Donald Trump

Report: Trump Tried to Fire Mueller; White House Counsel Refused, Threatened to Quit

Trump tried to force end of Russian investigation back in June.

|

Don McGahn
Albin Lohr-Jones/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom

President Donald Trump tried to fire Robert Mueller, the man overseeing the FBI investigation of possible connections between his campaign and the Russian government, last June.

The New York Times reports tonight the reason the firing didn't happen was because White House Counsel Don McGahn refused to ask the Department of Justice to dump Mueller and instead threatened to quit. Trump then backed down.

Per the Times, here's how Trump planned to claim that Mueller had a conflict of interest justifying his termination:

First, he claimed that a dispute years ago over fees at Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., had prompted Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director at the time, to resign his membership. The president also said Mr. Mueller could not be impartial because he had most recently worked for the law firm that previously represented the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Finally, the president said, Mr. Mueller had been interviewed to return as the F.B.I. director the day before he was appointed special counsel in May.

McGahn reportedly told senior staff that firing Mueller would have a "catastrophic" effect on the presidency. He also said that Trump wouldn't fire Mueller on his own if McGahn refused to do it.

The story tonight sheds some new light on reports from late last June that Trump was frustrated with McGahn and lashed out at him for not doing more to stop the Russian probe. And there were reports over the summer that McGahn also nearly quit over frustration that Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner kept having meetings, and he was concerned it would look like they were coordinating their stories for the investigation.

Read the New York Times report here. The Washington Post just confirmed the story via its own sources. Fox News has also confirmed.

UPDATE: Marshall Cohen of CNN observes that back in August, everybody (including Trump) was denying that firing Mueller was even on the table:

NEXT: Conservatism's Not-So-'Secret' Society of Opportunistic Hacks

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. FISA memo must be really bad if the MSM is circling the wagons like this.

    To think, if Mueller had been fired we would never have known the truth about…. what exactly?

    1. What does it feel like to have a small spherical void where a soul should be?

      1. A little better than having a small spherical void where a brain should be.

        1. I love when answers to my questions come with bonus content.

          1. I love when you set yourself up for an easy insult and then try to play the condescending intellectual to avoid embarrassment.

            1. Are intellectuals among the people you and der orange fuhrer plan to purge? How long after the Mexicans and Muslims? Before or after the press?

              We are going full fascist right? Don’t want to be half-assed. This is Donald fucking Trump, and nobody’s ass is fuller.

              1. Tony|1.26.18 @ 12:15AM|#
                “Are intellectuals among the people you and der orange fuhrer plan to purge? How long after the Mexicans and Muslims? Before or after the press?”
                Are you ever going to grow up an quit being a lying piece of shit?

                “We are going full fascist right? Don’t want to be half-assed. This is Donald fucking Trump, and nobody’s ass is fuller.”
                No, since we don’t like socialists here, you fucking idiot.

                1. You have a worse vocabulary than the president of the united states.

                  1. Tony|1.26.18 @ 12:40AM|#
                    “You have a worse vocabulary than the president of the united states.”

                    Don’t you wish you had the IQ of Trump’s toilet paper, you fucking idiot.

                    1. I wish that I did. I’m sick of this shit.

    2. ………I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    3. Yeah, the MSM is circling the wagons… by arranging for the Dutch to have had uncovered attempts by the Russians to interfere with U.S. elections… and to have shared that information with the FBI… long before Fusion GPS ever got involved…

      1. Because we really needed the Dutch to confirm what the Venona papers told us fifty years ago.

      2. Interfering with elections is something every country does, including ours. The Great Half-white Hope went across the pond to threaten the UK voters with loss of trade privileges if they voted for Brexit. And he funded Netanyahu’s opponents in the last Israeli election.

        Mueller’s investigation is supposedly into collusion with the Russians, for which there is not a shred of evidence.

  2. President Donald Trump tried to fire Robert Mueller, the man overseeing the FBI investigation of possible connections between his campaign and the Russian government, last June.

    Actually, Mueller’s mandate is to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election. It may very well be true that Mueller’s only interest is in connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, but it’s definitely true that outfits like the NYT, WaPo and CNN are only interested in that part of the investigation. Any time anything is brought up about possible connections between Hillary and Russians, they dismiss that real quick as unsubstantiated rumors from anonymous sources designed simply to deflect from the real story, which is unsubstantiated rumors from anonymous sources about Trump. I strongly suspect a thorough investigation of both Trump and Hillary would show they’re both crooks and liars and utterly revolting human beings, but casually adopting the narrative put forth by the crooks and liars and utterly revolting human beings in the “journalism” business that Mueller is investigating collusion between Trump and Vlad is playing those scumbags’ little game by their own rules.

