If the Republican Senate refuses to acknowledge...

[RiverDog]

Nice to see him (Bush) taking a shot at the punk (Trump).

One of the more interesting dynamics in the post Trump presidency will be how Trump interacts with his fellow former POTUS's. As far as I can tell, the 4 living former POTUS's seem to get along very well together, as has past POTUS's in their retirements. Carter and Ford, for example, once bitter rivals, cooperated on several projects and seemed to develop a genuine friendship. I can't envision Trump having anywhere near the kind of relationship that other former Presidents have enjoyed with each other.

[Aseahawkfan]

One of the more interesting dynamics in the post Trump presidency will be how Trump interacts with his fellow former POTUS's. As far as I can tell, the 4 living former POTUS's seem to get along very well together, as has past POTUS's in their retirements. Carter and Ford, for example, once bitter rivals, cooperated on several projects and seemed to develop a genuine friendship. I can't envision Trump having anywhere near the kind of relationship that other former Presidents have enjoyed with each other.

That narcissistic scumbag can't share the spotlight with anyone. He doesn't know how to do it. The man put his name on stimulus checks as a priority to try to create the illusion he was sending them the money rather than the tax money collected from working Americans was being sent to them as emergency stimulus to help the nation. I don't picture him doing well either. He's too much of a selfish, narcissistic windbag.

It's unfortunate that far too many people who voted for him continue to believe his lies about election fraud that undermine our Democracy even now that even the Senate has signaled they have no reason to investigate. Trump doesn't know when to do what is best for anyone else but himself. Too many Americans are unable to go, "Wait a minute. This man is acting like an autocrat. I was wrong to vote for him. He is an evil, selfish man." That's the pig-headed human part where some people can't admit when they're wrong and change their position. They would let Trump jail people against him while justifying it.

It goes to show you how even in the modern day, humans are quite capable of the kind of mass self-delusion that leads to human tragedy. But fortunately our leadership and institutions stood strong again including even the majority of the Senate who finally decided, "You are not worth tearing American apart for." It's too bad 70% of Trump voters can't make the same sensible decision as they wait for someone to set this off.

[I-5]

Every year in Seattle during Mayday heightened security is out watching for Antifa and Anarchist protesters who vandalize property and attack companies in the City of Seattle. Who is radicalizing them?

Where on earth did you get the idea that Anarchists are part of the left? As far as I know, they aren't part of anything except themselves. We could just as well say they're part of the right, and it would have just as much significance. Anarchasts are by definition skeptical of all authority. They certainly don't support any political party that I know of.

As for Antifa, the ones that are looting don't seem to be an actual part of a political protest either...and why are most of them that I've seen happen to be white? They seem more like opportunists, as I don't see them taking a stand and articulating any positions that they believe in. They bother me as much as Alt Right groups. Does anyone know who speaks for them? The term has been used and abused in recent times, as the real Anti-Fascists are the heros that fought and died against the Nazis in WW2.

[Aseahawkfan]

Where on earth did you get the idea that Anarchists are part of the left? As far as I know, they aren't part of anything except themselves. We could just as well say they're part of the right, and it would have just as much significance. Anarchasts are by definition skeptical of all authority. They certainly don't support any political party that I know of.

As for Antifa, the ones that are looting don't seem to be an actual part of a political protest either...and why are most of them that I've seen happen to be white? They seem more like opportunists, as I don't see them taking a stand and articulating any positions that they believe in. They bother me as much as Alt Right groups. Does anyone know who speaks for them? The term has been used and abused in recent times, as the real Anti-Fascists are the heros that fought and died against the Nazis in WW2.

Ok. So why do you think white supremacists are part of the right when no one on the mainstream right likes them? Because anarchists, antifa, or whatever you want to call them are anti-corporate and viewed as part of the far left.

Unless you're allowing each side to discard their extreme members who don't represent what they stand for?

[I-5]

Unless you're allowing each side to discard their extreme members who don't represent what they stand for?

Only one minor difference: white supremacists support Trump wholeheartedly, show up at Trump rallies wearing MAGA hats and confederate flags, etc. Anarchists don't support Biden (or anyone), and I have yet to hear anyone from Antifa speak, let alone show support for Biden.

