Special Counsel for Russia Election Interference: Robert Mueller.

maporsche wrote:

The Democratic party did not launch the investigation.

The Democrats created the false accusations and then constantly called for a special prosecutor until someone was weak enough to give in to their witch hunt.

oralloy wrote:

maporsche wrote:

The Democratic party did not launch the investigation.

The Democrats created the false accusations and then constantly called for a special prosecutor until someone was weak enough to give in to their witch hunt.

Those poor weak Republicans controlling all branches of government and those individuals in congressional approved positions of power.

It couldn't possibly be their fault...

or even more impossibly, there couldn't be actual evidence worth investigating further out there.....

nope...it's the meany democrats.

Snowflake.

Again, the "media" is a pretty diverse collective. The WSJ and FAUX News and other rightist media hated Obama with a passion and spread the wildest crap about him.

Full honesty.

I only care about the Russia thing in as much as it can hurt the Trump administration and the republicans in 2018.

I hope that in order to avoid embarrassment or ridicule that some of Trumps administration gets caught up with obstruction of justice because it will hurt the republicans politically.

I also, honestly, hope that Trump remains president and does not say something stupid enough to get himself impeached. A bumbling, weak, unfocused white house is the exact thing that will help democrats in 2018 and 2020 (in my opinion).

maporsche wrote:

Full honesty.

I only care about the Russia thing in as much as it can hurt the Trump administration and the republicans in 2018.

I hope that in order to avoid embarrassment or ridicule that some of Trumps administration gets caught up with obstruction of justice because it will hurt the republicans politically.

Republicans always get revenge for Democratic dirty tricks by turning them around and using the same methods against them.

maporsche wrote:

I also, honestly, hope that Trump remains president and does not say something stupid enough to get himself impeached. A bumbling, weak, unfocused white house is the exact thing that will help democrats in 2018 and 2020 (in my opinion).

Presidents are not impeached for saying something silly.

That said, nothing can help the Democrats. The Republicans are going to hold the White House for the next twenty years.

No, they get impeached for lying about something silly and obstructing an investigation though.... I hope Trump doesn't do that. Seriously I hope that he doesn't.

maporsche wrote:

No, they get impeached for lying about something silly and obstructing an investigation though.... I hope Trump doesn't do that. Seriously I hope that he doesn't.

Trump didn't commit obstruction.

If he had committed obstruction, no one would care after the way the Democrats allowed Bill Clinton to get away with obstruction (among other crimes).

Lying about something silly doesn't sound particularly impeachable.

But speaking of Clinton, he got caught lying about something silly, didn't he?

How many people in congress now were there during Clinton's impeachment?

And does it even matter?

But speaking of Clinton, he got caught lying about something silly, didn't he?

No. Bill Clinton got caught committing obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and perjury.

Again, the "media" is a pretty diverse collective. The WSJ and FAUX News and other rightist media hated Obama with a passion and spread the wildest crap about him.

Poll: Most people don't trust Trump on Russia investigations

President Donald Trump has a credibility problem when it comes to the ongoing investigations into Russian interference in last year’s election, a new poll released Wednesday morning shows.

More than 70 percent of those reached by The Washington Post/ABC News poll said they have either some or no trust in what the president says about the array of probes into the Russian government’s election interference. Fifty percent of respondents said they had no trust at all in the president’s statements on the issue.

Trump has regularly derided the investigations, including one overseen by special prosecutor Robert Mueller and two that are being conducted by the House and Senate intelligence committees, as a “witch hunt.” He for months refused to acknowledge the intelligence community’s assessment that the Russian government was to blame for the wave of cyberattacks targeting last year’s election, instead suggesting that it might have been China or a lone-wolf hacker acting on his or her own.

On the question of Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, who was at the time overseeing the bureau’s Russia investigation, 61 percent said they believed the president had done so in order to protect himself while just 27 percent said the dismissal had been for the good of the nation. Fifty-six percent of those polled said Trump has sought to interfere with the Russia investigations, while 34 percent said he has cooperated with them.

Comey is likely to offer further clarity on Trump’s cooperation or lack thereof on Thursday when he testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he is likely to be asked about reports that the president asked him to halt the bureau’s investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. The former FBI director is reported to have kept extemporaneous notes on his meetings with the president, excerpts of which have been reported on by multiple media outlets.

But Comey’s credibility is also not ironclad with those polled. Fifty-five percent said they have either some or no trust in what the former FBI director says about the Russia investigations, while just 36 percent said they have either a great deal or a good amount of trust in Comey’s statements on the issue.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll was conducted from June 2-4 via landlines and cell phones, surveying 527 adults nationwide in English and Spanish. The margin of error was plus-or-minus 5 percentage points.