    1. Trump sure earned a lot of goodwill by offering citizenship to the wetdreamers, didn’t he?

    2. Any time anything is brought up about possible connections between Hillary and Russians, they dismiss that real quick as unsubstantiated rumors from anonymous sources designed simply to deflect from the real story,…

      No, the “possible connections” you’re talking about here have already been explored, run into the ground, propped back up again, and beaten back down again. What do you even think you’re talking about now? Are you still obsessing over Uranium One? Or what else is it?

      1. Yes, they were so “thoroughly” explored that charges against one of the involved parties were only filed this year.

  3. The Cohen tweet is incorrect. Only Dowd says that firing Mueller was never on the table (these quotes are all from long after the alleged events reported by NYT/WaPo), and it’s quite plausible he was never involved in the discussion.

  4. And of course both the NYT and WaPo articles are behind paywalls.

    1. Charging money for a product… part of the anti-Trump conspiracy!

      1. And a product that is freely available elsewhere, as if those particular sources had any special value.

  5. Hurry up Mueller and save us from this unholy combination of 1930s Germany and The Handmaid’s Tale! Produce some impeachment-worthy evidence ASAP!

    1. Enough about the Handmaid’s Tale already. Get some new material.

      1. Commie-kid is not real smart.

      2. It is the Left’s fetish that they tut tut in public.

  6. “Marshall Cohen of CNN observes that back in August, everybody (including Trump) was denying that firing Mueller was even on the table:”
    Did you know Eisenhower swore the U2 never violated USSR airspace? And don’t get me started on FDR.
    Presidents lie to the press; that’s what they do. Anyone presuming Trump was going to be different is delusional.
    But what’s the point here? Mueller has been fishing about for, what, 8 months, and so far has a former Trump associate stuck with money laundering, long before he worked for Trump. He has a volunteer who ‘lied to a federal official’ (Clapper, anyone? Gruber?).
    What is the crime being investigated here? Are we looking for unpaid parking tickets? That ignoramus Tony keeps whining about “treason”; can’t be, there is no enemy of the US involved.
    If we’re looking for dirty politics, than I’m afraid we have a full-time job for investigators until the cows come home, and you can start with that pathetic hag.

    1. I say treason flippantly–while making a small wager with myself on the odds of the final charges actually including treason.

      1. 7 years from now when the second Trump term is drawing to a close and the still-ongoing investigation has failed to produce any evidence or any charges of collusion, will you just welch on your bet to yourself like Buttplug?

        1. Failed to produce any charges because all the investigators and everyone else is a pile of irradiated ash?

          1. Tony|1.26.18 @ 12:11AM|#
            “Failed to produce any charges because all the investigators and everyone else is a pile of irradiated ash?”
            Started in Dec ’16, Mueller appointed May of ’17, and two guilty pleas to ‘parking tickets’ not at all connected to Trump.
            You’d think even fucking idiots would have the ability to experience embarrassment, but here we have Tony to show us it’s not true.

      2. Tony|1.25.18 @ 11:51PM|#
        “I say treason flippantly-”
        No, shitbag, you don’t get to go back and claim ‘well I never said that.’
        You claimed “TREASON” and hung onto it until I pointed out you didn’t have a clue as to the definition.
        You are a pathetic lefty imbecile and a loser who still hopes that your stupidity will be somehow justified.
        Fuck off, asshole.

        1. Well thank god the homosexual Muslim illegal immigrant is no longer in charge.

          1. Tony|1.26.18 @ 12:45AM|#
            “Well thank god the homosexual Muslim illegal immigrant is no longer in charge.”

            Lay off the booze, you fucking idiot. It makes you even more idiotic.

        2. Come on Sevo, don’t you know definitions of words are fluid in liberal land?

    2. Presidents lie to the press; that’s what they do. Anyone presuming Trump was going to be different is delusional.

      And no one is ever happy about it. Or should be, anyway. Not sure why you’re defending Trump this way – Of course he lies! Who wouldn’t lie to protect himself?! – except to note that it’s a very, ah, Russian way of defending Trump…

      But what’s the point here? Mueller has been fishing about for, what, 8 months, and so far has a former Trump associate stuck with money laundering, long before he worked for Trump. He has a volunteer who ‘lied to a federal official’

      Two aids, actually, and both lied about their contacts with the Russians. Anyone familiar with investigations of large criminal conspiracies understands how long they take and how they work. The pay-off doesn’t come until the very end, when the highest-level charges are made (or not).

