants both those not yet segregated in ghettoes and those in the West Bank rand Gaza refugee camps are an existential threat to the Jewish state since like members of any underclass they have bred because sex is one of the few pleasures available to them. Were they to become Israeli citizens Palestinians would outnumber Jews, something that cannot be allowed.

          I seriously doubt that even the Israelis could set up combined gas chambers and crematoria to deal with the Palestinian question, even for them the chutzpah would be excessive, however I may be wrong.

          The real evil is not Israel but those nations, the UK, the US, Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand that have colluded with Israel and cooperated in Israel’s unavoidable treatment of the previous indigines. I point out that nothing Israel has done or is doing to the Palestinians is any worse than were the actions of other colonial settler states, The US, Australia, Canada, Indonesia to their indigines in the dispossession phases of their conquests.

          An irreconcilable collision of interests arose between Jews an Palestinians in 1880 as soon as the Zionists decided to settle Palestine and the UK first then the US chose to cooperate. The UK during the period of its mandate to govern Palestine chose sides and allowed the Jews to build up militias and armaments so that in 1948 these militias out-manned and out-gunned the combined armies of all surrounding Moslem states, at the same time the UK prevented the Palestinians from building similar militias.

          1. You’re losing me at the whole “sex is the only thing we can do for fun” spiel. Hogwash. There are many things that people can do for fun in the Internet Age. Go on youtube and watch movies for free, or listen to music. Play checkers or chess or dominos. Read books. Get a job. Go on a hike. Play soccer or baseball or dodge ball. Watch TV.

            And if you were right about the sex, having sex does not mean having babies. There is this little thing called “birth control”. and there are ways to not get knocked up. Plus, if they do breed like rabbits, then you have gutted your own arguments, because having kids means you hardly have any time to do anything else! Particularly if you have a lot, and don’t have a washing machine, and fast food outlets.

            With Native Americans, the “ethnic cleansing” resulted in huge population declines. Did the Indians, when put on reservations, not have anything to do but breed??? I don’t recall that bit of history. Sooo, answer my original question. Give me the population numbers and let’s see the result of “ethnic cleansing” in numbers. Let’s see some numbers on infant mortality, and life expectancies.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

          2. Just a short comment because the crap written above doesn’t require much of an answer.

            About 700,000 Palestinians left Israel on the advice of their leader. About 700,000 to 800,000 Jews were forced from their home and their property stolen by the Arabs in the surrounding lands. Many of them were killed. That is where ethnic cleansing occurred. The Palestinians have been used as tools by their leaders for decades because their leaders stole the money given to the Palestinians as aid.

            Only in Israel are various religions given the right to vote and the civil liberties that are granted to all citizens. Arabs serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, and in the army if they wish. Look at how other religions are treated in the Arab lands and look at how woman and gays are treated.


          3. You said “The UK during the period of its mandate to govern Palestine chose sides and allowed the Jews to build up militias and armaments so that in 1948 these militias out-manned and out-gunned the combined armies of all surrounding Moslem states

            Are you barmy??? Let’s see some stats on that! I watched the Exodus movie, and IIRC, the Arabs had the Jews way outgunned and outmanned.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. In the sixties and seventies I like most citizens of the World accepted the Israeli narrative of what happened in 1948.

              This goes that the Israelis rightfully declared their state and then Arab radio stations told the Palestinians to flee to allow the Arab armies to have a clear field of fire to kill Jews and bamboozled by this radio propaganda 700,000 Palestinians fled and since their fleeing was motivated by a desire to avoid becoming human shields for Jews they were seen as joining with the surrounding Arab states in their war against Israel and forfeited any right to return and to their property. This was and still is a breathtaking lie.

              The 700,000 fled because Jewish militias killed 7,000 to give them the message “flee or die”. I have no doubt that the Jews made use of Arab radio stations to spread that message.

              The actual sequence of events was:-

              1/ Start Plan Dalit.
              2/ Ethnically cleanse 700,000 Palestinians and destroy those villages nominated for destruction in plan Dalit;
              3/ Arab armies hopelessly out-manned and out-gunned though of course they did not know that counter attacked because of the ethnic cleansing and the felt obligation to assist the Palestinians.
              4/ Israel propagated the meme of poor plucky little Israel unfairly attacked overcoming the combined might of the Arab Armies and bearing absolutely no responsibility at all for fleeing Palestinians.

              The Israeli narrative consists of one lie after another as some Israeli revisionist historians are now acknowledging. The question is, why did the rest of the world accept this meme as manifest truth. I suspect that well warranted shame about knowing of the holocaust but not doing anything to impede it and refusing refuge to fleeing Jews who were subsequently returned to Europe and genocided made many feel that they couldn’t criticise the Jews fore mere ethnic cleansing when bearing in mind their own Holocaust Guilt. There is also the possibility that many Jew haters wanted to support Israel because it would hopefully rid Europe and America of Jews.

              1. Then give us the numbers so we can all judge for ourselves. What you are presenting is your CONCLUSION, not your argument. You have some personal opinion of how it all went down, but you sound like one of those Trayvonazis who had their own spin of what went down, but never could reconcile that to the facts as they were known.

                They had this invented reality that just ignored facts, and then when one of those facts could no longer be ignored,(like Zimmerman’;s bloody head) they explained it away, and so forth and so on the same way as other facts became available to where eventually they were left claiming that people had no right to self defense if the attacker was black.

                Why not drop your conclusions for a while, and just present what you think you are salient facts. Give us the birth rate, and let us decide for ourselves if it is too high, and don’t try to explain it away with “they ain’t got nothing else left to do all day except f*ck.” Give us the population amounts, and if you want to present us with your military conclusions about the 1948 war, skip that, and give us the facts of who had what.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

              2. Moulton, you sound like a fare minded person, one who is paid to act impartial but is definitely not one that is impartial or fair.

                Take this one comment of yours and leave the rest of the comments in the junk heap where they belong: “Arab armies hopelessly out-manned and out-gunned”

                The population of the Middle East 218 million. The number of Jews 6 million. When Britain left the area and war broke out Britain turned over all the forts and armaments to the Arabs. The Jews in Israel at the time were not permitted ownership of weapons. They had no air force or regular army. They were attacked by all three countries on their borders that were assisted by many others. Outside of the great powers, Jordan had one of the best air forces in the world. The Israelis didn’t have one, nor did they have tanks and heavy artillery.

                You sound like one brought up to hate Jews and western ideas. You can keep your garbage to yourself.

  3. Trump’s pick for Senate from Pa. Barletta, is one more GOP embarrassment of bigotry like Missouri’s GOP Senate candidate, Courtland Sykes (rhetoric similar to the Koch’s Grieten, Missouri’s family values Governor, who the year before had an affair). The GOP’s other notables in Senate races- Roy Moore, who lost, Josh Mandel, who dropped out, and the most like-lies, in Minn. and N.D. , who opted out.

