|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 7:50:59 GMT -5
So... www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/amp/trump-wanted-fire-mueller-june-backed-down-reports-n841206Trump went to the White House Counsel to discuss firing Mueller. First, this is entirely appropriate and normal. It's important for someone in Trump's job to be able to talk to his legal counsel about whatever is bothering him and get advice. This is why such conversations are protected by both executive and attorney client privilege. Second, after the discussion Trump decided not to fire Mueller. Finally, the White House Counsel's office needs to figure out who leaked this and fire them. If it's an attorney, they need to be disbarred. It's clear that Trump is still surrounded by hyper-partisan unethical Democrats who are simply out to get him.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2018 12:44:19 GMT -5
And yet, this is the major story for the next 2 or 3 days. All to deflect from the criminal activities engaged in by The Puppet's FBI and DOJ. And people wonder why they are called the fake news.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 13:10:06 GMT -5
More of your unthinking partisanship and continued bias, RJ. We've come to realize that you're really not capable of any more.
Why do you say that the people who leaked this information are democrats? Don't you think there are people in the White House who aren't big fans of the President, people with an R after their names? Could be someone on Pence's staff. We have no idea. All you have is your bias and your unthinking partisanship. Again, we're finding out we really can't expect better from you.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 13:15:20 GMT -5
More of your unthinking partisanship and continued bias, RJ. We've come to realize that you're really not capable of any more. Why do you say that the people who leaked this information are democrats? Don't you think there are people in the White House who aren't big fans of the President, people with an R after their names? Could be someone on Pence's staff. We have no idea. All you have is your bias and your unthinking partisanship. Again, we're finding out we really can't expect better from you. The leak clearly came from someone inside the White House Counsel's office. The leak is a violation of attorney-client privilege and should put someone's career in jeopardy. The idea that a Republican would do something so unethical and career-damaging to try to damage Trump is absurd. But then absurd is rapidly becoming your middle name.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 14:31:05 GMT -5
Why absurd? Are you saying that everyone who works in the White House is a Trump fan? Given that a large number of Republicans who voted for Trump are now saying they regret that vote, it's possible that someone in the White House who has felt the wrath of Trump's anger has decided it's time for him to go. Granted it's unethical and violates privilege, but only an unthinking partisan would presume that the information had to come from a Democrat. Are there even any Democrats working the the White House these days?
And thank you for continuing to lower our expectations of you.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 15:03:11 GMT -5
Why absurd? Are you saying that everyone who works in the White House is a Trump fan? Given that a large number of Republicans who voted for Trump are now saying they regret that vote, it's possible that someone in the White House who has felt the wrath of Trump's anger has decided it's time for him to go. Granted it's unethical and violates privilege, but only an unthinking partisan would presume that the information had to come from a Democrat. Are there even any Democrats working the the White House these days? And thank you for continuing to lower our expectations of you. No. I'm saying only a Democrat would break attorney client privelge to damage Trump.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 15:24:44 GMT -5
I doubt that, RJ. But continue with your mindless partisanship.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2018 16:55:32 GMT -5
More of your unthinking partisanship and continued bias, RJ. We've come to realize that you're really not capable of any more. Why do you say that the people who leaked this information are democrats? Don't you think there are people in the White House who aren't big fans of the President, people with an R after their names? Could be someone on Pence's staff. We have no idea. All you have is your bias and your unthinking partisanship. Again, we're finding out we really can't expect better from you. Because that's what Democrats do. They can't tell the truth about anything they are doing, so they lie, and leaks, by "unnamed sources" are the perfect vehicle to smear the President without getting their hands dirty. Besides, what was 'leaked' wasn't a transcript of the conversation, it was the 'edited' version, which means it's a lie, because there is no verifiable information. What most of the people that were actually there say was that Trump was simply exploring possibilities, and when he was told that firing Mueller was a bad idea, he simply dropped it. Sorry to burst your bubble.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 17:45:07 GMT -5
I doubt that, RJ. But continue with your mindless partisanship. I know you doubt that. But why? The entire purpose of these lawyers is to advise the President. They can't do that effectively, and he can't trust them, if he believes their conversations will become public. This leak from the the White House counsel's office undermines the purpose of the office, and it goes against the very principle of attorney-client privilege. No ethical lawyer of any political stripe would do this. The only sort of lawyer that could ignore the ethical and career-ending implications of violating attorney-client privilege would have to be someone that absolutely detests Trump. Lawyers spend far too much time and money earning a law license to risk tossing it away like this. If you don't understand this, you AREN'T thinking about it. And if you're not thinking about it, the only explanation for your beliefs is simple "Trump is evil and anything that happens to him is ok" partisanship.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 18:28:24 GMT -5