      Remember Benghazi-gate? How many years did that go on, until it was finally resolved only at the very end of the 2016 campaign? They didn’t even shut down the committee investigating it until after the election.

  7. Nobody is going to look down on any of you for bailing on Trump now. The vast majority of the country just wants to be free of him.

    1. Remember when the vast majority of the country was with Her on November 8th 2016?

      1. Large majority of voters too.

        1. Yeah, the ones which voted her most obnoxious in junior year.
          We’re quite pleased she was as idiotic as you and decided the rules didn’t matter.

        2. Not enough voters, it would seem.

          1. Not enough voters in the right places, to be precise.

            But no, sure, let’s gloat some more about the way our political system gives disproportionate political power to the people living in the shitholiest parts of the shitholiest states. It’s certainly brag-worthy how handing that kind of power to undereducated bumblefucks has resulted in electing the most comedically incompetent and idiotic president in modern history and the most conniving group of kleptocrats to Congress I’ve ever seen.

            1. “”let’s gloat some more about the way our political system gives disproportionate political power to the people living in the shitholiest parts of the shitholiest states. It’s “‘

              You know the purpose of the EC is to prevent giving a disproportionate political powers to cities at the expense of the rest of the nation, right?

              1. I don’t know if that was the purpose, but it is a happy result.

            2. So which troll is behind this new sock? Style seems vaguely familiar.

        3. Large majority of voters too.

          Back when I was in school, a majority had to be over 50%, let a lone a large majority.

        4. Not a majority dumbass.

    2. If you google 538 and find the article “How Trump Ranks In Popularity” and normalize the trendline (meaning presidential popularity at the end of the first year since Kennedy has been trending lower), Trump looks to be just about where he should be for an average presidency.

      Which isn’t to say the statement “The vast majority of the country just wants to be free of him”. That’s true, but as long as the trend continues, it’s not really exceptional.

    3. I would prefer Pence to be honest.

      ….and pretty sure the Dems wouldn’t.

  8. I actually will defend Trump because he’s great for the libertarians – he discredits government and shows why giving it too much power and authority can backfire if you’re not careful (which fortunately we are). Of course, progtards never learn their lesson and they think that running Trump out on a rail will solve all their problems.

    Anyway this investigation is turning out to be a total nothing burger. Unless you have a secret meeting with the Russians where Trump is discussing how to break into voting machines I’m honestly not interested. Instead he is fantasizing about firing Mueller and who the hell wouldn’t. There’s a whole lotta nothin here.

    Hitlary for OberDrumpfkinFuhrer approves this message.

  9. Seriously what the hell is wrong with you people? I’ve lurked on this site for a decade and am baffled with this kneejerk defense of Trump couples with rank whataboutism.

    I didn’t like Bush and I was like yeah these guys don’t like Bush and are skeptical of governmental power. I didn’t like Obama and I was like yeah these guys are consistent in their distrust of governmental power. I hate Trump and now I’m just feeling confused.

    I believe in personal and economic freedom and am vehemently against the social justice left in all aspects. Am I not a libertarian now because I don’t genuflect to the head alpha Godking? Am I some cuck beta orbiter or whatever the kids are saying these days?

    He’s a narcissist with early stages of dementia, I’d be opposed to a man like him being the most powerful human on Earth. I’d rather they grab a platypus from the local zoo and plop it down on the resolute desk to run things.

    Seriously I’m confused, someone explain this to me.

    1. In their defense, these people consume an alarming number of Tide Pods.

      1. Tony is still hoping that somehow the electorate was stupid enough to buy that hag’s lies as he did.
        Still in denial.
        Grow up, you fucking idiot.

    2. Brand|1.26.18 @ 12:35AM|#
      “Seriously what the hell is wrong with you people? I’ve lurked on this site for a decade and am baffled with this kneejerk defense of Trump couples with rank whataboutism.
      […]
      Seriously I’m confused, someone explain this to me.”

      It seems you are confused; “whataboutism”? How about telling us why we should be upset?