    1. Linda, let’s look at it another way. Maybe, just maybe those particular candidates happen to be reflective of the particular constituencies.

      1. Hypocrites who hate America? Probably not, just easily duped constituencies who have faced wage stagnation as the donor class consolidated wealth and power.

        1. Linda, as an Alabamian I can say you are largely correct that these voters are economically frustrated. However, they too easily resort to blaming other ethnicities for their problems- a basic tendency that Trump took full advantage of.
          I’m proud my state finally rejected Roy Moore.

          1. Sooo, assume that you’re a black man, and you apply for a $10/hour job only to find 25 illegal Mexicans in the line, and the $10 on the sign has been crossed out, and is now, $7.25.

            Sooo, is it “blaming an ethnicity” for the black dude to get pissed at the illegal Mexicans???

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Blame the international corporate CEO’s for sending jobs overseas to exploit labor and avoid health and safety precautions.

              1. You should love Trump. He is bringing jobs back and companies are giving bonuses and wage increases to their employees.

                1. If only it was true. But, then, it isn’t because the corporate CEO’s said they wouldn’t be adding jobs. In a recent example, a major firm announced its use of the dollars saved from the tax scam bill, to restructure, shedding a significant portion of its workforce.

                  1. You better look again Linda for the statistics back me up as do the pledges of large businesses.

              2. That’s a bullsh*t. You did not answer the question. It is a FACT that illegal aliens in the country, and they are cheap labor who depress wages, particularly for blacks. You don’t get to ignore reality, and dodge questions because they are uncomfortable for you, at least not when I am around to call you out for it! Sooo, put on your Big Girl Panties and answer the question I asked you! Sad for you, but you are not on Tucker Carlson, and you can’t run out the clock. No Gish Galloping for you!!!

                Here, educate your stupid self, and then answer the above question:


                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

            2. That’s a very sad, sad story. However, the premise is fictional, and made up out of whole cloth. You’re merely channeling the white supremacist argument from bygone eras to dehumanize and victimize immigrants. These same fallacies were recycled against the Chinese, Irish, Poles, Italians, Sicilians, Eastern Europeans, etc. ad nauseam. But since everyone here has identified the cut of your sheet, no one is surprised at all.

              this is to “that’s a nice klavern hall you got there jedidiah” squeek

              1. Marky Mark Mark – 1) you have a major redundancy in your second line. 2) If Squeeky were going after the Irish, not a stone of her burning house would be standing.

          2. Yes, Tamara, it’s a sad human situation when people turn against their neighbors because resources have been made scarce. Instead, they should turn against those truly responsible for their hardships- the Koch’s, Mercers, Bill and Melinda Gates, Uihlein, Art Pope, etc.. We are currently at a point where the share of national income going to labor is at its lowest point in U.S. recorded history.

            1. Simple stupidity for the users to want the producers to disappear. However, Linda does have a right to her opinion in our Republic no matter how dumb it is. Isn’t America great?

              1. Reread economic theory, Allan. Free enterprise guarantees a competitor expands or a new business arises to replace a failed business (e.g. owner incapacitated).
                Without the prolonged patent protections making Gates’ wealth equal to 750,000,000 people, free enterprise would have created opportunities for entrepreneurs. If the paper products and oil industries weren’t oligopolies, small businesses would flourish in their place. Have faith in capitalism.

                1. Linda read Milton Friedman who is very easy to understand where he is writing for the lay public. You could also read Hayek and then countless of others that will explain competition and economic theory. You are making judgments based upon wealth not the economic theory of free competition.

                  The simplest of all books is Free to Choose. You have a tendency to mix theories and get things all confused. Things are relatively simple, but there is no quick solution to the distribution of labor and capital. You are looking at quick fixes that have tremendous unintended consequences of the negative variety.

                  If you want poor people to have money, stick to capitalism.

                  1. Tell the richest 0.1%’s monopolists and oligopolists to stick to capitalism. Then, they won’t suffer the consequences from fostering a system where 6 Walton heirs have wealth equivalent to 40% of Americans combined.

                    1. Capitalism def: “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”

                      Monopoly def: “the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.”

                      Linda, explain how you intend to improve capitalism in the US while meeting the definitions agreed to by most.

                      Explain how the Walton’s have a monopoly. Tell us who else has a monopoly and explain why based upon the accepted definition.

        1. Perhaps it’s a plea for national unity in the form of a pun. And if we fail to respond accordingly, then tomorrow Roscoe will accuse us all of being Earl Morrall relativists.

    1. Jay S., I’ve been pondering your question for two whole days, now, and all I can think of is that it’s Hillary’s fault for losing an election that she could’ve and should’ve won.

      P. S. I’m ever grateful to Comey for putting Trump in Hillary’s endless-investigation place. It couldn’t have happened to a sweller fella.

    1. From your link:

      ““I had been told by very high-ranking senior White House officials that he was seriously moving in that direction.”
      — Chris Ruddy”

      In other words, HEARSAY.

      Frankly, I think that Trump should have considered firing the conflict-ridden witch hunter. Businessmen and smart people routinely look at all the possible paths open to them. But last i heard, Muellar is still getting a paycheck.

      Sooo, to you, is Trump guilty of “Thought Crimes???”

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. You separated businessmen from smart people.
        Wise decision as it relates to the “genius” in the Oval Office. (So many bankruptcies but, so appealing to Putin and the “southern evangelists who share values with Russia”.)

        1. Do you know anything about “bankruptcies” at all??? Or, do you just have some sort of intuition that bankruptcies are bad things???

          Frankly, I take great joy every time Penelope does a bankruptcy for someone, and all the credit card company debts get written off! It would really please me if Guitar Center went into Chapter 11, and managed to write off the Bain Capital debt!

          Sooo, to repeat, do you know anything at all about bankruptcies??? Or anything financial???

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. So, counselor, are you implying that you are competent to instruct the posters about bankruptcies? I can tell by the multiple question marks that you must be really seriously concerned about other posters referring to bankruptcies without the quantum of knowledge that you deem sufficient.

            this is to “the grand wizard is some fine people” squeek

            1. Actually, yes. But I doubt anyone would put their financial information in the comment section for me. But if you are thinking about it, I suggest you “pre-plan” it with a competent attorney or accountant. But again, you would not want to put that info on the internet either, because of the Statement of Financial Affairs.

              If your situation is “complicated”, might I be sooo bold as to suggest that you use one person for advice, and pay cash, and another person for the actual filing. So that the filer can maintain credible deniability if you are pulling any tricks. Most preparers are not going to risk federal prison to file false statements in the documents.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. That’s nice. I’m not asking for myself. I handle bankruptcies; and I don’t mean that I’m a “bankruptcy preparer.” Plus, I’d disengage if a client persisted in submitted fraudulent information in a bankruptcy filing; I’m not in the business of providing legal advice to promulgate fraud.

