Robert Mueller should step aside: Friends shouldn’t be investigating friends

[Steve_S]

1 minute ago, missmuffet said:

Steve did you vote for Donald Trump? Do you support Donald Trump as our President?

What does that have to do with anything, miss? You made a claim that "high up" people who know more than "we" do have suspicions. I'm simply asking you who these people are and what party they are affiliated with. That is a reasonable question. Why reply by asking me who I voted for? I didn't ask you. The statements you made were about people in washington. You say people are suspicious. I just want to know who you are talking about specifically. Is it out of bounds to ask someone to clarify a statement on here now?

[missmuffet]

42 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

What does that have to do with anything, miss? You made a claim that "high up" people who know more than "we" do have suspicions. I'm simply asking you who these people are and what party they are affiliated with. That is a reasonable question. Why reply by asking me who I voted for? I didn't ask you. The statements you made were about people in washington. You say people are suspicious. I just want to know who you are talking about specifically. Is it out of bounds to ask someone to clarify a statement on here now?

It would be nice to know where you stand. You seem to work as a mediator. I post something and then you post a reply. So you would rather not tell me who you voted for and who you support? That is your choice. 

I will eat crow and I will apologize to each and every one of the Trump supporters when all the information is out if my suspicions are wrong and if there is any evidence that comes out that says Comey or any other person who testifies is lying. I am opened minded and I sure like to see both sides before I come to a conclusion. I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt but I will need to see the hard evidence. Either way.

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, missmuffet said:

It would be nice to know where you stand. You seem to work as a mediator. I post something and then you post a reply. So you would rather not tell me who you voted for and who you support? That is your choice. 

I will eat crow and I will apologize to each and every one of the Trump supporters when all the information is out if my suspicions are wrong and if there is any evidence that comes out that says Comey or any other person who testifies is lying. I am opened minded and I sure like to see both sides before I come to a conclusion. I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt but I will need to see the hard evidence. Either way.

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, missmuffet said:

They have excess to more information than we do. We just do not know the whole picture. Time will tell. If good hard evidence is there it will be known. If there is nothing at all and people are imagining all of this then why all the concern?

Because three investigations have turned up nothing.  There is no evidence.   When you investigate someone, hoping to find evidence, it's called a "witch hunt."

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, missmuffet said:

 

I will eat crow and I will apologize to each and every one of the Trump supporters when all the information is out if my suspicions are wrong and if there is any evidence that comes out that says Comey or any other person who testifies is lying.

I don't think that will be the case.   Three investigations have not turned up any evidence. Two hearings have not turned up any evidence and both hearings have vindicated Trump's side of the story, and you're still not convinced.

You don't call a special counsel investigation unless you have evidence of that someone broke the law.   There is no evidence that Trump broke the law.  The special counsel was not called because of evidence, but is based on suspicion and that is something we would see happen in North Korea or some other dictatorship.   That is not how it is supposed to work in the US, but that is kind of communistic despotism that the enemy has resorted to.  

Maxine Waters and other radical Leftists were literally calling for the impeachment of Trump before the inauguration and just after the inauguration.   This impeachment talk was never based on evidence on wrongdoing but on a irrational, virulent and violent hatred of Trump.

[Anonymous Aristotle]

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller barely has gotten off the ground, and already there is a stench.

That stench was created by former FBI Director James Comey, who admitted in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that he leaked, through a friend, memoranda purporting to document improper conversations between Donald Trump and Comey. Most important among those conversations was a February 14, 2017, one-on-one meeting in which Trump supposedly told Comey that Trump “hoped” that Comey would see fit to “let go” of the investigation into Michael Flynn.

As described in Comey’s prepared statement (emphasis added):

 

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” I replied only that “he is a good guy.” (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would “let this go.”

Comey’s version of that conversation was leaked to the NY Times, though the precise timing is disputed. Comey asserted in his testimony that the leak came only after Trump tweeted: “James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

Trump’s attorney claims the leak came days earlier, as NY Times reporting contained language strikingly to the leaked memo as conveyed by Comey’s law professor friend to the NY Times.

Regardless of the timing, Comey says that he leaked the memoranda in order to create a need for a Special Counsel.

COMEY: I asked — the president tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there’s not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night because it didn’t dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation. There might a tape. My judgment was, I need to get that out into the public square. I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons. I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I asked a close friend to do it.

That Special Counsel was appointed just a few days after the Comey-contrived leaks.