      As of 12/31/17
      DeVos

      Gorsuch

      Ajit Pai, end net price fixing

      Major reduction in the growth of regulations “By one key measure of regulatory growth — the page count of the Federal Register, which lists all new rules — Trump reduced regulation by almost 50 percent in 2017.
      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
      articles/2017/12/30/trumps_
      2017_top_10_achievements_135885.html

      Dow +30%

      Unemployment at 4.1%
      https://unemploymentdata.com
      /charts/current-unemployment-rate-chart/

      The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high in this period which were the best numbers since 1983 under President Reagan.
      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com
      /2017/04/draft-complete-list-of-
      president-trumps-accomplishments
      -in-his-first-100-days/

      Got repeal of the national medical insurance mandate.

      1. Cont’d

        Withdrawal from Paris climate agreement.

        Not sure about the tax reform; any “reform” that leaves me subisdizing Musk’s customers is not what I hoped for. Let Musk run a company for once.

        In the waning days of 2017, the Trump administration pulled its support for the $13 billion Hudson Tunnel project. https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/02
        /trump-administration-tells-new-york-new

        The Incredible Shrinking Trump Administration
        More than 16,000 jobs have been cut from the federal leviathan.
        https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/02
        /the-incredible-shrinking-trump-administr#comment

        “?first nine months of the Obama administration, when the federal workforce grew by 68,000” https://www.washingtonpost.com
        /politics/how-the-trump-era-is-
        changing-the-federal-bureaucracy
        /2017/12/30/8d5149c6-daa7-11e7-
        b859-fb0995360725_story.html?utm_
        term=.25b07160a26e

        Not one new war.

        Now, let’s hear why we should be angry

        1. B-b-b-but he tweets crude things! He calls people names! He disrespects the press! North Korea is gonna nuke us ANY MINUTE because of him! And he lies, like, ALL THE TIME! No President has ever uttered an untruth, except of course every RethugliKKKan ever! Emoluments Clause! Until he’s gone the Constitution matters! He’s undoing Obama’s legacy!!!

          1. “whataboutism” was the tell.

      2. Be careful citing economic stats. The Fed can pull their finger out of the dike at any moment and send the economy crashing down. TBH I’m surprised they haven’t done it already, with Trump being the perfect fall guy.

        1. ^This x infinity.

          How people seriously cite market stats to support *any* president is beyond me.

    3. Am I some cuck beta orbiter

      Nailed it!

    4. “Seriously I’m confused, someone explain this to me.”
      BTW, after reading your complete post, you’re not confused, you’re a fucking idiot.
      See below and tell us why you should be considered otherwise.

    5. What they want is for Reason and for libertarians generally to just go back to where they belong, as a (very) junior partner in the Team Red coalition, and be good little Team Red tribal members like they are supposed to be. Because as everyone knows, if you aren’t on the Trump Train, that means you support Queen Hillary! Right?

      1. You guys completely misunderstand the libertarian mindset. At least one major segment of libertarians come from a procedural, logical mindset – you see lots of programmers in this group. You also have an outsized group of ideologically driven people, for whom things operate from first principles..

        For these people, reasons matter. They don’t just latch on to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” type arguments. There are a lot of people around here who feel compelled to naysay a bad argument just because it is a bad argument.

        I’m right in the middle of both of those camps. I was calling Trump an idiot from the minute he showed up on “The Apprentice” and wondering why anyone would work with him, ever, to all of my friends who enjoyed him on that show. I am about as far from a Trump supporter as you can get, without tipping over into team-politik delusions.

        And yet I spent a lot of time during the campaign complaining here about being pushed into defending that idiot because reporters were parroting idiotic arguments and silly accusations. I warned that this sort of lazy attack does no one any favors – and look what has happened. He uses the nonsense to continue skating.

        1. So look at this investigation from basic principles of justice, logic and the rule of law.

          Libertarians are keenly wary of unchecked state power. A special prosecutor runs afoul of all of our principles, not because of who they are investigating, but because they always morph from “appointed to look into this one matter” into “keep investigating until you find something to get a scalp on your wall”.

          There are plenty of articles at Reason finding fault with special prosecutors for this very reason. And look at the comments above. Several people are echoing this sentiment – that instead of investigating “Russian interference” it is clear that Mueller is investigating “what can I dig up on people around Trump so I can get Trump?”. So that much doesn’t need to come from Trump supporters, it is right down main street of what you’d expect from a libertarian nerd.

