[garygreen]

That is what he's saying but he's not saying it in a "My side is right, yours is wrong" simply pointing out that this is a strategy that, based on human behavior, results in people looking at Comey as someone that needs to be dealt with first.  Drawing attention away.  Whether this is an intentional strategy is up for debate or if Comey is a legitimate threat is up for debate.  A debate he's not having right now.

oh, word, i see what you're getting at.  this whole exchange makes sense to me now.

[honk]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/robert-mueller-trump.html

[Lord Dave]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/robert-mueller-trump.html

Heard about this.
Literally what Nixon did.

And congress can apparently just hire him back so it would be a waste of time.

[garygreen]

i think i read something earlier today that said spicer has since said trump has no plans to remove mueller.

[honk]

Since when does what Spicer says actually correlate to what Trump says or does?

[Lord Dave]

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/13/532827514/an-appalling-and-detestable-lie-5-highlights-from-sessions-senate-testimony

My personal favorite:

"Do you like spy fiction? John le Carre? Daniel Silva? Jason Matthews?" Cotton asked at one point in his questioning.
Sessions caught on quick.
"Yeah, Alan Furst, David Ignatius," he said. "I just finished Ignatius' book."
"Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?" asked Cotton.
"No," said Sessions, followed by a giggle and laughter in the audience. "Yes, I do."
"Have you ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plotline so ridiculous that a sitting United States senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting, with hundreds of other people, to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage?" Cotton asked rhetorically.

This was funny.  He's wasting time while trying to argue that it's not done in spy novels thus it can't possibly be real.

[garygreen]

Since when does what Spicer says actually correlate to what Trump says or does?

fair enough, but in this case i'd be pretty surprised if spicer is speaking out of turn.  i think the trump camp leaked it to test the waters.

This was funny.  He's wasting time while trying to argue that it's not done in spy novels thus it can't possibly be real.

i had a similar thought while watching his testimony.  personally, i think sessions's testimony was entirely truthful; but, if sessions were exchanging clandestine messages with kislyak, this would be a pretty good way to go about it.  i think cotton has been reading too many le carre novels.  lol like sessions is gonna be setting up dead-drops and meeting intelligence officials in dark alleys or something.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

They're trying to force Trump's hand to fire Mueller because, even with a stacked deck of DNC lawyers on Mueller's team, the findings (or lack thereof) would seem minuscule compared to the narrative that Trump is Nixon and the fallout he would face from firing an investigator, even one as obviously partisan as Robert Mueller.

[garygreen]

how could the democrats force trump to fire mueller.  that makes no sense.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

how could the democrats force trump to fire mueller.  that makes no sense.

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

[Rama Set]

how could the democrats force trump to fire mueller.  that makes no sense.

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

But hey, you just follow the evidence with a #openmind

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

how could the democrats force trump to fire mueller.  that makes no sense.

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

But hey, you just follow the evidence with a #openmind

I'm sorry, did you say evidence? You must be aware of something I am not.

[garygreen]

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

yeah that also doesn't make any sense.  mueller was appointed by rod rosenstein, the deputy ag trump himself nominated.  trump literally declined rosenstein's resignation and nominated him for deputy ag in a gop-controlled senate that favored him 94-6.  trump obviously thought this was a person of good political character, or he wouldn't have nominated him.  what possible motive could rosenstein have to appoint a dnc operative?

you describe these people as "clearly partisan."  on what do you base that assessment?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

By having Mueller staff his team with clearly partisan lawyers and known DNC supporters. They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

yeah that also doesn't make any sense.  mueller was appointed by rod rosenstein, the deputy ag trump himself nominated.  trump literally declined rosenstein's resignation and nominated him for deputy ag in a gop-controlled senate that favored him 94-6.  trump obviously thought this was a person of good political character, or he wouldn't have nominated him.  what possible motive could rosenstein have to appoint a dnc operative?

you describe these people as "clearly partisan."  on what do you base that assessment?

The fact that one of the lawyers hired by Mueller, Jeannie Rhee, literally worked for the Clinton Foundation. Apparently there are FEC records that show that 4 of the other lawyers made donations to DNC and it's candidates over the past decade. Not to mention Mueller and Comey have a very long history of working together, one notable case was the botched Anthrax investigation that wrongfully pinned the mailings on an innocent man.

[honk]

They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

A congressional investigation designed to stretch on as long as possible and push a narrative of perpetual scandal rather than genuinely investigate any real issues?



You don't say.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

They are posturing up for a major witch hunt that they only hope drags out until the midterms. Finding anything is secondary to just muddying the waters and trying to build a Trump obstruction of justice case.

A congressional investigation designed to stretch on as long as possible and push a narrative of perpetual scandal rather than genuinely investigate any real issues?

You don't say.

Except that investigation actually found multiple felonies being committed, as well as obstruction of justice. It was Hillary's "intent" that your on again/off again hero/enemy James Comey arbitrarily decided wasn't malicious.

[garygreen]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/337781-opinion-history-backs-sessions-and-the-power-of

speaking of things that surprise me: why is this controversial?  obviously no cabinet member is ever gonna testify in an open hearing about private conversations with the president.

[Pete Svarrior]

speaking of things that surprise me: why is this controversial?  obviously no cabinet member is ever gonna testify in an open hearing about private conversations with the president.

My guess is that all the "wow do you not even understand your legal obligations right now?" questions were supposed to incite distrust. They kept pressing him on whatever it was he didn't want to say so that they could not-really-say-but-imply that he's bending the law.

[garygreen]

i can't decide what's more annoying: redditors pretending to be lawyers, or senators pretending not to be.

[honk]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/15/trump-russia-investigation-obsession-239614

[Trump] has sometimes, without prompting, injected. “I’m not under investigation” into conversations with associates and allies.

lol