But to your point, I wish more mainstream conservatives would be more harsh against extremes, that goes for both left and right. That would be good for the country.

[RiverDog]

Only one minor difference: white supremacists support Trump wholeheartedly, show up at Trump rallies wearing MAGA hats and confederate flags, etc. Anarchists don't support Biden (or anyone), and I have yet to hear anyone from Antifa speak, let alone show support for Biden.

Trump is an anomaly within the Republican party. At least for those at the top of their ticket, ie Reagan, the two Bushes, McCain, and Romney...Trump is the only one not to come out and vehemently reject white supremacy.

Having said that, I think it's a fair to assume that the hard core WSE, if forced to choose between a Republican or a Democrat, would choose the Republican. But I also think it fair to say that the hard core anarchist, if given the same choice, would choose the Democrat.

But to your point, I wish more mainstream conservatives would be more harsh against extremes, that goes for both left and right. That would be good for the country.

And I wish more mainstream liberals would have been more harsh against extremes under their tent. The much discussed Socialist Seattle City Councilwoman, Kshama Sawant, for example, has been endorsed by several Democrats and has aligned herself with many of the same objectives embraced by the Democratic party. I have not heard a peep out of Democrats concerning some of her outrageous behavior.

[I-5]

Having said that, I think it's a fair to assume that the hard core WSE, if forced to choose between a Republican or a Democrat, would choose the Republican. But I also think it fair to say that the hard core anarchist, if given the same choice, would choose the Democrat.

Pretty much agree, but the thing is with most WSE, you don't have to force them...they've been pretty vocal about supporting Trump, because he's the first one at the national level who truly speaks for them. I can't imagine an anarchist ever saying anything approving about a mainstream leader. They are there to destroy society as we know it.

[RiverDog]

Having said that, I think it's a fair to assume that the hard core WSE, if forced to choose between a Republican or a Democrat, would choose the Republican. But I also think it fair to say that the hard core anarchist, if given the same choice, would choose the Democrat.

Pretty much agree, but the thing is with most WSE, you don't have to force them...they've been pretty vocal about supporting Trump, because he's the first one at the national level who truly speaks for them. I can't imagine an anarchist ever saying anything approving about a mainstream leader. They are there to destroy society as we know it.

Perhaps not an anarchist, but certainly hard core extreme socialists have said very approving things about mainstream Democratic leaders like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (Sawant, for example).

But I do agree 100% with you about Donald Trump.

[c_hawkbob]

Quit with associating anarchists with the left already! You're only doing it because the Right wing talking heads have recently.

Anarchists by definition are antigovernment! No left, no right, NO CONTROL at all! That's what anarchy is! They hate democrats, republicans, independents, green, tea, green tea, monarchy, dictators, communists, fascists, popes, bishops, monks, evangelists ... anyone that wants to exercise any measure of control at all equally.

[Aseahawkfan]

Only one minor difference: white supremacists support Trump wholeheartedly, show up at Trump rallies wearing MAGA hats and confederate flags, etc. Anarchists don't support Biden (or anyone), and I have yet to hear anyone from Antifa speak, let alone show support for Biden.

But to your point, I wish more mainstream conservatives would be more harsh against extremes, that goes for both left and right. That would be good for the country.

Whatever they are or term themselves or what not, they attack corporations in Washington State and are considered on the left.

Regardless, people on the left and right need to jettison their extreme morons. These loons are tiresome.

[Aseahawkfan]

Quit with associating anarchists with the left already! You're only doing it because the Right wing talking heads have recently.

Anarchists by definition are antigovernment! No left, no right, NO CONTROL at all! That's what anarchy is! They hate democrats, republicans, independents, green, tea, green tea, monarchy, dictators, communists, fascists, popes, bishops, monks, evangelists ... anyone that wants to exercise any measure of control at all equally.

No. That is not why I do it. You have been away from Washington State a long time c-bob. I don't know what these folks are to be honest. Sometimes they are called Antifa, sometimes Anarchists, sometimes socialists, and sometimes some other name. Without giving more information, every year we have to prepare for their attacks on corporations backed up by members of the Seattle City Council (specifically Sawant for the past 3 or 4 years being the loudest voice) leading demonstrations against corporations in Seattle.