                1. Marky Mark Mark – I am glad they allow you to prepare the Chapter 7s, they are a nice breaking in place for a corporate shill.

                  1. Well, the 7’s are a lot easier than the 11’s. Of course, an attorney can make more money off the 11’s because they can last a very long time. Penelope won’t hardly do 13’s though, because they almost always end up as 7’s it seems. And there is sooo much client contact in them.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                2. Re Bankruptcies Mark says:”I’m not asking for myself. I handle bankruptcies”

                  Mark probably has had a lot of personal experience with his own bankruptcies.

                  1. As many as Trump, Allan? Yes, I know the multiple filings weren’t Trump’s failings (sarcasm) because they were corporate bankruptcies.

                    1. Linda, Mark’s are likely personal bankruptcy. He is what is known as a putz. If a franchise using KFC’s name goes bankrupt is that the same as KFC going bankrupt? No, the franchise was permitted and paid money to use the name. If you invest in a company that goes bankrupt does that mean you went bankrupt? No.

                      Trump has never been personally bankrupt even though some companies he was involved with, but lacked control over, went bankrupt.

                      In fact, some companies go bankrupt because times change and sometimes many in the same sector and area go bankrupt together. Do we blame the bankruptcy on the individuals? Take horse stables, when cars came in I am sure a number of them or their owners may have gone bankrupt.

                      Why don’t you explain each and every one of Trump’s bankruptcies in detail so we can see which ones if any he is responsible and can be blamed for.

                      By the way, it is not uncommon for companies to go bankrupt. That is part of the risk of starting or investing in a company. I think only 1 in 10 restaurants startups make it. The rest go down the tubes and many end up in bankruptcy.

                    2. Allan – I think 1 in 3 business fold in the first 3 years. And yes, Marky Mark Mark is a putz. 😉

            2. Marky Mark Mark – bankruptcies are a rather rarified field for a file clerk to work in. I can tell you, you did not learn enough in law school.

              1. Mark didn’t learn bankruptcy from school he learned it from being bankrupt morally and otherwise.

                1. Allan,
                  The GOP, you, Roy Moore, Rick Berman, etc. cornered the market on moral bankruptcy. God (“those who are lesser are me”) doesn’t exploit the vulnerable.

                  1. Linda, I don’t even think you know what morality is. To you, anyone with a difference of opinion seems to be immoral. Anyone who works and makes a lot of money to you is immoral.

                    You seem to use your personal dictionary when defining terms. It probably makes it seem to you that what you say makes sense.

        2. Do you know anything about “southern evangelists”? Or is this just a bigoted statement on your part? I am always amazed at so-called open-minded progressives facility in lobbing bigoted generalizations!

          1. I’d like to know more, like is the “shared value” between southern evangelists and Russia…. rubles.
            Those megachurches spend big bucks on land and buildings despite their congregants having stagnant wages.
            Franklin Graham’s difficulty explaining to media his support for Trump and Putin won’t be eased, at the pearly gates.

          2. What more does anyone need to know? They’ve dropped to their knees and given the orange buffoon a good tea-bagging. They sold not only their souls, but also the high ground they believed they occupied on morality issues. There won’t be any more concern amongst public officials about concealing their bimbo hookups, or any other “family value” issue, since the hypocrisy has become apparent.. Welcome to the new morality.

            this is to “southern evangelicals are just klan-lite wannabees” hepcat

            1. Marky Mark Mark – you are just jealous they tea-bagged him before you could.

      2. What was reported is that Trump ordered Mueller’s firing and McGahn refused, saying he would quit.; That doesn’t sound like a thought crime to me

        1. What was reported is that Trump ordered Mueller’s firing and McGahn refused, saying he would quit.; That doesn’t sound like a thought crime to me.

          Correct. No crime at all. Thank God we no longer have an uber President. You know, one that not only abuses power, but one who enjoys the support of half of Congress, IC/FBI, MSM and a grubered constituency.

          1. No one said it was a crime. It was just more evidence of a pattern of intimidation, including firings, in order to stop the investigation. I’ve never seen such consciousness of guilt as Trump evidences, except in children who don’t know any better.

            1. This Trump presidency drama reminds me of The Caine Mutiny; with the exception that Captain Queeg was proven to have endangered his ship and crew. Well, and that he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable.

              [Greenwald staggers into the Caine crew’s party, inebriated]

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: Well, well, well! The officers of the Caine in happy celebration!

              Lt. Steve Maryk: What are you, Barney, kind of tight?

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: Sure. I got a guilty conscience. I defended you, Steve, because I found the wrong man was on trial.

              [pours himself a glass of wine]

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: So, I torpedoed Queeg for you. I *had* to torpedo him. And I feel sick about it.

              [drinks wine]

              Lt. Steve Maryk: Okay, Barney, take it easy.

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: You know something… When I was studying law, and Mr. Keefer here was writing his stories, and you, Willie, were tearing up the playing fields of dear old Princeton, who was standing guard over this fat, dumb, happy country of ours, eh? Not us. Oh, no, we knew you couldn’t make any money in the service. So who did the dirty work for us? Queeg did! And a lot of other guys. Tough, sharp guys who didn’t crack up like Queeg.

              Ensign Willie Keith: But no matter what, Captain Queeg endangered the ship and the lives of the men.

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: He didn’t endanger anybody’s life, you did, *all* of you! You’re a fine bunch of officers.

              Lt. JG H. Paynter Jr.: You said yourself he cracked.

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: I’m glad you brought that up, Mr. Paynter, because that’s a very pretty point. You know, I left out one detail in the court martial. It wouldn’t have helped our case any.

              [to Maryk]

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: Tell me, Steve, after the Yellowstain business, Queeg came to you guys for help and you turned him down, didn’t you?

              Lt. Steve Maryk: [hesitant] Yes, we did.

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: [to Paynter] You didn’t approve of his conduct as an officer. He wasn’t worthy of your loyalty. So you turned on him. You ragged him. You made up songs about him. If you’d given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you suppose the whole issue would have come up in the typhoon?

              [to Maryk]

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: You’re an honest man, Steve, I’m asking you. You think it would’ve been necessary for you to take over?

              Lt. Steve Maryk: [hesitant] It probably wouldn’t have been necessary.

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: [muttering slightly] Yeah.

              Ensign Willie Keith: If that’s true, then we *were* guilty.

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: Ah, you’re learning, Willie! You’re learning that you don’t work with a captain because you like the way he parts his hair. You work with him because he’s got the job or you’re no good! Well, the case is over. You’re all safe. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

              [long pause; strides toward Keefer]

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: And now we come to the man who *should’ve* stood trial. The Caine’s favorite author. The Shakespeare whose testimony nearly sunk us all. Tell ’em, Keefer!