          Combine that with all of the historically shady behavior from the outgoing administration (remember the “preserving the evidence” scheme of distributing classified information around the government for coordinated leaks after Trump took office…. nothing even remotely like that has ever happened before in this country) and you’ve got a recipe for “whataboutism” that need not have any root in support for Trump.

          1. Why should libertarians naturally be wary of broad government investigations into government actors?

            1. Broad investigations into government action are fine and dandy. If rarely ever done – ie. the Obama IRS scandal.

              A government ‘actor’ under government scrutiny becomes an individual.

              If you do not see the distinction you are not much of a libertarian.

              1. e.g. not i.e.

              2. I do not.

                What is it you think is investigated when looking at government “action”?

                Also, what happened to Rule of Law? If Trump’s guilty of a crime – any crime – what’s the problem? Change the law if you don’t like it.

                1. Also, what happened to Rule of Law? If Trump’s guilty of a crime – any crime – what’s the problem? Change the law if you don’t like it.

                  If Trump is known to be guilty of a crime, then absolutely he should be prosecuted under the same standard as anyone else.

                  What’s hard for me to process is a supposed libertarian gleefully supporting the Mueller probe, which didn’t even know what crime it was supposed to be investigating, and was obviously a fishing expedition from the start. Sorry, if you support prosecutorial fishing expeditions you do have to turn in your libertarian card.

            2. “””Why should libertarians naturally be wary of broad government investigations into government actors?”‘

              Because of this?

              “”She might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear,” Page, an FBI attorney, said in a discussion on February 25, 2016, about personnel involved in the investigation. “You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”

              “Agreed,” replied Strzok, who was romantically involved with Page, and who led the probe as the former No. 2 counterintelligence official at the bureau.”

              FBI Texts

              What I find interesting in that exchange is that is sounds more like fear than bias.

                1. Relevance?

                  Disparate treatment is pretty relevant.

            3. Why should libertarians naturally be wary of broad government investigations into government actors?

              The Trump campaign was not a government actor.

              1. Like I said, you guys don’t get it.

                The libertarian (and civil rights oriented) complaint about special counsels isn’t that they investigate government actions. It is that they become focused in on “getting this one particular guy”, rather than investigating a specific crime.

                Google reason and special counsel and you’ll find plenty of opinion writing describing what is wrong with the concept.

                If the government is given essentially unlimited resources and given a mandate: Dig in to everything about this guy until you find something we can take to court, they’ll find it.

                But that isn’t how law enforcement is supposed to work. It is supposed to require a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. And then they are supposed to investigate the crime to see what happened and who, if anyone, is culpable.

                In this case they started with an allegation of something wrong – Russia meddled in the election – which may or may not involve any crime. But nothing about that has been forthcoming.

                There were plenty of complaints along these lines about Ken Starr, and his changing mandates were approved by his superiors, not by his own whims (under the assumption of “well, we already have him set up with an office and staff, he might as well look into this too.”

                1. The libertarian (and civil rights oriented) complaint about special counsels isn’t that they investigate government actions.

                  lol, of course, I’m saying that to give context about this particular instance, as counterbalance to concerns about runaway investigations.

                  You’re claiming inconsistency by assuming everyone shares your premises and reasons for being wary of special prosecutors.

        2. At least one major segment of libertarians come from a procedural, logical mindset – you see lots of programmers in this group.

          Oh, I love those guys! Actually a lot of Trump supporters among them, too! They think they’re the masters of the universe, and that democracy is bad, because it means they have to pay taxes! What a hilarious bunch of morons!

          1. Meanwhile, most leftists come from a world where unnamed sources and unverified stories are true because the person they don’t like is the target of the article, not to mention the fact that speech that is objectionable isn’t free speech and no one should have guns because they don’t have any, and people would actually like to pay more in taxes (mainly people in the middle class since they can’t take advantage of tax loopholes) and it’s only democracy when my political corporation is in power. Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house, bitch.

          2. Yeah, like I said, you guys don’t get it. You aren’t going to get it either… so I should have saved the bytes.

            It is perfectly consistent to say “your criticism of this idiot is completely stupid” without being a supporter of the idiot.

            Meanwhile, it is also perfectly possible to blindly oppose every criticism of your political hero simply because you are a follower. They can superficially appear the same, but are not. There is more of the first here than the second, although the second does rear its stupid head too.

