Mueller

Mueller





http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lead-russia-probe-wins-bipartisan-praise.html

Robert Mueller appointment to lead Russia probe wins bipartisan praise
Published May 17, 2017
Fox News



House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.: “My priority has been to ensure thorough and independent investigations are allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead. That is what we’ve been doing here in the House. The addition of Robert Mueller as special counsel is consistent with this goal, and I welcome his role at the Department of Justice. The important ongoing bipartisan investigation in the House will also continue."


Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.: “It’s time to get to the bottom of this. I’ve been pressing the DOJ to take this step for nearly 3 months because the Americans deserve nothing less than the truth. I have faith that Robert Mueller will provide the independence necessary to be sure this investigation is conducted with the trust and confidence of the American people.”

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb.: “Robert Mueller is an exceptional public servant -- from his days as a decorated Marine, through his years as a federal prosecutor, to his time as head of the criminal division and then as Acting Deputy Attorney General, and then onto his twelve years of principled leadership as the Director of the FBI. His record, character, and trustworthiness have been lauded for decades by Republicans and Democrats alike.”



Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine: “The Deputy Attorney General made an excellent choice in selecting former FBI Director Robert Mueller to serve as special counsel. He has sterling credentials and is above reproach. Because of his experience leading the FBI for more than a decade, Mr. Mueller has established relationships with FBI agents and will be able to move forward quickly. He is well respected on both sides of the aisle and will inspire public confidence in the investigation. In the meantime, the Senate Intelligence Committee will continue our investigation into Russia's attempts to influence elections. This investigation will be broader than the special counsel’s charge, and it is important that we continue to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. “



House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif.: “Robert Mueller is the right man to lead this investigation. He’s a strong, independent leader who built an impeccable reputation over decades in law enforcement. And as special counsel, I’m confident he’ll pursue the facts – wherever they may lead. As I’ve said before, Vladimir Putin’s acts of aggression pose serious threats to the U.S. and our allies. We’ve got to get to the bottom of Russia’s efforts to meddle in our democratic process so we can keep it from happening again.”




Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.: “The decision by the Deputy Attorney General to appoint former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel confirms that the investigation into Russian intervention into our election will continue, as stated last week by Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will also continue its investigation into this matter.”






https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ace-robert-mueller-special-counsel/101810310/

Rare bipartisan moment: Both sides embrace Robert Mueller as special counsel

WASHINGTON — A Congress utterly fractured by partisan bickering came to rare bipartisan agreement Wednesday night as members of both parties effusively praised the selection of former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel in charge of the FBI's investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election.






https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.877ee498c290

Finally something Democrats and Republicans agree on: Former FBI director is right pick for special counsel


Congressional Republicans and Democrats praised the Justice Department’s decision to appoint Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel to investigate possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia in the 2016 campaign — sparking a rare moment of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill over a politically charged issue.
 
UsualName said:
It is not irrefutable the president cannot be indicted. The DOJ has a standing memorandum that states the president cannot be indicted but it has not been tried in court. I’d like to remind you the FBI had a standing memorandum to not take any actions or make statements about or against politicians within two months of an election and that memo was broken in this last election.

I agree the memorandum is sound but in no way does that mean it is irrefutable. There are plenty of scenarios we can come up with that a sitting president would justifiably be indicted.
More...
This particular debate about presidential indictment has been settled and I'm on to other more important matters. If Mueller gets a grand jury to unlawfully indict Trump then you'll get a big surprise and have to admit I'm right when you see what happens next.
 
I'm of the opinion that Trump may be reticent to remove Mueller simply on the political optics of that move. Likely we'll need to concentrate on holding the House in 2018 in order to avoid Morlibons from passing articles of impeachment out of hand. However, I do see a scenario where Sessions could un-recuse himself, fire Mueller, and the reappoint an unbiased Special Counsel to finish up.
 
There is something that needs to change when appointing Special Counsels by the way. They should be given strict limits to investigate a particular matter and that matter only. First of all, it wouldn't take so long and wouldn't cost so much money. Secondly, there would be less opportunity to "get someone on anything" to make them look good----Like they are doing with Flynn, Gates and Manafort. This is indeed a total witch hunt.
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
This particular debate about presidential indictment has been settled and I'm on to other more important matters. If Mueller gets a grand jury to unlawfully indict Trump then you'll get a big surprise and have to admit I'm right when you see what happens next.
More...

You may have settled it in your mind, and that’s ok, but as a nation it is not. I’m of the mind that the DOJ memorandum is sound. All I’m saying is it isn’t irrefutable because it hasn’t been tried in a court.
 
Buy1Sell2 said:
There is something that needs to change when appointing Special Counsels by the way. They should be given strict limits to investigate a particular matter and that matter only. First of all, it wouldn't take so long and wouldn't cost so much money. Secondly, there would be less opportunity to "get someone on anything" to make them look good----Like they are doing with Flynn, Gates and Manafort. This is indeed a total witch hunt.
More...

This is something you guys - especially Froggy - don’t understand, a special counsel doesn’t have any more power than a regular fbi Investigation.

As to your assertion that law enforcement should not be able to “get someone on anything” there are prisons full of people that agree with you but the law has a very long arm.
 
UsualName said:
. There are plenty of scenarios we can come up with that a sitting president would justifiably be indicted.
More...



And all of them will involve heavy constitutional issues that will spin in the courts for years.

Trump might even get to appoint a couple more justices along the way.

Not sure this is going to be the immediate clean kill that the dems want.

Although it is ultra-repetitive on my part, I will point again, that Mueller has an extensive record of getting convictions at the lower level but then having them all overturned on appeal as justices concerned with the law- rather than jurors- throw out cases by the pantload based on all the crooked tactics his investigators used. Sound familiar already?

GET READY TO SEE MORE OF THE SAME THING. IT IS NOT OVER UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT SINGS WITH SOME OF THESE CLOWNS.

I was going to say "it is not over until the fat lady sings" but I did not want to trigger the libtards who might think I was taking a cheap shot at Elena Kagan.

:cool:
 
UsualName said:
You’re going to switch and be a democrat if he is elected?
More...

meant to say "he might switch." wow, that must have gotten you excited when you read that. I could feel the love coming my way from you already. Sorry. I am not going to switch. As Bette Midler says: "I have standards. They are very, very low but I do have them." Also I am a registered independent so there is no "switching" involved with either party.

Although, every man knows that the lib women are easy, so it does have its advantages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top