              Lieutenant Tom Keefer: [stiff and overcome with guilt] No, you go ahead. You’re telling it better.

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: You ought to read his testimony. He never even heard of Captain Queeg!

              Lt. Steve Maryk: Let’s forget it, Barney!

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: Queeg was sick, he couldn’t help himself. But you, you’re *real* healthy. Only you didn’t have one tenth the guts that he had.

              Lieutenant Tom Keefer: Except I never fooled myself, Mr. Greenwald.

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: I’m gonna drink a toast to you, Mr. Keefer.

              [pours wine in a glass]

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: From the beginning you hated the Navy. And then you thought up this whole idea. And you managed to keep your skirts nice, and starched, and clean, even in the court martial. Steve Maryk will always be remembered as a mutineer. But you, you’ll publish your novel, you’ll make a million bucks, you’ll marry a big movie star, and for the rest of your life you’ll live with your conscience, if you have any. Now here’s to the *real* author of “The Caine Mutiny.” Here’s to you, Mr. Keefer.

              [splashes wine in Keefer’s face]

              Lt. Barney Greenwald: If you wanna do anything about it, I’ll be outside. I’m a lot drunker than you are, so it’ll be a fair fight.

    2. Nobody pays attention to The Daily Beast – it’s a pro Clinton rag – Chelsea sits on the Board of its owners.

  4. Does anyone recall reading about the internal machinations which, surely, transpired in the Obama White House? The daily discussions, disputes, arguments or debates which, I assume, preceded various decisions or actions? Of course not. . .the media, not to mention, those privy to said internal machinations, said nothing. Nada. Zippo. Why did we not read about those debates? Those heated discussions? Does anyone truly believe that debates and heated discussions, over an array of controversial moves, spanning eight years, never transpired? Well, now that I think about it, maybe those normal and sane behaviors never occurred in the Obama White House, where King Obama’s word was final? Where the Emperor’s thoughts and suggestions were never questioned or disputed? Where the Leader’s thoughts were always praised as correct? Did anyone, ever, dare to stand up to Obama, advising him that what he was about to do would be counterproductive? Unwise? The answer–probably not. The media never questioned his moves, and his yes-men and women, fawning over him, probably never did, as well. All you good libs should be thrilled that there exists a healthy and vibrant debate within our current White House. An atmosphere where varied opinions exist and are encouraged. Demanded. Accepted. Fostered. No. . .not even that will suffice. . .

    1. Wrong answer. “what about ism” doesn’t work, never has and never will. I completely understand that Pravda Faux News uses it to befuddle the gullible dupes; but it looks good on you, though.

      this is to “hannity is my truth-sayer” bammie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – most people here don’t watch Hannity, they watch the alt-media.

    1. So has ‘Victory’ for us. I need a laptop and a place to work. I would have joined the discussions long had not my laptops all got stolen.

  5. …and still some people believe that because they have read or heard something from a source that they trust, it must be true.

  6. “What is curious is that the White House and particularly the White House Counsel did not deny the story.”

    What story? I routinely fight with my attorney, accountant, and doctor. Sometimes I have actually fired an attorney because he was representing himself instead of me. Trump didn’t fire Mueller so where is the story? More important since Trump had a right to fire Mueller, how did such a story get created? Lies by the press or an attorney who broke privilege? Such a story means the press or the lawyer should be fired and lose their credentials.

    1. The rules are that Mueller can only be fired “for cause,” not on a whim or just out of spite.

      1. You are wrong Jay S.

        The President has the power to directly fire Mueller for any reason under Article II of the Constitution. There are reasons in the law he might not want to, but that is a different story.

        1. From Wikipedia article on special counsels (prosecutors):

          “The first federal special prosecutor, John B. Henderson, was appointed by Ulysses Grant in 1875 to investigate the Whiskey Ring scandal. After attempting to stifle Henderson’s investigation of the president’s personal secretary, Grant fired Henderson on the basis that Henderson’s statements to a grand jury regarding Grant were impertinent. Following criticism, Grant appointed a new special prosecutor, James Broadhead, to continue the investigation.”

          Following criticism? Have we the people been down this road before?

          1. It’s nice to quote Wikipedia, but it would be nicer if you would let us in on what your point is?

        2. More from the same Wikipedia article as the previous one:

          “After a Court of Appeals instructed the president to comply with the special prosecutor’s subpoena, Nixon ordered the special prosecutor fired. In what became known as the Saturday Night Massacre, both the attorney general and deputy attorney general (who had both made promises regarding the special prosecutor in their Senate confirmation hearings) resigned rather than carry out the order to fire Cox. Solicitor General Robert Bork, who was third in line at the Department of Justice, then fired Cox. Initially, the Nixon White House announced that the office of the special prosecutor had been abolished, but after public outcry Nixon instead had Bork appoint Leon Jaworski as the second Watergate special prosecutor.

          Jaworski continued Cox’s pursuit of the White House tapes, which were ultimately released following the supreme court decision in United States v. Nixon.”

          Well, well, well . . . It appears to be the case from the historical record that firing a special prosecutor has not yet ended any investigation of any POTUS nor any cabinet officers. They still say there’s first time for everything; don’t they? Maybe Trump truly believed that hope springs eternal until McGahn disillusioned Trump of that belief.

    2. Haha. Dense. Firing the guy who’s investigating you for various offenses is textbook obstruction of justice. But Hannity didn’t tell you that, did he.

      This is to “I like to just make up stuff about firing people because it makes me look important” allan

      1. Marky Mark Mark – you spent that last year of law school in the sauna, not in classes. Textbooks aren’t your thing, too expensive. You wouldn’t know textbook anything if it jumped up and bite you in the nose.

      2. From the LATimes article linked above

        Given the obvious sensitivity, the regulations sought to insulate special counsels by providing that they “may be disciplined or removed only by the personal action of the attorney general” and only for specified reasons, such as misconduct or conflict of interest.

        In the current inquiry by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Trump, who is both the chief executive and a potential target, has repeatedly signaled he wants it to end.

        One option for Trump and his lawyers, Vladeck said, would be to try to end the investigation by rescinding the special counsel regulations.

        Some former White House lawyers say the president is bound by the special counsel regulations as long as they remain on the books. The regulations clearly say only the attorney general can discharge the special counsel.

        “That is a requirement, and it’s binding on the president,” said Walter Dellinger, a White House lawyer under President Clinton.

        The Supreme Court appeared to endorse that view in the Nixon tapes decision of 1974. The justices cited a Justice Department regulation of that era which allowed the special prosecutor to challenge Nixon’s assertion of executive privilege.