I used to work closely with attorneys. I understand privilege. Probably a lot more than you do. So there was a leak. And that's wrong. But, that doesn't mean it was necessarily a Democrat. Are then even any Democrats working in the White House? I asked that before. I have no idea. But a new administration generally means a new staff. But just because you don't know something, you'd shouldn't just presume that it's something else. Again, you have no evidence one way or the other, just your unthinking partisanship.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 18:33:59 GMT -5
I used to work closely with attorneys. I understand privilege. Probably a lot more than you do. So there was a leak. And that's wrong. But, that doesn't mean it was necessarily a Democrat. Are then even any Democrats working in the White House? I asked that before. I have no idea. But a new administration generally means a new staff. But just because you don't know something, you'd shouldn't just presume that it's something else. Again, you have no evidence one way or the other, just your unthinking partisanship. You think you know a lot of things you clearly don't. There are plenty of holdovers in the White House, including "career" people. I use the scare quotes because so many career staff are still highly partisan Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2018 19:39:14 GMT -5
Why absurd? Are you saying that everyone who works in the White House is a Trump fan? Given that a large number of Republicans who voted for Trump are now saying they regret that vote, it's possible that someone in the White House who has felt the wrath of Trump's anger has decided it's time for him to go. Granted it's unethical and violates privilege, but only an unthinking partisan would presume that the information had to come from a Democrat. Are there even any Democrats working the the White House these days? And thank you for continuing to lower our expectations of you. The only ones that are hysterical and perverted enough to do so are Democrats. As RJ said, it would not only cost them their job, it would open them up to very serious prosecution. All just to get some useless rumor out that will last about 4 news cycles, then disappear.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jan 26, 2018 19:39:51 GMT -5
But continue with your mindless partisanship. Pot meet Kettle Kettle meet pot.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 22:56:42 GMT -5
I used to work closely with attorneys. I understand privilege. Probably a lot more than you do. So there was a leak. And that's wrong. But, that doesn't mean it was necessarily a Democrat. Are then even any Democrats working in the White House? I asked that before. I have no idea. But a new administration generally means a new staff. But just because you don't know something, you'd shouldn't just presume that it's something else. Again, you have no evidence one way or the other, just your unthinking partisanship. You think you know a lot of things you clearly don't. There are plenty of holdovers in the White House, including "career" people. I use the scare quotes because so many career staff are still highly partisan Democrats. And you clearly think you know a lot of things that you don't, RJ. Part of your mindless partisanship. Are there really plenty of career holdovers in the White House? Are you sure? Or is this another one of your mindless pargisan guesses? Probably a guess.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 26, 2018 23:00:21 GMT -5
You think you know a lot of things you clearly don't. There are plenty of holdovers in the White House, including "career" people. I use the scare quotes because so many career staff are still highly partisan Democrats. And you clearly think you know a lot of things that you don't, RJ. Part of your mindless partisanship. Are there really plenty of career holdovers in the White House? Are you sure? Or is this another one of your mindless pargisan guesses? Probably a guess. There is no way a new president can replace an entire government. Yes, there are lots of career people in the White House. And in the White House counsel’s office too. That is a very specialized area of the law. You can’t just bring your own lawyers in and expect them to understand how that office works.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 26, 2018 23:14:15 GMT -5
Why not? How many people work in the White House? (Answer: about 200). Given all the various functions, not a lot of people in the legal office. They can all be replaced. Obviously you have no experience working in government.
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Jan 27, 2018 6:43:22 GMT -5
I doubt that, RJ. But continue with your mindless partisanship. He will, as long as you continue with yours. When you continue to accuse someone of something you suffer from, you lose all credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2018 9:01:48 GMT -5
Why not? How many people work in the White House? (Answer: about 200). Given all the various functions, not a lot of people in the legal office. They can all be replaced. Obviously you have no experience working in government. As previously noted, it's a very specific form of law in the White House Counsel's office. Only a fool would replace those people without a good reason. I've worked for enough government agencies to know those offices might get a new chief counsel with a new administration, but the lawyers that do most off the work are career people. They get replaced when they retire or move on. Obama had 8 years to pack that office with partisan career people. Obviously at least one person in there is more loyal to the Democrat party than even the law.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jan 27, 2018 12:06:31 GMT -5
So still jumping to conclusions based on unthinking partisanship and speculation with no real facts to back up your assertions, RJ. What we have, unfortunately, come to expect from you.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2018 19:32:50 GMT -5
I used to work closely with attorneys. I understand privilege. Probably a lot more than you do. So there was a leak. And that's wrong. But, that doesn't mean it was necessarily a Democrat. Are then even any Democrats working in the White House? I asked that before. I have no idea. But a new administration generally means a new staff. But just because you don't know something, you'd shouldn't just presume that it's something else. Again, you have no evidence one way or the other, just your unthinking partisanship. And apparently, at least one of them got you off with a lesser sentence, because of insanity, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2018 19:35:53 GMT -5
