It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top Republican congressman calls for Mueller to resign as special counsel

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: GuidedKill

The funny thing is, I think that an investigation into an honest person by a corrupt individual will say more about the investigator than the investigated.




I guess time will tell that's for sure....

I'm just not comfortable with compromising the integrity of any investigation.

I would think the left would want Mueller gone more than anyone. Hell a 10.00 ambulance chaser could shoot holes all in Mueller's investigation and conflict of interest....Even if they did find something, his conflict's and how obvious they are might negate anything they find.





posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GuidedKill

Sounds like you are worried about the investigation. Why else do you support ending it early?

PS: Only a partisan looking for confirmation bias would see what these two Arizona Senators are doing is political posturing. Anyone with any actual intellectual integrity knows not to take them seriously here.


Where did I say I wanted it to end? I am only pointing out and sourcing articles where law makers and legal experts say Mueller has a conflict of interest....

Do you think Mueller does or does not have a conflict? That's what I am focusing on.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: GuidedKill
Do you think Mueller does or does not have a conflict? That's what I am focusing on.

No. I was pretty clear about the way I worded my post here. These two lawmakers are just making # up and you are buying it. And I know what you are focusing on. You clearly wrote the thread and your bias is on display that you think these two are correct. It's obvious you want to shut the investigation down with whatever bs you can get to stick. If you were honest you would have decried this opinion in the OP.
edit on 1-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill


I don't know anything about that Deputy AG Rosenstein, but he may be part of the swamp-sewer that's out to get President Trump. Which is why he appointed Mueller as special counsel.

The Trump witch-hunt will continue to turn up ZILCH. I'm eagerly looking forward to the Lynch-Comey-Clinton-Rice investigation. Has any special counsel named to get the real crooks yet?



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The evidence will stand on its own merits. I highly doubt Comey's testimony will be a lynch pin in whatever charges are eventually brought, if any. They are not going to impeach Trump over obstruction of justice.

If Trump falls, it will be for something much bigger.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: GuidedKill
Do you think Mueller does or does not have a conflict? That's what I am focusing on.

No. I was pretty clear about the way I worded my post here. These two lawmakers are just making # up and you are buying it. And I know what you are focusing on. You clearly wrote the thread and your bias is on display that you think these two are correct. It's obvious you want to shut the investigation down with whatever bs you can get to stick. If you were honest you would have decried this opinion in the OP.


If by "buying it" you mean do I agree with them....Yes I do.

Mueller has a conflict of interest, it's plain and simple. I know you want Trump to be guilty and have no problem with this conflict cause it serves your purpose....However if the shoe were on the other foot....Well that would be a different story.

I do not like unfair investigations on anyone period....And laws against people with conflicts of interest working or prosecuting cases are there for exactly that. TO KEEP THEM FAIR!!!


edit on 1-8-2017 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32
You guys are scared....


Not as scared as you guys are that nothing is there.
You guys are basing your entire political party's reputation on something, that when it shows no evidence of what you are claiming, it will be the last nail in the coffin for them.
You guys are experts on deflecting from the corrupt, criminal actions of your Leftist heroes.
Carry on.....deflect away.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
the same people claiming a conflict of interest believe pizzagate was a thing, banged on about birth certificates, believe clinton killed david bowie among others etc, etc...
then they complain that people point out their argument is a little spurious.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5
The evidence will stand on its own merits. I highly doubt Comey's testimony will be a lynch pin in whatever charges are eventually brought, if any. They are not going to impeach Trump over obstruction of justice.

If Trump falls, it will be for something much bigger.


Now there is logical argument as to why there is no conflict....I can see that point.

I also agree if Trump goes down it will be from something bigger.

However people with conflicts can muddy the waters and lead investigations in ways that may not be prudent to the case what so ever. He should still recuse and let someone else take over. His conflict is too big and will poison any outcome.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: GuidedKill


I don't know anything about that Deputy AG Rosenstein, but he may be part of the swamp-sewer that's out to get President Trump. Which is why he appointed Mueller as special counsel.

The Trump witch-hunt will continue to turn up ZILCH. I'm eagerly looking forward to the Lynch-Comey-Clinton-Rice investigation. Has any special counsel named to get the real crooks yet?