        “As long as this regulation remains in force, the executive branch is bound by it,” the court said in United States vs. Nixon

        1. The post above cited Vladek without adding University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck.

          Meanwhile, Trump has already cited Mueller’s conflicts of interest as a reason that Mueller ought not to have been hired as Special Counsel and (according to the NYT article that is the subject of this thread) as a reason that Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller in June, 2017. Since Trump didn’t fired Mueller for conflict of interest, we might suppose that Trump won’t fire Mueller for conflict of interest. That leaves prosecutorial misconduct in play as a potential reason for Trump firing Mueller under existing regulations. And that, in turn, might explain the White House and Congressional Republican efforts at ginning up the partisan, political witch-hunt theory of the Special Counsel’s investigation.

          Of course, there’s still Vladeck’s theory that Trump can rescind the special counsel regulations. One wonders what might happen next after that, should Trump heed Vladeck’s suggestion. Would Congress lie down, roll over and play dead in that event?

          1. “Congressional Republican efforts at ginning up the partisan, political witch-hunt ”

            There is no need for a witch-hunt. The facts are gradually being revealed and we are seeing the nature of the investigators chosen by Mueller in texts and emails. The less than the arms-length distance between Mueller and Comey whose actions are gradually being revealed lead to the good reason for Mueller to be dismissed.

            Thus Trump has the raw power to dismiss Mueller without reason and has good reason to dismiss Mueller yet IMO won’t chose either option.

            1. From the Congressional testimony of Dick Thornburgh, Mark H. Tuohey III and Michael Davidson on September 15th, 1999:

              “Section 600.7 has two provisions on redressing misconduct by special counsel. Section 600.7(c) addresses substantive and procedural issues regarding discipline. First, substantively, regarding the norms of conduct, “Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice.” “Inquiries” into disciplinary matters shall be handled by “the appropriate offices of the Department,” with the caveat that those inquiries be “upon the approval of the Attorney General.”

              Although the Attorney General may use other offices of the Department to make “inquiries,” under section 600.7(d) final action requires the “personal action” of the Attorney General. Grounds for removal are limited to “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.”

              There you go, Allan. Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.

        2. You provide a lot of talk on the law, but you don’t seem to actually discuss Article II of the Constitution or what the legal scholars said when they passed new regulations about 20 years with the recognition that the president has that raw power.

          1. More Wikipedia for Allan:

            “Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999, there has been no federal law governing the appointment of a special prosecutor. Upon the law’s expiration in 1999, the Justice Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels.”

            1. “Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999, ” you have flown to the moon and back. What does any of all this quoting have to do with what I said?

              Diane, one can only conclude that you are unable to integrate what I said with what Wikipedia says so you just quote bits and pieces from Wikipedia.

              I know you can’t put together a rational argument so why not look at what I said in my preceding post and then reread all of your own and discover you don’t know what you are talking about.

      3. ” Firing the guy who’s investigating you for various offenses is textbook obstruction of justice. But Hannity didn’t tell you that, did he.”

        No Hannity didn’t mention this or at least I don’t know if he did. It is mentioned in Article II of the Constitution that you apparently haven’t read.

        About 20 years ago Congress and those who rewrote the special counsel regulations recognized that ultimately the special counsel had to be overseen by the president under Article II and that power could lead to the firing of the special counsel indirectly or directly. Without the ability to totally isolate the special counsel the regulations were rewritten so Congress would have to be notified hoping that would prevent such actions from happening without a good reason.

        In this case, there is a good reason to fire Mueller so I don’t believe the President would even be using the raw power he has.

        You are a know nothing Mark and any knowledgeable person immediately recognizes that. Your comments are meaningless for they don’t reflect the facts on the ground and only reflect your personal ignorance of the world around you.

        1. If Trump had a good reason to fire Mueller in June, 2017, then why did McGahn threaten to resign when Trump ordered him fire Mueller? If Trump has since acquired an even better reason to fire Mueller–say, prosecutorial misconduct–than the one he gave McGahn in June, 2017–namely, conflict of interest–then when does Allan suppose that Trump will fire Mueller for prosecutorial misconduct? And what, exactly, does Allan suppose might happen next after that, should Trump heed Allan’s advice?

          1. Diane, where is your proof that McGahn threatened to resign?

            You are making things up. Where does Allan say Trump will fire Mueller? Where does Allan Say Trump should fire Mueller?

            You are amazing. Nothing you say can be trusted. It seems there is no brain involvement when you type.

          2. Another set of sentences that do not address the question at hand. Diane, right now you are in a rabid state posting anything on the subject whether it applies or not.

        2. Mark M. said, “Firing the guy who’s investigating you for various offenses is textbook obstruction of justice. But Hannity didn’t tell you that, did he.”

          Allan said, “No Hannity didn’t mention this or at least I don’t know if he did. It is mentioned in Article II of the Constitution that you apparently haven’t read.”

          The executive power is limited by the legislative power. And the legislative power is limited by the executive power. As such, one cannot interpret Article II of The Constitution without also interpreting Article I of The Constitution and vice-versa. For instance, The POTUS can nominate an Attorney General, but The Senate has to confirm that nominee. The POTUS can fire The Attorney General, but The House of Representatives can impeach The POTUS, if The POTUS fired The Attorney General to impede an investigation of that POTUS.

          It is for the specific reason of avoiding conflicts of interest between The Attorney General versus The POTUS that Congress authorized the use of Special Counsels to investigate allegations of executive wrongdoing. It is for that same reason that Congress authorized regulations requiring The Attorney General–not The POTUS–to discipline or to fire a Special Counsel for misconduct or conflict of interest. The only current way that The POTUS can directly fire a Special Counsel without The Attorney General actually executing that executive power is for The POTUS to rescind the current regulations that Congress authorized for Special Counsels. And that just so happens to be the fast track to impeachment, removal and disqualification from Office for any POTUS who would do thus and so.

          1. A bunch of words put together is all you can do Diane. Tell the lawyers that created the regulations for the special prosecutor all the cr-p you gather on a daily basis. They will inform you that you are nuts.

          2. More Wikipedia for Allan:

            “The current special counsel regulations specify that:

            The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for their removal.

            Unlike the independent counsel law, however, the current special counsel regulations were promulgated by the Justice Department and have no underlying statutory basis. Thus their force to constrain the attorney general is uncertain.”

            Allan, your opinion on my mental health is irrelevant to the facts of the regulations for special counsels. However, I did make one factual error. And I’ll gladly admit it, if, and only if, you can find it.

            1. There are two points I made.
              1)The President has the raw power to dismiss the special prosecutor.
              a. If there is a reason
              b. indirectly

              2) About 20 years ago Congress and those who rewrote the special counsel regulations recognized that ultimately the special counsel had to be overseen by the president under Article II and that power could lead to the firing of the special counsel indirectly or directly. Without the ability to totally isolate the special counsel the regulations were rewritten so Congress would have to be notified hoping that would prevent such actions from happening without a good reason.