It's tiresome. They are on the left and seem to be aligned with socialist groups. I do not know about them because of talking heads on channels I don't watch and hear about only from friends. I don't have regular television (cable or network news) and get no news from watching TV news channels.

I have to learn about these Seattle groups for my work. They are aligned with the left. They are extremist. They seem to have many different names. They attack corporations as a show of resistance to the corporate tyranny as they term it. They cause property damage and are known to possibly be interested in doing worse. It costs companies and cities extra money to account for them. Usually happens around Mayday on a yearly basis.

I don't see them acknowledged much by the left wing media. And extremist Democrats or leftists or whatever you want to call them support these groups in Seattle and Portland. They do exist. They are deemed dangerous. They are not talked about much in the public discourse for reasons I can only surmise is bias. They were involved in the takeover of the city blocks in Seattle and it is believed Sawant may have let them into City Hall. They have been a continuous problem where I live and very annoying. It's why people like RD and myself have issues with Democrats because some the ones in Washington State are pretty terrible.

[c_hawkbob]

You don't know what you're talking about. An anarchist is an anarchist whether in Seattle, NYC, London or Hong Kong. The definition doesn't change regionally. It's just something you like calling the left because you've heard others do so. They're wrong too.

[I-5]

Whatever they are or term themselves or what not, they attack corporations in Washington State and are considered on the left.

Just because you or anyone considers anarchists to be left, does not make it true! That's like if I consider a Sikh to be Muslim because they both wear something on their head, that's ignorance on my part, but it doesn't make it true. I understand perception is reality for most, but it can't be an excuse. That's the ultimate fake news.

[Aseahawkfan]

You don't know what you're talking about. An anarchist is an anarchist whether in Seattle, NYC, London or Hong Kong. The definition doesn't change regionally. It's just something you like calling the left because you've heard others do so. They're wrong too.

I more than explained the problem to you. These are leftist groups causing issues in Seattle and Portland. If you want to ignore them and pretend only the right has extremist groups as part of their make up, you go ahead and live in fantasy land like it appears you do. I'm telling you what we deal with in Washington State that I have to account for in my profession on a yearly basis and the various names they go by.

[Aseahawkfan]

Just because you or anyone considers anarchists to be left, does not make it true! That's like if I consider a Sikh to be Muslim because they both wear something on their head, that's ignorance on my part, but it doesn't make it true. I understand perception is reality for most, but it can't be an excuse. That's the ultimate fake news.

See the response to c-bob.

I don't really care if you and c-bob want to believe there are no leftist extremist groups out there. You two can have at it. I know they exist. I know many of the names they go by as I have no choice but to learn them. Whether they're anarchists or what not is irrelevant as they cause trouble in places like Seattle and Portland on a yearly basis and have to be dealt with.

You two keep on being dumb as dirt and believing that this left and right thing is just conservatives making crap up like it seems you and c-bob seem intent on pushing.

Like I said, when each side refuses to see what the other side is talking about, you got nowhere to go with it. That's where we're at. I don't think I have ever seen you or c-bob or really many Democrats acknowledge the problems with their party of choice or their philosophy. Then again conservatives don't either, which is why we're at this spot.

We'll see where end of that road leads as I don't see it going anywhere good.

[RiverDog]

Like other individuals or groups, anarchists will associate with a philosophy or politician that happens to share a common interest with them. If Democrats or leftists are anti big business, then since anarchists are also anti big business (along with being anti everything else), they'll jump in bed with them, at least when it comes to activities involving opposition to big business. This summer's CHAZ or takeover of Capital Hill in Seattle is an example of anarchists teaming up with leftists advocating the defunding of the police.

The same thing happens when a right wing cause happen to align with that of an anarchist. The case against those accused of the kidnapping plot of MI Governor Widmer is a good example of an anarchist joining up with a right wing group as a matter of convenience:

President Donald Trump has come under fire from critics who say he helped inspire an alleged plan to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, but while two of the alleged plotters posted pro-Trump social media messages, one member of their group thinks the president is "a tyrant," according to a viral video.

Whitmer, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, Democratic U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Detroit and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden are among those who argue Trump is in part to blame for the alleged kidnapping plot because they said he didn't do enough to condemn white supremacists.