By the Order from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Mueller includes within his jurisdiction “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” Comey testified that he believes Mueller is evaluating the communications between Comey and Trump with regard to potential obstruction of justice. Indeed, Comey expressed certainty in his testimony that the Special Counsel was investigating Comey’s conversations with Trump:

COMEY: … I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct. I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that’s a conclusion I’m sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that’s an offense.

What started as concerns over Russian interference in the election now is about the interactions between Comey and Trump.

CBS News reported that Mueller reportedly gave approval for Comey to testify before Congress and that the testimony was coordinated. Comey testified that he was permitted to review his memos in preparation of his written opening statement for the Committee submitted the day before his live testimony:

COMEY: Yes. I think nearly all of my written recordings of my conversations, I had a chance to review them before filing my statement.

LANKFORD: Do you have a copy of any of the notes personally?

COMEY: I don’t. I turned them over to Bob Mueller’s investigators.

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered about how Rod Rosenstein came to appoint Mueller in those few days after the Comey leak, and whether Comey and Mueller, directly or indirectly, had any communications regarding Trump prior to Mueller’s appointment.

Regardless, we now have the prospect of the Special Counsel investigating and necessarily assigning credibility (or lack thereof) to witnesses, including Comey.

There is a problem here that goes beyond their long professional interactions.  In 2013, The Washingtonian described the close professional history, Forged Under Fire—Bob Mueller and Jim Comey’s Unusual Friendship.

The Boston Globe reported on May 20, 2017, that the men considered themselves friends, Comey, Mueller have been allies, and now spotlight is on them:

The two men have had similar careers. Both have been top federal prosecutors. Both have been FBI directors. Several people who know both men say they respect each other.

“Clearly it’s a relationship based on professional colleagues, initially. But I think they would consider themselves friends,” said John Pistole, who worked for Mueller as deputy director of the FBI and also knows Comey. “Mueller is a mentor of sorts to Comey.”

Whether they were just close professional friends, or consider themselves personally friendly, the fact is that they are not at arms length. This relationship, at least as reported, appears to be much more than the routine interactions you might expect two law enforcement officers to have had in the regular course of business.

Something doesn’t seem right here. Comey manipulated the system into getting his friend appointed Special Counsel, and now that friend will be investigating matters in which Comey is a key witness. More than that, Comey’s own actions in leaking government property raise legal issues as to whether Comey himself violated the law.

Even assuming Mueller is able to separate his past with Comey from his present investigation, that relationship damages the whole purpose of having a Special Counsel who is completely independent in fact and appearance.

In a truly independent investigation, friends shouldn’t be investigating friends. Mueller should step aside to remove the taint on the Special Counsel investigation created by friend and witness James Comey.

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/robert-mueller-should-step-aside-friends-shouldnt-be-investigating-friends/

Is Comey credible when he makes the claim about president Trump and general Flynn? 

And yes, it is a conflict of interest that Mueller is investigating any of this. 

Comey was a prosecutor and he well knows the law. That would mean he knew he was violating federal laws when he leaked his memo's through a third party to avoid detection and guilt. 

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Is Comey credible when he makes the claim about president Trump and general Flynn? 

And yes, it is a conflict of interest that Mueller is investigating any of this. 

Comey was a prosecutor and he well knows the law. That would mean he knew he was violating federal laws when he leaked his memo's through a third party to avoid detection and guilt. 

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. 

Exactly.  But they are hell bent on destroying Trump at any cost and they will violate any law they have to violate in and every standard of ethics, in order to get it done.

[Anonymous Aristotle]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

Exactly.  But they are hell bent on destroying Trump at any cost and they will violate any law they have to violate in order to get it done.

Which would prove they as dedicated openly public law breakers are deeply corrupt for twisting the law in order to destroy an innocent man. 

He's not one of them and he doesn't play their games. That's why they hate him. He can't be persuaded to turn on the American people because he's very rich and patriotic. And they're not. He must be destroyed. 

I so hope this backfires. Because the death threats that are reported and supported as free speech would have never ever been allowed when any other president was in office. And certainly not when Obama was in residence for eight years. This whole thing is a shame filled display of one segment of the American population and the depths to which they will plummet to turn on their own president.

 In the 21st century world media reports a segment of America is so backwards that they cheer the death of their own president arguing he is deserving because lies made him guilty for being innocent, Christian, rich, and uncorrupted. 

They all need Jesus! And president Trump needs even more of God's protection than what currently surrounds him. Please Lord, don't let the wicked win. 