So still jumping to conclusions based on unthinking partisanship and speculation with no real facts to back up your assertions, RJ. What we have, unfortunately, come to expect from you. No, based on past experience with the Party of the KKK. Notice that the only leaks coming from Mueller are those intended to damage Trump. Notice that there have been no leaks from the Congressional Intelligence Committee on the report just finished. That's because the only thing they could leak would have most of the Party of the KKK criminals in Congress lynched. It would prove that they are, and have been committing sedition, if not outright treason. So, not only are the Communists not leaking anything about it, they are fighting to prevent it's release.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2018 19:44:45 GMT -5
So still jumping to conclusions based on unthinking partisanship and speculation with no real facts to back up your assertions, RJ. What we have, unfortunately, come to expect from you. Well, first, it's on you to explain what crime it is you think Trump should be impeached for, not me or Trump or anyone else to prove it didn't happen. And so far, after more than a year, neither you, nor Mueller, nor the media has even been able to credibly explain what "it" is, let alone provide any evidence that it happened. Given this set of facts, you're coming off as an extremely desperate partisan. Desperation is a stinky cologne, PAM, and you're drenched in it.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2018 20:37:56 GMT -5
So still jumping to conclusions based on unthinking partisanship and speculation with no real facts to back up your assertions, RJ. What we have, unfortunately, come to expect from you. Well, first, it's on you to explain what crime it is you think Trump should be impeached for, not me or Trump or anyone else to prove it didn't happen. And so far, after more than a year, neither you, nor Mueller, nor the media has even been able to credibly explain what "it" is, let alone provide any evidence that it happened. Given this set of facts, you're coming off as an extremely desperate partisan. Desperation is a stinky cologne, PAM, and you're drenched in it. There never was a crime, except those perpetrated by the Party of the KKK. The DNC "hack", that was an inside job, most likely by Awan, or the kid that got killed. They refused to allow the FBI to even see their server, much less examine it. Then there was the conspiracy with Fusion GPS and the Russians to fake a document that was then used by the FBI to obtain false warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. So all the "collusion" was done by the Party of the KKK, not Trump, and they concocted this fiction that is so obvious all but the most mentally deficient Party of the KKK sycophant can see it. So of course they are desperate, they see all of their criminality coming to light, and see long prison terms for themselves and their coconspirators.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 27, 2018 20:52:02 GMT -5
Well, first, it's on you to explain what crime it is you think Trump should be impeached for, not me or Trump or anyone else to prove it didn't happen. And so far, after more than a year, neither you, nor Mueller, nor the media has even been able to credibly explain what "it" is, let alone provide any evidence that it happened. Given this set of facts, you're coming off as an extremely desperate partisan. Desperation is a stinky cologne, PAM, and you're drenched in it. There never was a crime, except those perpetrated by the Party of the KKK. The DNC "hack", that was an inside job, most likely by Awan, or the kid that got killed. They refused to allow the FBI to even see their server, much less examine it. Then there was the conspiracy with Fusion GPS and the Russians to fake a document that was then used by the FBI to obtain false warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. So all the "collusion" was done by the Party of the KKK, not Trump, and they concocted this fiction that is so obvious all but the most mentally deficient Party of the KKK sycophant can see it. So of course they are desperate, they see all of their criminality coming to light, and see long prison terms for themselves and their coconspirators. It is certainly clear that the Clinton campaign, Obama administration, and DNC came much closer to colluding with the Russians to influence the election than Trump did. Or at least there is FAR more evidence of it for the Dems than GOP. They thought the Steele Dossier was going to take down Trump. If they’re not careful, it could take down Comey, Mueller, Hillary and Obama.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 27, 2018 22:50:22 GMT -5
There never was a crime, except those perpetrated by the Party of the KKK. The DNC "hack", that was an inside job, most likely by Awan, or the kid that got killed. They refused to allow the FBI to even see their server, much less examine it. Then there was the conspiracy with Fusion GPS and the Russians to fake a document that was then used by the FBI to obtain false warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. So all the "collusion" was done by the Party of the KKK, not Trump, and they concocted this fiction that is so obvious all but the most mentally deficient Party of the KKK sycophant can see it. So of course they are desperate, they see all of their criminality coming to light, and see long prison terms for themselves and their coconspirators. It is certainly clear that the Clinton campaign, Obama administration, and DNC came much closer to colluding with the Russians to influence the election than Trump did. Or at least there is FAR more evidence of it for the Dems than GOP. They thought the Steele Dossier was going to take down Trump. If they’re not careful, it could take down Comey, Mueller, Hillary and Obama. Which is exactly why they are screaming so much about nonstories like "Trump tried to fire Mueller". He didn't. He may have discussed it, in a "I wonder what would happen if...." kind of way, but he never tried to fire him. But they have to deflect attention from the fact that their entire house of cards is collapsing.
|
|