But a video circulating online shows accused plotter Brandon Caserta in front of an anarchist flag railing against Trump.

Caserta, 32, of Canton Township appears in other videos complaining about the government and posted inflammatory messages on Facebook, including one in which he asks whether it's all right to "initiate violence" against non-violent people.

In a viral video being shared by conservative music producer Robby Starbuck, Caserta says, "Trump is not your friend, dude. It amazes me that people actually, like, believe that when he’s shown over and over and over again that he’s a tyrant. Every single person that works for government is your enemy, dude.”

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 940296002/

[c_hawkbob]

You don't know what you're talking about. An anarchist is an anarchist whether in Seattle, NYC, London or Hong Kong. The definition doesn't change regionally. It's just something you like calling the left because you've heard others do so. They're wrong too.

I more than explained the problem to you. These are leftist groups causing issues in Seattle and Portland.

I understand and I am not refuting it one bit, I have not commented one way or the other about that because I mostly know of it what I read here and am not going to pretend to have a better understanding of it than you all do.

If you want to ignore them and pretend only the right has extremist groups as part of their make up, you go ahead and live in fantasy land like it appears you do.

Oh get over yourself. I've never said anything close to that. Not once. I've always said either extreme is dangerous. I'm strictly arguing the definition of the word anarchist.

[I-5]

The same thing happens when a right wing cause happen to align with that of an anarchist. The case against those accused of the kidnapping plot of MI Governor Widmer is a good example of an anarchist joining up with a right wing group as a matter of convenience:

Great point.

[Hawktawk]

These folks believe you are the enemy of America as much as you believe they are the enemy of America.

Its somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 million who *think * Trump won Which is BS. They know he's lost. They dont care. Its how cults are. But not all trump voters are on board. Around 25% of republican trump supporters actually believe Biden won. Id like to be a fly on the wall as those families digest what they are seeing on TV.

As to this statement here someone's right and someone's wrong. They are wrong, deluded, insane.They hate america if they still support this man 6 weeks after an election. I dont care how much money they have , what their IQ they are out of their ever loving minds. I dont care about their socialism bad but fascist good argument.They are unpatriotic traitors to america.

A little meat on the bone with this terrifying hack and Drumphs dismissal of it and accusation of China. The man is truly a russian asset. Forget compromised. He's an active russian agent. He should be locked up right now.

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/a ... 816266.php

[RiverDog]

Its somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 million who *think * Trump won Which is BS. They know he's lost. They dont care. Its how cults are. But not all trump voters are on board. Around 25% of republican trump supporters actually believe Biden won. Id like to be a fly on the wall as those families digest what they are seeing on TV.

I'm not sure how you're coming up with 45 million, but what ever the number is, it's pretty alarming. However, when you consider just how stupid the average American adult is (29% can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map), it shouldn't be too surprising that a person like Trump could talk that many into believing the election was rigged.

They are wrong, deluded, insane.They hate america if they still support this man 6 weeks after an election. I dont care how much money they have , what their IQ they are out of their ever loving minds. I dont care about their socialism bad but fascist good argument.They are unpatriotic traitors to america.

They are stupid and gullible, but they don't hate America. They are misguided fools that can't look at issues objectively, one of the reasons why I am not married to the concept of one person, one vote. The founding fathers got it right when they said that the average man is too stupid to be entrusted with something as momentous as choosing their leaders.

Of course, not all Trump voters fit into the moron category. There are a very large number, such as our friend Mack, that are highly intelligent and had good reason to vote for Trump, or perhaps more accurately, against Biden/Democrats. But a whole lot of the ones I've encountered would have a hard time spelling the word "cat" if you spotted them the 'c' and the 'a'.

[I-5]

He's an active russian agent. He should be locked up right now.

He's absolutely behaving like a russian agent, both actively and passively. For anyone still in denial, someone can explain to us his multiple actions that have been favoraable to Putin the last 4 years, reaching a crescendo these last remaining weeks of his 'reign'.

[RiverDog]

He's an active russian agent. He should be locked up right now.