[Steve_S]

11 hours ago, missmuffet said:

It would be nice to know where you stand. You seem to work as a mediator. I post something and then you post a reply. So you would rather not tell me who you voted for and who you support? That is your choice. 

I will eat crow and I will apologize to each and every one of the Trump supporters when all the information is out if my suspicions are wrong and if there is any evidence that comes out that says Comey or any other person who testifies is lying. I am opened minded and I sure like to see both sides before I come to a conclusion. I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt but I will need to see the hard evidence. Either way.

I am not going to disclose my vote to you. There are things trump has done that I like and things that he has done that I do not like. I attempt to approach politics in as dispassionate a manner as possible. I am definitely conservative in my political leanings, borderline libertarian on some things.

As far as politicians, trump included, i support their policies as long as their policies align with what i believe to be good government. I try not to get caught up in the "who is the man" part of it, because it is nearly impossible to ascertain that through all of the noise. All you can really go off of is their record on actions, particularly legislative and foreign policy actions that directly affect our lives as citizens. I'm not saying that the person behind the policies doesn't matter, insofar as who a person is makes it easier to predict what actions they may take. Some things, for me, are deal breakers. For instance, support of abortion. I won't vote for someone who supports abortion, period, in much the same way that I would not vote for someone who wanted to legalize killing children who are already born or killing people who are already adults.

As far as trump, I like that he nominated gorsuch to the supreme court. I like that he does not typically abide politically correct rules that have generally been promulgated by liberals from both sides of the aisle with the intent of stifling free speech and public discourse, as opposed to maintaining decency and decorum in public discourse, which has been the traditional function of political correctness in free societies. I like some of his domestic and foreign policies. His approach to some issues concerns me, such as the manner in which he seems to regularly vacillate on support of Israel, among others.

As far as the trump/comey situation. I really could care less about it until somebody presents some hard evidence that something happened. Unless that happens, I have no reason to believe it did. The general tendency in our society writ large has always been to await evidence before making stoneclad allegations. That has changed significantly over the past few years, but that is no excuse for how things are going now. I frankly believe that most from one party and some from another would be just fine with trump being removed using no evidence or even manufactured evidence. I am not leveling that accusation at anyone here, but mainly making it with regards to politicians and journalists. When that attitude is taken towards anyone, I am generally distrustful of anything that comes out that is not hard and explicit evidence of wrongdoing. I would feel the same way if this were about obama or bush or clinton or anyone else, even though I significantly disagree with the policies of two of those men and disagree with a lot of policies of the other. Trump was legally elected to the presidency here and if we start attempting to remove people who are legitimately elected simply because we do not like their policies, and I really genuinely detest some of these guys' policies, then our republic is on the road to self-destruction, because the system and the vote will become secondary to emotional whim, such as anger and frustration that one party defeated another, and the results of national elections could no longer be trusted. Doing everything you can to remove a president with an 'at all costs, by any means necessary' mentality, is walking dangerously close to a line that we have never crossed as a nation, not even during the civil war. The only president that has resigned in disgrace over the past century is nixon, and it took the release of actual audio tapes for the coverage and attitude to get to the fever-pitch it has already reached with regards to trump, and this is with individual after individual claiming under oath that there is no evidence of his involvement with anything to do with coordinating with the russians. There is a just-fired fbi director, who is quite obviously not very sympathetic to the current president, nor trusting of him, basically saying that there wasn't even enough reason to peripherally investigate trump's involvement.

This is some of how i view the world and some of how i view trump, since you asked.

Now, as I answered your question. I am still wondering, what "high up" officials have these suspicions that are so worthy of consideration?

[missmuffet]

9 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I don't think that will be the case.   Three investigations have not turned up any evidence. Two hearings have not turned up any evidence and both hearings have vindicated Trump's side of the story, and you're still not convinced.

You don't call a special counsel investigation unless you have evidence of that someone broke the law.   There is no evidence that Trump broke the law.  The special counsel was not called because of evidence, but is based on suspicion and that is something we would see happen in North Korea or some other dictatorship.   That is not how it is supposed to work in the US, but that is kind of communistic despotism that the enemy has resorted to.  

Maxine Waters and other radical Leftists were literally calling for the impeachment of Trump before the inauguration and just after the inauguration.   This impeachment talk was never based on evidence on wrongdoing but on a irrational, virulent and violent hatred of Trump.

Time will tell there is still a lot of investigation that will be done.