              Provide the statements in any of your multiple postings that says anything above is wrong.

              As far as your mental health is concerned anyone with a reasonable degree of sanity can see that you are not “all there”.

  7. When it comes to “obstruction of justice”, I think we need to be careful with terms and definitions, because enemies of Trump will just take that phrase and run with it.

  8. I haven’t seen evidence that President Trump actually fired Mr. Mueller. In the grand scheme I do not see how this is substantive with regard to the investigation.

      1. How true! I heard it on the grapevine that Muellar likes to be tied up and spanked by “Teacher” while wearing a simple white cotton frock and white cotton panties! I got that tidbit from my friend, Venus N. Furz, who used to be a part-time dominatrix, who got it from one of her contacts in Virginia.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky:
          Well, I heard the same thing from Virginia folks who are “knowledgeable about the matter” but “who refuse to go on the record for fear of losing their jobs” and thus I am totally convinced that the allegations are manifestly true ’cause they say it is and despite denials from those involved ’cause we all know guilty people lie — a lot. Now, where is the Jack Daniels. I need more edu-macation!!

          1. Jack Daniels??? Yes, I love it, but Dear Old Jack was responsible for my little back injury in a bar a few years ago. Dang, but because of Jack I spent about four months in a rehab nursing home trying to get back on my feet. Which, would have not taken nearly that much time if the rehabbers hadn’t busted out my knee. But, I learned a lot about The Old Folks while I was there.

            Me and Jack have patched things up, but we are not as close as we once were. Plus, whiskey is not a good thing for girls, because it tends to make us mean.

            But Jack has a cousin, named Yukon Jack, who my crazy uncle introduced me to. I keep a bottle of it around for whenever I get croupy, because it is a liqueur and will stick to the back of your throat. All you need is about a tablespoon to clear you up.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. squeek re “whiskey is not a good thing for girls, because it tends to make us mean.” I thought it was just me! =) Have given up bourbon.

              1. LOL! I don’t know what it is, but I swear, all my girl friends are the same way. Now, if I drink too many Margies, or too much Franzia White Zin, I am just sort of laughy, and droopy. The same with White Russians, or various Vodka drinks. But Whiskey? Oh, then I want to fight people.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

          2. Like I said you are a propagandist though not a good one. I imagine you have never need successful in anything.

          3. Since the first report on Mueller is now verified by a second individual it good enough to go to press. Mueller confirmed all of this when he refused to respond.

  9. “Mueller can get this information because it is arguably material to the obstruction investigation. Many in Congress however will likely demand confirmation of McGahn account and whether he did threaten to resign to prevent this order from being carried out.”
    Did they rescind Attorney-Client privilege last night?

      1. From Wikipedia’s article on John Dean:

        [He] served as White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973.

        1. L4D:

          You’re living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Dean was questioned about a real provable crime – burglary – allegedly ordered/covered-up by his client, Nixon. There is a crime-fraud exception to any assertion of attorney-client privilege and thus Dean enthusiastically testified. There is no obstruction of justice in President Trump exercising a constitutionally accorded privilege of office (i.e. firing Mueller) since he has every legal right to do so and thus no predicate crime for waiver of the privilege. Thanks for letting me edify you once again. Can I charge tuition?

          1. Hey professor, if President Trump wanted to fire everyone in the FBI but didn’t on advise from counsel, has the President obstructed justice?

          2. Mespo,…
            It took a long time, and the realization that the ship was sinking, for Dean’s enthusiasm for testifying developed.😏
            He was up to his neck in the Watergate scandal, and he bailed when he saw the cover-up failing apart.

          3. Crime-fraud isn’t necessary for a White House counsel. Attorney-client privilege doesn’t protect a government lawyer in a grand jury investigation.

            Go ahead and forward me that tuition…

            1. I’d get a refund: bleigh:
              You need to get on the horn to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS. They’ve had it wrong since 1998! “PER CURIAM: In these expedited appeals, the principal question is whether an attorney in the Office of the President, having been called before a federal grand jury, may refuse, on the basis of a government attorney-client privilege, to answer questions about possible criminal conduct by government officials and others. …. The Supreme Court and this court have held that even the constitutionally based executive privilege for presidential communications fundamental to the operation of the government can be overcome upon a proper showing of need for the evidence in criminal trials and in grand jury proceedings. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 707-12 (1974)” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/ruling072798.htm

              1. Right…so crime-fraud isn’t necessary. (Dissent even notes that this would be a better way of handling than it!)

                Thanks for putting up the cite proving my point!

                1. English must be a second language. The privilege is ONLY overcome when a criminal investigation is involved. Lying makes your nose grow!

                  1. John Dean was questioned about a great many issues arising out of the Watergate burglary–not the least of which was the slush fund set up to pay for the legal defense and to support the wives and families of the Watergate burglars. Rumor has it that those questions posed to Dean and others went to a charge of obstruction of justice by means of witness tampering by way of bribing witnesses. Curious. Isn’t Esposito?

                  2. Another fold from Mespo. He’s happy to insult and call people liars, but strangely quiet when confronted with pesky facts.

                    1. I’m always happy to call you a liar since you’re a target rich environment. Plus I do live in your head. Just ask next time. As for facts, you oughta try it sometime.

                    2. TurleysLaw – you actually stated a fact somewhere? We all must have missed it. Please state it again.

          4. Mespo

            Nixon was removed in the next coup after the one on 11/22/63. Not enough space here to give you all of the details, but the authoritative book on the subject is “Silent Coup”, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin.
            John Dean was no angel and Bob Woodward was a key player in the coup.

            1. Tinfoil on sale down to the Piggly Wiggly.

              this is to “I’m off the grid” billie

                1. Dr. Schmachter says aluminum passes through the kidneys more easily than tin. So it stands to reason that tinfoil prevents microwave brainwashing better than aluminum foil. Otherwise, the brain damage from ingestion is about the same for both. So you should keep your hat on in either case.

      1. Oh PERSONAL matters there is not much of a privilege, but on GOVERNMENT matters, the jury is out on whether or not there is a privilege. Since this was a matter of governmental action, the privilege probably still holds. If this story was true, then McGahm gave legal advice to Trump, in his capacity as President, and that would probably be a matter of privilege.


        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    1. McGahn is not Trump’s personal attorney. He is the attorney for the Office of the President. Attorney-Client privilege doesn’t exist. Also if this story is true, it doesn’t matter whether he succeeded in firing Mueller. What matters is that he endeavored to do so.

      1. it doesn’t matter whether he succeeded in firing Mueller. What matters is that he endeavored to do so.