He's absolutely behaving like a russian agent, both actively and passively. For anyone still in denial, someone can explain to us his multiple actions that have been favoraable to Putin the last 4 years, reaching a crescendo these last remaining weeks of his 'reign'.

I can't, but that doesn't mean he's a Russian agent. However, I think you guys are right in at least one aspect. There's some sort of connection there. My only guess would be that it has something to do with money.

[I-5]

I believe Congress knew more than enough connections betweem Trump and Russia via the Mueller report, but Bob Mueller made the naive mistake in thinking all he needed to do was file the report and that Congress, being public servants protecting the national interest, would have acted against this tool of Russia. But he was mistaken, and here we are. It's going to get worse before Jan 20.

[RiverDog]

I believe Congress knew more than enough connections betweem Trump and Russia via the Mueller report, but Bob Mueller made the naive mistake in thinking all he needed to do was file the report and that Congress, being public servants protecting the national interest, would have acted against this tool of Russia. But he was mistaken, and here we are. It's going to get worse before Jan 20.

So what else should Mueller have done besides, or instead of, filing his report?

[NorthHawk]

Recommended charges for crimes he found or at least clearly spell out the breaches of law.

[I-5]

So what else should Mueller have done besides, or instead of, filing his report?

According to Andrew Weissmann (a deputy prosecutor who worked with him in the past), one of the key things that Mueller did not do was seek to compel Trump, with a subpoena, to answer questions from the special counsel’s team in person, while under oath. Why? Because Mueller was averse to having a showy confrontation with the White House, according to Weissman. Another thing Mueller had the info and opportunity to do was to charge the White House with obstructing justice, a crime, despite evidence that did happen...again for the same reason. He did these things to lower level people like Manafort, Flynn, etc, but for reasons only he knows, chose to not go after Trump that way when he easily could have.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/21/robert-mueller-let-americans-down-on-trump-russia-probe-special-counsel-prosecutor-says.html

[RiverDog]

So what else should Mueller have done besides, or instead of, filing his report?

According to Andrew Weissmann (a deputy prosecutor who worked with him in the past), one of the key things that Mueller did not do was seek to compel Trump, with a subpoena, to answer questions from the special counsel’s team in person, while under oath. Why? Because Mueller was averse to having a showy confrontation with the White House, according to Weissman. Another thing Mueller had the info and opportunity to do was to charge the White House with obstructing justice, a crime, despite evidence that did happen...again for the same reason. He did these things to lower level people like Manafort, Flynn, etc, but for reasons only he knows, chose to not go after Trump that way when he easily could have.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/21/robert-mueller-let-americans-down-on-trump-russia-probe-special-counsel-prosecutor-says.html

That's a response/suggestion that I would expect from a typical hard core Democrat. Following that course would surely would have resulted in Trump firing Mueller and turned what was supposed to be a non partisan, objective investigation into a very political food fight. All of the Republicans, save perhaps Romney, would have supported the firing and the investigation would have come to a prompt end.

The Mueller Investigation started before the Democrats gained control of the House and for all intents and purposes was completed before the new Congress was seated in January of 2019. The only way Mueller was going to conduct an investigation that would be viewed by both sides as non partisan would have been to stay away from incendiary actions like issuing a subpoena to a sitting POTUS.

[NorthHawk]

From what I understand from reading about and hearing about Mueller, he's an old school guy who believes that charging a President is up to Congress and not
a Special Prosecutor. I think he believes in the idea that "honorable men" should make the decisions about a sitting President. Had he in no uncertain terms
submitted the crimes in his report, Barr couldn't have whitewashed the report and sitting members of the Senate couldn't have rationalized their decisions to
not press charges as easily as they did. As well, Trump couldn't have lied about no crimes committed as he also did although I'm sure he would have tried.

[RiverDog]

From what I understand from reading about and hearing about Mueller, he's an old school guy who believes that charging a President is up to Congress and not a Special Prosecutor. I think he believes in the idea that "honorable men" should make the decisions about a sitting President. Had he in no uncertain terms submitted the crimes in his report, Barr couldn't have whitewashed the report and sitting members of the Senate couldn't have rationalized their decisions to not press charges as easily as they did. As well, Trump couldn't have lied about no crimes committed as he also did although I'm sure he would have tried.