    6. I’m offended. You’re accusing us of being people.

    7. Half of them are trolls, and half of those trolls are one troll, and the other half are the conservative and culture warrior types that see or saw Reason as useful. Then one or two being glib, and one or two pedants (for lack of a better word; still waiting for the coffee to brew).

      1. Pedants… that’s the right word. A bunch of sticklers for consistency who love to naysay everything. Yup… that’s a big part of libertarian discussions. That’s why you can never get any agreement on anything other than “everyone else is wrong”.

        1. The traits do sadly apply to too many libertarians.

    8. kneejerk defense of Trump couples with rank whataboutism.

      We’re are just pointing out hypocrisy. And that in the greater scheme of things, there is nothing particularly awful about Trump, relative to any other president in modern history. In fact, he has been relatively good. Tax cuts*** and regulatory roll-back are good from a libertarian perspective. He is also seeking mostly responsible and sensible immigration reform*. Most other things (drug war, overseas military engagement**, spying) are par for the course.

      *Though I believe a wall is impractical and will turn into a huge spending boondoggle.
      **Though, it seems we’ve actually put a dent in ISIS. So that’s something.
      ***Should coupled with slashing the federal budget. That said, the tax laffer curve is at play.

      1. People that throw the term whataboutism don’t seem to know that it’s a fallacy when you try to use it to counter an argument. It’s irrelevant when you are merely pointing out their hypocrisy for the purpose of calling them a hypocrite.

    9. For me it’s as simple as seeing my predictions come true. Keep giving more and more power to the government, and eventually the government is going to turn on you and bite your ass.

      The fact that as part of the biting my retirement account has gone up insanely and the small business I work at is doing better than it has for decades is just frosting on the cake.

    10. Nobody on the thread had praised Trump in the slightest before your comment, so it’s a bit hard to take it as sincere. Not sure how a libertarian would consider that the president “runs things” either.

      Trump is no libertarian of course, but he is a better president for liberty than Obama was. Hands down. Perhaps a platypus would be better than either.

      1. When you are on a team, any criticism of your team is praise for the other team. Zero sum game.

        This is what drives this thought pattern.

        1. No disagreement there. But if he’s a libertarian, the leftists are not his team.

  10. #TheResistance #NEVERTRUMP #DeepStateStrong

    What a bunch of cucks

  11. Can’t get behind the Wapo and NYT paywalls, can someone tell me what Mueller has been doing since he was fired by Trump?

    1. Not playing golf, apparently.

  12. Trump’s trying to drain the swamp and save the taxpayers some money. Mueller is a waste of taxpayer money.

    Two indictments for making false statements about meeting Russians who they could meet without breaking any law? Plea deals.

    Two indictments for money laundering and conspiracy? Pleas of not guilty.

    Mueller getting a Grand jury to indict people is not the same thing as the DOJ prosecuting people to trial over charges that may or may not be provable beyond a reasonable doubt.

  13. NYT Journalism: based on 4 unnamed sources that heard from another unnamed source, Trump almost did a thing.

    Most interesting part is they sat on the story for 7 months until now.

    1. They’re waiting until Mueller’s final report saying he didn’t find anything, to release the story about anonymous sources hearing from anonymous sources that Trump wets his bed.

      1. isn’t that the Steele Dosier?

    2. You must have been watching the portion of FOX News where they trashed the report in this exact same language, and not the portion of FOX News where FOX News reporters confirmed the story with the White House.

  14. I was browsing the Jennifer Rubin blog over at the WaPo opinion page. Wow, everybody is a Tony there, or even wackier. I am astounded to learn that my NRA membership associates me with an organization that is now bought and paid for by Moscow!

    I also learned that pre-Steele dossier, the Estonians intercepted emails between some Republicans and some Russians. Large free-range herds of loonies now passionately insist the Estonians read the content of those emails and determined it was not about normal international business, such as Democrats routinely do (we will never know what was in Hillary’s emails) but instead involved talk of how to collude and steal the election.

    Next I learned that the Dutch intelligence services that Russians were hacking the DNC AND the State Department!
    Now I knew about the DNC because John Podesta is cyber-security hopeless, but the only weak cyber link at State was Hillary’s private server. That we know about. There may be others that followed the boss’s lead and got them.

    All of which gives me hope that the emails, though hard drives in the USA were bathed in acid and all that, may still pop up on WikiLeaks someday! Thanks, loonies, I didn’t know that was even feasible.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.