      2. bleigh:
        You need to get on the horn to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS. They’ve had it wrong since 1998! “PER CURIAM: In these expedited appeals, the principal question is whether an attorney in the Office of the President, having been called before a federal grand jury, may refuse, on the basis of a government attorney-client privilege, to answer questions about possible criminal conduct by government officials and others. …. The Supreme Court and this court have held that even the constitutionally based executive privilege for presidential communications fundamental to the operation of the government can be overcome upon a proper showing of need for the evidence in criminal trials and in grand jury proceedings. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 707-12 (1974)” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/ruling072798.htm

    2. Great point, and the first thing I thought of when the “McGahn must clear this up” meme started. And, even if McGahn did come out and confirm what Trump said, the Fake News/Democratic Propaganda crowd would claim that Mandy Rice-Davies applies, and that “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he. . .”

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    1. Nobody really.
      But we seem to care that other people seem to care.
      That alone seems to make us care.

      1. Gary T, the report is inconsistent with the notion that Trump has nothing to hide in the way of criminal culpability.

        1. Or maybe it’s not actually Trump who has the most to hide in the way of criminal culpability?

          1. You’re suggesting, perhaps, that Trump is “exercising” the powers of The POTUS in just such a way as to protect somebody else who might be culpable for a crime of some sort–possibly a close relative? Would Trump then possess knowledge of that other person’s crime–ex hypothesi?

            P. S. If the crime at issue were committed in New York, New York, then a pardon from Trump will not spare the person at issue from prosecution by the State of New York.

    1. Not bad for a libera version but not accurate and in any case this whole thing was six months ago mueller didnt get fired comey did get firfed and the rest is garbage. He didn’t try to fire Meuller He has every right to fire Meuller when he wants to as does any president if he tried to it would have beeninstant faxt. Ergo sum dimwit he didn’t try to .

      What NYT is tryiing to do is defelct from the investgations of real crimes that you socisalists are so afraid of …one hundred plus years of effort going down the toilet.whee it belongs

      1. I give up … rampant incompetence?

        this is to “but I’m not really deplorable” sharylie

        1. Marky Mark Mark – I know you are incompetent. I am amazed some law school let you out. And you are ignorant. Now, the ignorance can be overcome, however, I doubt you will do it since you are too proud to admit your ignorance.

    2. If you make 5 cups of very weak coffee, and then pour all the coffee into one big cup, it is still weak coffee.

      Plus, who gives a f*ck what Natasha Bertrand says??? I don’t even know who she is. You might as well quote any of the Liberal Straight Men/Women on FOXNews. They will always find something bad to say about Trump because that is what spin doctor/talking heads do.

      Shame on you for continuing to fall for it! You have more brains than that, and you should stop lying and deceiving people with Democratic Party Propaganda. That sort of stuff is meant to fool the Democratic Base, like the dark-skinned ones who loot shoes stores, and pop out a 75% illegitimate birth rate. Those are the people who are your Political Comrades, who think like you. Doesn’t that disturb you a little???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

        1. Have you always hated “dark-skinned ones”?

          How do you know she’s not motivated by love? If she hated them, wouldn’t she be motivated to remain silent or worse, encourage them to continue supporting policies that destroy their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

        2. Do you hate the dark-sinned ones”??? If not, why do you keep silent about the 75% black illegitimate birth rate, and all the bad things that flow from that? If not, why do you leap to their “defense” in all things, whether they are responsible for the thing, or not— and think they should be treated like a bunch of retards who are incapable of managing their own lives??? And, in not, why won’t you take the first step in fixing things, which is to admit that blacks are responsible for their own stupid, violent, savage, dysfunctional culture.

          I submit that you are simply projecting your own racism onto me,

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. sf,

            “America is Bankrupt and Republicans Couldn’t Care Less
            These poseurs of fiscal responsibility are about to drive up debt to its highest levels since World War

            The United States is effectively bankrupt, but that doesn’t matter to the GOP. Once evangelists of fiscal responsibility and scourges of deficit spending, Republicans today glory in spilling red ink. The national debt is now $20.6 trillion, greater than the annual GDP of about $19.5 trillion. Alas, with Republicans at the helm, deficits are set to continue racing upwards, apparently without end.”
            Obama was more hard right wing than Trump. E.G.
            Obama deported more immigrants than Trump has
            Obama started – how many wars…for Israel?
            Obama overthrew HOW many democratically elected governments?

            You want more?


            1. For once, you’re right! Problem is, the Democrats don’t care either. The REAL deficit is closer to $100 Trillion, which deficit we supposedly are going to fix by taxing millions of unskilled Mexicans and Muslims. Don’t hold your breath!

              Like I told someone the other day, the Deficit will be fixed by monetizing the debt. We will have some inflation, but we will survive. The Federal Reserve System has become unworkable, and ties the economy to the pocketbooks of the rich.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. sf

                No. I provide references for what I write. YOU do…sometimes, because you are so uninformed and you try to be cutesy in hopes people won’t realize how uninformed you are.

            2. Oh, and this bubble has become unworkable, too. From a comment I made on another website:

              Cute song! Oh, and another bubble, The Gender and Abortion Bubble!

              In the West, Abortion has become a sacred right, and Gender Confusion is rained down upon the populace from the Ivory Towers, and Main Stream Media.Along with a complete disdain of Religion.

              As a result of several decades of this, the demographics of the West have become scary, and are falling below the 2.2 brats/women standard to maintain the population level.

              What to do??? Make abortion illegal, and quit conflating sodomy with the kind of sex that makes babies??? Quit whining and making fun about Religion??? Oh, Hell No! Instead, The Powers That Be have decided to import millions of religiously conservative immigrants, who in their benighted ignorance still just f*ck and make babies! Yes, that’s the ticket!

              Bring in millions of people who never listened to the idiots at Harvard and who never read The New York Times to put things right. That, instead of simply putting the Idiots at Harvard and the New York Times in Gitmo as weapons of mass destruction.

              Hilarious, in a morbid sort of way!

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

        3. You are just now asking? That train left the station long ago. Squeek is the propaganda arm of the local klavern.

      1. Don’t know Natasha Bertrand ??? The veritable Woodward and Bernstein of our time is a twenty-something prodigy from Vassar who knows everything there is to know about law and policy and even politics.(I can only wonder in awe about her cutting edge views on fashion and Parcheesi blockade strategies). She was so erudite, in fact, that Ty Cobb, in response to yet another uniquely insightful question about the obvious Trump-Russian collusion connection asked her “do you read anything else. Are you on drugs?” Touche’!

        1. 24 years old and making a name for herself; you on the other, trolling for pennies, how do you make ends meet?