Absolutely true about Mueller, but I wouldn't call the concept of the Congress being the body responsible for prosecuting the POTUS "old school", more like constitutional.

IMO the special prosecutor should not be reporting to the Executive Branch, but it wouldn't be any better to have him report directly to Congress, either. Both are driven by politics rather than compliance with the law. In RiverDog's perfect world, the Justice Department would report directly to SCOTUS and they would decide which information is relevant to the investigation.

[I-5]

That's a response/suggestion that I would expect from a typical hard core Democrat. Following that course would surely would have resulted in Trump firing Mueller and turned what was supposed to be a non partisan, objective investigation into a very political food fight.

You asked a question what more Mueller could have done, and I gave you Mueller’s deputy attorney’s response. Are you saying he’s a hardcore dem? Did it not answer your question? What was the answer you were hoping for?

[RiverDog]

You asked a question what more Mueller could have done, and I gave you Mueller’s deputy attorney’s response. Are you saying he’s a hardcore dem? Did it not answer your question? What was the answer you were hoping for?

I wasn't 'expecting' anything. IMO there wasn't anything else Mueller should have done differently. The problem stems from who he reports to.

I don't know what the political leanings of Muller's deputy attorney are. However, I do know that one of the big criticisms of Mueller's staffing was that he was bringing in a lot of Democrats that may have influenced their recommendations to him.

[I-5]

That criticism was coming from Trump himself, as usual without any basis in fairness. Unless he knows the political leanings of every member of Mueller’s team, and if you think they aren’t professionals who are doing their job. Trump doesn’t count as any credible source of ‘criticism’, I’m surprised you would mention it. Who else said that?

[RiverDog]

That criticism was coming from Trump himself, as usual without any basis in fairness. Unless he knows the political leanings of every member of Mueller’s team, and if you think they aren’t professionals who are doing their job. Trump doesn’t count as any credible source of ‘criticism’, I’m surprised you would mention it. Who else said that?

It's not a matter of who said it. It's a matter of record:

..the Daily Caller confirms, Mueller’s 17 prosecutors resemble a local Democratic club.

14 are Democrats
Three are party-unaffiliated
None is a Republican
Twelve are Democratic donors
One also is a Republican donor
Two maxed out as Hillary Clinton donors

Put another way, 82 percent of Mueller’s lawyers are Democrats, and 71 percent of them have contributed money to Democratic candidates and causes.

James Quarles did donate $2,500 to former Utah Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz and $250 to former GOP Virginia senator George Allen. But Quarles also maxed out to Hillary, as did Jeannie Rhee. Only two of Mueller’s Democrats, Ryan Dickey and Michael Dreeben, failed to contribute to their party. Donald J. Trump apparently received $0.00 from Team Mueller.

All told, Mueller’s lawyers donated $65,657 to federal-level Democrats, $11,850 to state-level Democrats, and $2,750 to federal Republicans. Within this $80,257 grand total, Democrats scored $77,507 (97 percent) while Republicans saw $2,750 (3 percent).

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... ate-staff/

And just so you don't get all bent out of shape at my source being a conservative one, here's another:

The ones we confirmed are Greg Andres, Rush Atkinson, Ryan Dickey, Michael Dreeben, Kyle Freeny, Andrew Goldstein, Adam Jed, Elizabeth Prelogar, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee, Brandon Van Grack, and Andrew Weissmann.

Another member of Mueller’s team -- Aaron Zelinsky -- has been reported to be a registered Democrat by both the Washington Post and the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller also reported that Zelinsky wrote, "I’m a Democrat," in a Huffington Post column supporting same-sex marriage in November 2012.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... t-Mueller/

[Hawktawk]

Which matters exactly why RD? Saying democrats who are in law enforcement cant be fair to a republican is no different than Trump saying Judge Curiel from Iowa who passed a 25 million dollar judgement against him for his phony university scam couldn't be fair because he was a "mexican".

Mueller was a lifelong republican as was Comey whose opening of the Clinton Email scandal 9 days out probably got Trump elected in the first place .