Sen. August King (D-Maine) on Wednesday attempted to smash the stonewalling non-answers from intelligence officials, as they refused to say whether President Donald Trump attempted to recruit them in alleged efforts to downplay the FBI investigation into Russia and members of his campaign.

During Wednesday morning’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers, and acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to directly answer whether Trump asked them to publicly downplay the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Russia probe, or to otherwise interfere with the investigation, as numerous reports claim. All three officials claimed they thought it would be inappropriate to discuss conversations with Trump that may be part of the federal investigation into Trump’s team and Russia. They also claimed in broad terms that they had not been asked to do anything illegal.

King, clearly frustrated, asked all three men why they refused to answer questions related to their alleged conversations with Trump. Addressing Rogers, King asked whether the White House invoked executive privilege over the president’s conversations with Rogers and Coats, which would bar them from discussing the conversations publicly.

Both men said the White House had not invoked executive privilege.

“Then why are you not answering our questions?” King asked in response.

“Because I feel it is inappropriate,” Rogers responded.

“What you feel isn’t relevant, admiral,” King shot back.

Pressing further, King asked Coats and Rogers to explain the basis for their refusal to answer questions about their alleged conversations with Trump, which they implied were classified but are not.

“What is the legal basis for your refusal to testify to this committee?” King asked Coats.

“I’m not sure I have a legal basis,” Coats responded, “but I am more than willing to sit before this committee… in a closed session and answer your questions.”

King then asked Coats and Rogers whether they would commit to answering the questions in a closed session. Coats said he would first ask White House counsel to say whether it intends to invoke executive privilege—despite the fact that, according to the officials, it has not yet done so.

King’s exchange with the intelligence officials encapsulates the political pressure building around the Trump-Russia controversy, which is expected to reach a boiling point on Thursday when former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Trump fired Comey last month. Since then, reports revealed that Trump allegedly asked Comey to sideline the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and demanded Comey’s loyalty, which he reportedly refused to provide.

Comey’s testimony will begin at 10am ET on Thursday.

Trump's friend Christopher Ruddy says President 'considering' firing Mueller

By Saba Hamedy and Jim Acosta, CNN
Updated 1:16 AM ET, Tue June 13, 2017

Washington (CNN) — One of President Donald Trump's friends said Monday he believes the President is considering dismissing special counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed to lead the FBI investigation into Russia's potential ties to the 2016 election.

"I think he's considering perhaps terminating the special counsel," Christopher Ruddy -- who was at the White House Monday -- told PBS' Judy Woodruff on "PBS NewsHour." "I think he's weighing that option."

A source close to the President said Trump is being counseled to steer clear of such a dramatic move like firing the special counsel.

"He is being advised by many people not to do it," the source said.

However, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said, "Mr. Ruddy never spoke to the President regarding this issue. With respect to this subject, only the President or his attorneys are authorized to comment."

And deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said simply: "Chris speaks for himself."

Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax Media, based his Mueller comment on a television interview with one of Trump's lawyers. When asked about the interview by CNN, Ruddy said: "My quote is accurate."

He told Woodruff he thinks firing Mueller "would be a very significant mistake, even though I don't think there's a justification ... for a special counsel."

Mueller was appointed FBI Director by President George W. Bush in 2001 and served until 2013, when Comey took over as head.

Since being appointed special counsel in May, he has built a team of formidable legal minds who've worked on everything from Watergate to Enron. He has long been widely respected by many in Washington from both sides of the aisle, with many lawmakers praising Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein's pick.

Still not everyone is a fan.

Earlier this week, Newt Gingrich reportedly told radio host John Catsimatidis that Congress should "abolish the independent counsel."

"I think Congress should now intervene and they should abolish the independent counsel," the former House speaker said. "Because Comey makes so clear that it's the poison fruit of a deliberate manipulation by the FBI director leaking to The New York Times, deliberately set up this particular situation. It's very sick."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, disputed that report.

"I don't think Newt said that," Graham told reporters. "I think it'd be a disaster. There's no reason to fire Mueller. What had he done to be fired?"

After news of Ruddy's interview surfaced on the web, Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, echoed that sentiment on Twitter.

"If President fired Bob Mueller, Congress would immediately re-establish independent counsel and appoint Bob Mueller," the California lawmaker tweeted. "Don't waste our time."

Schiff later told CNN's Anderson Cooper he wouldn't be surprised if Trump was considering ousting Mueller.

"You have to hope that common sense would prevail," Schiff said. "But it wouldn't surprise me at all, even though it would be absolutely astonishing were he(Trump) to entertain this. The echoes of Watergate are getting louder and louder."