          1. The fact that you give Natasha any credibility at all, speaks volumes about your lack of intelligence. As if every word that proceeds from your mouth didn’t already do the same thing.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

          2. “Making a name for herself” LOL That’s all that matters to you people. Famous for being famous – that about sums up 99% of the so-called experts and moderators on the Lame Stream Media including the Tawk Shows. 0 talent, 0 integrity but lots of monetary rewards.

            1. Haha. He said “integrity.” You forfeited that complaint.

              this is to “so character isn’t really that important to me anymore” autumnie

              1. Marky Mark Mark – tonight you really have diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain. No good porn?

        2. ROTFLMAO!!!

          Sooo, she’s the new Sandra Flake, who was in her 20s and in college, and who couldn’t figure out how to fund a pack of rubbers, yet was deemed brilliant enough by the Democrats to speak at their convention.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Having a warm body makes one overqualified in some organizations; overqualified yet certainly not under represented.

    3. Where’s the accusation/evidence of Trump making a super secret deal with Putin to sell out the US? Have you dropped that ridiculous accusation? You don’t have a leg to stand on.

  10. Funny how you wrote about this, but not about the growing number of text messages from Bonnie and Clyde that support the claim that the Comey lied and Hillary was allowed to skate clean.

    1. I thought it was telegrams back then. Bonnie and Clyde must have been one of the early adopters of text messages it seems.

      1. Actually, back in those days, you could send short distance messages with a Tommy Gun, in Morse Code. I heard that Machine Gun Kelly had it down to an art, but that the other members of his gang didn’t understand Morse Code, which led to his arrest.

        –. — . -. –. — . -. -.-. …. . . … . / .. –

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Interesting. It only begs to imagine using machine guns in a network protocol. I envision transmissions becoming increasingly asynchronous and TTL (Time To Live) taking on an entirely new meaning.

  11. Well, now we know it didn’t happen. Trump has denied it. So, it is a denial by the President versus vague sources in the WH. Who should we listen to?

        1. That’s true. And if they all work at the White House, then The White House managed to keep the story from being leaked for seven months. Will wonders never cease?

        2. Paul:

          Stop with your logic and demanding proof and, god forbid, consistency in proof standards. The narrative is: Trump bad; Media good. Try not to upset Perpetually Late to the Party’s apple cart again. Big Brother knows, heads will roll.

          1. If Trump has nothing to hide in the way of criminal culpability, then why even contemplate firing someone who is investigating “a made up story? Fake news? The greatest political witch-hunt in history???”

            1. Well for starters and off the top of my head, because: he’s guilty of conflicts of interest; he’s made terrible partisan hires; he’s spending millions and getting nothing after almost a year of trying; he can’t control leaks; he got turned down for Comey’s job by Trump. Oh the list is endless.

              1. Getting nothing after eight months?? Are you being regularly briefed by the Mueller team?

                And how do you know it’s his team that’s leaking??

                Oh, I guess you’re just making stuff up.

                1. Uh, because if there was any “there” there, it would have been leaked. Plus, the entire “Russian Collusion” meme is ridiculous on the very face of it!

                  Suppose, there was a special prosecutor appointed to see if the Moon Landings were real, or simply staged somewhere on Earth. The special prosecutor would probably drag it out for several years, because he and his buds are getting a government pay check, and expenses. Plus, they would have to catalogue the entire NASA history to make the Report very conclusive, and that would take years.

                  In the meantime, do you think that smart people would be sitting around waiting for the Final Report??? Do you think that smart people would point to the lack of a briefing as proof that there was some “There”, there???

                  Because only people like you would think the issue was still open.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Lunar Reporter

                2. No I can read and count indictments plus I know how a prosecution team works. No information gets out except what they want to get out. How’s come the notorious lovers emails and texts weren’t released by the Mueller team but by the OIG? ‘Cause it would show the Mueller’s team bias! But everything against Trump was out like a sieve. You guess why

              2. And as usual wrong. I doubt if Manafort, Flynn, etc. think so. Lucky for you, you are integrity free – a must for any thuglican troll.

            2. That’s like asking “If the accused witches had nothing to hide, why would they be upset with their accusers?”

                1. Mespo,..
                  I think about 90% of the accused witches were cleared, c.10% executed.
                  For some reason, even the ones who were cleared were unhappy with their accusers and prosecuters.☺

                    1. And you would have been a persecutor not a friend to the accused, what happened? Orders from above, got it.

              1. Admittedly, Trump has accused Mueller of being a witch-hunter. But of what, exactly, has Mueller accused Trump? Do you see how it works Nash? Until the witch-hunter actually accuses Trump of being a witch, Trump’s complaint against the witch-hunter is just another whiny, cry-baby, little school-girl-wallowing-in-self-pity plea for someone to rid Trump of that meddlesome Special Counsel.

                For if Trump truly has nothing to hide, then Mueller is Trump’s best friend forever.

            3. Frustration perhaps? I would be cussing like a longshoreman….. Trump is a bonehead, and a bullheaded businessman, not a died in the wool politician.

              These insinuations are from cobras that are leaking stories to suit their own agendas. Not the least of which is likely bounties paid by the television and newspapers.

              This very chain of comments has people that have managed to twist the Hillary/Email/Russia joke into an intent statement! NOONE who seriously wanted to accomplish this task would have broadcast the request on a recorded videotaped speech. Unbelievable…..

        3. There’s an ole country saying that you types probably should know; bumpkins swear by homespun homilies.
          “If three people call it a horse, go buy a saddle.”

          this is to “I’ll say I believe until the end” paulie – georgie

          1. Marky Mark Mark – if four anonymous sources from the WH call it a horse, I wouldn’t put my money on it winning any races.

      1. Neither wass the NHYTimes at any time nor will he be when he brings Mueller in and we’ll see if Meuller has a job after that.

      1. Souces, sites, cites, facts or as usual just lefti wing liberal fascist socialist darwinist bull shit? Put up or shut up. and you look foolish playing theclow to massa donlt you think just a bit foolsih.

      2. Enigma, what an ignorant statement. The attorney wasn’t fired. Do you think the attorney broke attorney-client privilege and went to the press? If so he should be fired and lose his license to practice law. This is a total non-issue where as usual you vent your personal disjointed hatred. Trump had a right to fire Mueller.

        1. Rich and amusing. Just keep saying it’s a non-issue. Oh, and just click your heels and it will all go away.

          This is to “I have ‘Hannity’ tattooed across my lower back” allan

          1. Once again Mark demonstrates his ignorance. The attorney is still in the White House. There is a form of attorney-client privilege even in the White House otherwise the President would be reluctant to seek legal advice.

            Mark knows little about the law, but a lot of paper cuts and filing papers. What has Mark added to any conversation? Absolutely nothing except to display his ignorance.

    1. pcs,

      surely you don’t really believe most of what you post about the con man named Trump, do you?

      1. billmcwiliams – I believe it as much as you believe what you post. 😉

Comments are closed.