Trump contributed 150 K to Hillary senate campaigns, she and Bill attended his wedding, He is on tape saying of Hillary"at a minimum she will go down as one of the great senators from new york." His current FBI director Chris Wray contributed almost 50 K to republicans in 2016 and Trump wants to fire him for saying Russia was attempting to affect this election as well. He's a Russian plant.
According to the trumpies now Republicans are out to get him so who cares.They deserve jail now.

The facts don't lie. Trump willingly colluded with Russia and if you're looking at the quid pro quo Mueller couldn't find its right in front of you as this Putin stoolie passes off an attack referred to as 'an invasion, an act of war" by many experts and congresspeople.Romney compared it to Russia secretly flying bombers all over america.

Trump directly contradicted his own Sec of State Mike Pompeio, former CIA director and west point educated military man who has been an uttley nauseating sycophant, wrecked himself for Trump.
Its groundhog day every time it comes down to Russia. The man's a traitor. If it's an act of war he's aiding and abetting our enemy with 1500 nuclear weapons aimed right at us and just spent 9 months roaming around our nuclear weapons database and every other government entity doing whatever they wanted.

As for his followers RD I know lots of really intelligent people who voted for Trump. They are no less in the cult than anyone else who has enabled this train wreck but at least they convinced themselves it was for pragmatic reasons . But they jump the shark if they still believe he won or should declare martial law. I'm not sure why my math confuses you but polls consistently show about 3/4 of trump's voters believe these things which is 45 to 55 million out of 70 something million people who think he won and/or are fine with him doing whatever to stay in power.

I have no respect for these people, especially if they will articulate it. I unfriended a girl I went to the high school prom with over the weekend, known her 45 years. She went on FB asking her friends to pray for Trump, that Jesus will prevail, Trump will still win. She had about 20 likes and positive comments when I abruptly informed her Trump is from the pit of hell, I have no idea what's wrong with you people and peace out.I dont do politics in social media or in person anywhere but here. Anyone wants to pump Trump its a short discussion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... rs/617449/

This article says it pretty well. These are sad deluded fools and not worth my time. They truly would support Trump if as he said he shot someone on 5th avenue. Its a cult..

[RiverDog]

Which matters exactly why RD? Saying democrats who are in law enforcement cant be fair to a republican is no different than Trump saying Judge Curiel from Iowa who passed a 25 million dollar judgement against him for his phony university scam couldn't be fair because he was a "mexican".

That's not a good comparison. Judge Curiel, as far as I know, was not a heavy contributor to any politician or political causes nor has he made any public statements that might call into question his judicial tolerance. Trump suggested that he had a bias against him based solely on his Hispanic name and nothing else. It was a meritless accusation founded in Trump's personal bigotry and moronic ignorance. That's completely different than the questions raised about many of the staffers on Mueller's team whom as a matter of public record donated heavily to Democratic campaigns/causes as it's a strong indicator of their political POV's.

Mueller was a lifelong republican as was Comey whose opening of the Clinton Email scandal 9 days out probably got Trump elected in the first place .

The discussion between I-5 and myself had to do with the type of advice Mueller was being given by a member or members on his staff, not Mueller himself. I've never expressed dissatisfaction with Mueller's objectivity, to the contrary, I've always had the utmost respect for him and his work.

[I-5]

It's not a matter of who said it. It's a matter of record:

..the Daily Caller confirms, Mueller’s 17 prosecutors resemble a local Democratic club.

14 are Democrats
Three are party-unaffiliated
None is a Republican
Twelve are Democratic donors
One also is a Republican donor
Two maxed out as Hillary Clinton donors

Put another way, 82 percent of Mueller’s lawyers are Democrats, and 71 percent of them have contributed money to Democratic candidates and causes.

James Quarles did donate $2,500 to former Utah Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz and $250 to former GOP Virginia senator George Allen. But Quarles also maxed out to Hillary, as did Jeannie Rhee. Only two of Mueller’s Democrats, Ryan Dickey and Michael Dreeben, failed to contribute to their party. Donald J. Trump apparently received $0.00 from Team Mueller.

All told, Mueller’s lawyers donated $65,657 to federal-level Democrats, $11,850 to state-level Democrats, and $2,750 to federal Republicans. Within this $80,257 grand total, Democrats scored $77,507 (97 percent) while Republicans saw $2,750 (3 percent).