I agree the investigation will most likely not turn up the smoking gun the left is sooo eager to find....However if it did turn up anything....Mueller being involved with conflicts is going to make it easy for any decent attorney to argue with and possibly get dismissed.....



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: GuidedKill
Do you think Mueller does or does not have a conflict? That's what I am focusing on.

No. I was pretty clear about the way I worded my post here. These two lawmakers are just making # up and you are buying it. And I know what you are focusing on. You clearly wrote the thread and your bias is on display that you think these two are correct. It's obvious you want to shut the investigation down with whatever bs you can get to stick. If you were honest you would have decried this opinion in the OP.


If by "buying it" you mean do I agree with them....Yes I do.

Exactly. The word is gullible, but I'll settle for you just having confirmation bias.


Mueller has a conflict of interest, it's plain and simple. I know you want Trump to be guilty and have no problem with this conflict cause it serves your purpose....However if the shoe were on the other foot....Well that would be a different story.

No. He doesn't.


I do not like unfair investigations on anyone period....And laws against people with conflicts of interest working or prosecuting cases are there for exactly that. TO KEEP THEM FAIR!!!

Yet here you are trying to sideline an investigation because 2 far right House members and Trump supporters came up with an idea that an investigator has a conflict of interest without any real legal reasoning behind it. Lol yeah right. Fairness? HA! Just let the investigation be. That is the only way to keep it fair.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

A top GOP congressman.....in the house where the children play....they have much smaller constituents to get re ellected..


Hey what is Grassley saying?



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: growler
the same people claiming a conflict of interest believe pizzagate was a thing, banged on about birth certificates, believe clinton killed david bowie among others etc, etc...
then they complain that people point out their argument is a little spurious.


Really?

You have proof that this congressman did all those things?



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GuidedKill
a reply to: GuidedKill
Do you think Mueller does or does not have a conflict? That's what I am focusing on.

No. I was pretty clear about the way I worded my post here. These two lawmakers are just making # up and you are buying it. And I know what you are focusing on. You clearly wrote the thread and your bias is on display that you think these two are correct. It's obvious you want to shut the investigation down with whatever bs you can get to stick. If you were honest you would have decried this opinion in the OP.


If by "buying it" you mean do I agree with them....Yes I do.

Exactly. The word is gullible, but I'll settle for you just having confirmation bias.


Mueller has a conflict of interest, it's plain and simple. I know you want Trump to be guilty and have no problem with this conflict cause it serves your purpose....However if the shoe were on the other foot....Well that would be a different story.

No. He doesn't.


I do not like unfair investigations on anyone period....And laws against people with conflicts of interest working or prosecuting cases are there for exactly that. TO KEEP THEM FAIR!!!

Yet here you are trying to sideline an investigation because 2 far right House members and Trump supporters came up with an idea that an investigator has a conflict of interest without any real legal reasoning behind it. Lol yeah right. Fairness? HA! Just let the investigation be. That is the only way to keep it fair.


Because I disagree with you and believe someone has a conflict I am "gullible" or "buying it". Nice logical argument...The person who doesn't have the same opinion as me is automatically a moron....Typical Left pivot when they disagree with someone.

And seriously just how dense are you?? I have said over and over and over again I do not want the investigation to stop or be sidelined or postponed or any other word that mean stop.....Sheesh man can't you read?? I am only saying Mueller has OBVIOUS conflict and should recuse himself....

Did you think Sessions was correct in his recusal?? If so why shouldn't Mueller? How bout you try and answer that question....or let me guess I'm just a moron for asking it...




posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: growler
the same people claiming a conflict of interest believe pizzagate was a thing, banged on about birth certificates, believe clinton killed david bowie among others etc, etc...
then they complain that people point out their argument is a little spurious.


And the same people claiming there is no conflict of interests here where the ones saying that there was none in Lynch meeting Bill on a tarmac and refusing to recuse herself, and shouting that there was no need for a special investigator in that case.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
What makes you so much more of an expert than anyone else her? Or even me for that matter??


Merely the fact that I pay attention to legal experts who aren't beholden to party directives (ie. a President desperate for a way to get rid of Mueller, and asking for any assistance in Congress he can muster to do so), as opposed to a cherry picked selection of conservative lawyers/lawmakers.