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... ate-staff/

And just so you don't get all bent out of shape at my source being a conservative one, here's another:

The ones we confirmed are Greg Andres, Rush Atkinson, Ryan Dickey, Michael Dreeben, Kyle Freeny, Andrew Goldstein, Adam Jed, Elizabeth Prelogar, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee, Brandon Van Grack, and Andrew Weissmann.

Another member of Mueller’s team -- Aaron Zelinsky -- has been reported to be a registered Democrat by both the Washington Post and the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller also reported that Zelinsky wrote, "I’m a Democrat," in a Huffington Post column supporting same-sex marriage in November 2012.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... t-Mueller/

Besides Trump, who else was actually leveling this criticism? Mueller is probably one of the most extreme professionals we could ever hope to find in public service, if not the most...and, it shouldn't matter that he himself is a lifelong Republican. Of course, all citizens including people in the Justice Dept and FBI participate in our democracy by exercising their right to vote. It means nothing in terms of being able to do their job professionally. That's why I'm surprised to hear you bring it up.

[RiverDog]

Besides Trump, who else was actually leveling this criticism? Mueller is probably one of the most extreme professionals we could ever hope to find in public service, if not the most...and, it shouldn't matter that he himself is a lifelong Republican. Of course, all citizens including people in the Justice Dept and FBI participate in our democracy by exercising their right to vote. It means nothing in terms of being able to do their job professionally. That's why I'm surprised to hear you bring it up.

I'm going to pose a hypothetical question to you in an effort to make my point.

You're a defense attorney, and your client is none other than William Jefferson Clinton. It's a trial by jury, and like a good defense attorney, you do a background check on potential jurors as part of the jury selection process, which includes a public records search. The results of this search show that Juror X has not only donated to George W. Bush's campaign, he's donated the maximum amount allowed by law. Are you going to make a motion that Juror X be excused from the pool of potential jurors?

Of course, you would. A campaign donation, although it doesn't prove that a person is politically biased, is a strong indicator that you're not willing to chance in a trial that would no doubt have political overtones due to nothing more than the status of your client. That's exactly what I'm saying about certain members of Mueller's staff, that some of them may have harbored a political POV that could have influenced their recommendations to him.

I agree with you about Mueller, but his objectivity wasn't my point. My point was that there is evidence that members of his staff MAY have had a political bias and that it MIGHT have influenced some of the recommendations he received such as the advice that you posted that a subpoena be issued to a sitting POTUS that he obviously rejected.

[Hawktawk]

https://apnews.com/article/william-barr ... 6aad214ce7

So Barr downloads again. When the guy who a month ago was sending prosecutors out for a look into the election at trump's behest has turned this hard maybe a bit of fear of what an untethered Trump might try to do has crept in. Its a stunning 180 from the most corrupt AG I've ever been aware of.

[I-5]

I agree with you about Mueller, but his objectivity wasn't my point. My point was that there is evidence that members of his staff MAY have had a political bias and that it MIGHT have influenced some of the recommendations he received such as the advice that you posted that a subpoena be issued to a sitting POTUS that he obviously rejected.

Regardless of your point, what you said was the criticism had been leveled about Meueller's team being a bunch of democrats. Besides Trump, do you know who else was going after that line of attack?

To go along with your analogy, ok so there is a Bush donor in the jury. Now what if the foreman of the same jury is a lifelong democrat?

[RiverDog]

I agree with you about Mueller, but his objectivity wasn't my point. My point was that there is evidence that members of his staff MAY have had a political bias and that it MIGHT have influenced some of the recommendations he received such as the advice that you posted that a subpoena be issued to a sitting POTUS that he obviously rejected.

Regardless of your point, what you said was the criticism had been leveled about Meueller's team being a bunch of democrats. Besides Trump, do you know who else was going after that line of attack?

No, and I don't understand what difference that makes, unless you are suggesting that Trump is wrong 100% of the time and every word of his should be automatically disregarded as false. Did you ever hear of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day?

To go along with your analogy, ok so there is a Bush donor in the jury. Now what if the foreman of the same jury is a lifelong democrat?

Not sure what your question is. My analogy had to do with jury selection in a trial in which the accused is a high profile partisan politician.