Its like you're being willful obtuse about the underlying angle of the calls for Mueller's resignation. I suspect his isn't driven from a legal angle, but rather couched in a 'conflict of interest' to hide the fact that Trump just wants Mueller gone and a easily controllable puppet in his place.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Dudemo5
The evidence will stand on its own merits. I highly doubt Comey's testimony will be a lynch pin in whatever charges are eventually brought, if any. They are not going to impeach Trump over obstruction of justice.

If Trump falls, it will be for something much bigger.


Now there is logical argument as to why there is no conflict....I can see that point.

I also agree if Trump goes down it will be from something bigger.

However people with conflicts can muddy the waters and lead investigations in ways that may not be prudent to the case what so ever. He should still recuse and let someone else take over. His conflict is too big and will poison any outcome.


Ken Starr didn't have any perceived conflict of interest, and he wound up taking the investigation into the president's impropriety with a White House intern and his willingness to lie under oath about it. How does one start with WhiteWater and end up at BJs? To many Americans, that was an example of leading the investigations in "ways that may not be prudent to the case," and the Republicans paid for it politically in the end.

To be clear, my point is not to deflect or to say, "What about the other guy." My point is to say that we have checks and balances in place. If the investigation goes too far afield, there will be political ramifications.

If, for example, the investigator uncovers some shady backroom deal made 20 years ago that has nothing to do with Russian collusion is unlikely to carry the political weight necessary to remove Trump from office, and the Dems would pay politically for pushing it too hard.

On the other hand, if the investigation uncovers direct evidence of a quid pro quo between Putin and Trump, that evidence will stand regardless of who represents the prosecution.

I see no reason for Mueller to recuse himself.

I do, however, think that Trump would very much like this investigation to end, so the goal would be to remove Mueller and NEVER have any replacement appointed. Hopefully we can agree that would not be acceptable.

I also think that if another investigator was appointed, it wouldn't be long before Trump was working hard to discredit him in the same way, with whatever damaging info he could dig up. It's part of Trump's standard playbook.
edit on 1-8-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: growler
the same people claiming a conflict of interest believe pizzagate was a thing, banged on about birth certificates, believe clinton killed david bowie among others etc, etc...
then they complain that people point out their argument is a little spurious.


And the same people claiming there is no conflict of interests here where the ones saying that there was none in Lynch meeting Bill on a tarmac and refusing to recuse herself, and shouting that there was no need for a special investigator in that case.



Oh don't we both know that....But like I said they are fine with it as long as it serves their purpose....And the purpose is no Trump no matter what...



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Yet here you are trying to sideline an investigation because 2 far right House members and Trump supporters came up with an idea that an investigator has a conflict of interest without any real legal reasoning behind it.


And Newt Gingrich. Can't leave him out.

It's funny. Bob Mueller was (is?) widely recognized as one of the most straight and narrow men in DC before he left the FBI. Members from all across the government, both sides of the aisle, from low level to senior level, most of them thought highly of him and that was, in part, due to his apolitical nature. His loyalty was to the law, not a party. (Remember when he was confirmed for his Directorship by a vote of 98-0? Or if not that, remember when he threatened to resign if the White House tried to do an end-around on illegal wiretapping? No? Anybody?)

Yet now the story is spun in to one of him being a partisan hack running a witch hunt.

Curious.



posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
Because I disagree with you and believe someone has a conflict I am "gullible" or "buying it". Nice logical argument...The person who doesn't have the same opinion as me is automatically a moron....Typical Left pivot when they disagree with someone.

No. You are gullible because you are eager to believe something that confirms to your biases without much thought or investigation into it.


And seriously just how dense are you?? I have said over and over and over again I do not want the investigation to stop or be sidelined or postponed or any other word that mean stop.....Sheesh man can't you read?? I am only saying Mueller has OBVIOUS conflict and should recuse himself....

You can say these things all you want but actions speak louder than words and your thread here clearly is showing you trying to side line this investigation. Calling this alleged conflict of interest obvious doesn't automatically make it so.


Did you think Sessions was correct in his recusal?? If so why shouldn't Mueller? How bout you try and answer that question....or let me guess I'm just a moron for asking it...


Because Sessions was caught lying about his Russian contacts. Mueller hasn't been caught telling any lies to Congress. You are just alluding to a vague idea that Mueller has a conflict of interest with no real proof of it being true. Apples to oranges comparison here.



new topics




 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join