Put Up or Shut Up Time for Mueller

[kudzu]

What makes no sense is why choose Mullet if one wanted to avoid ‘at least the appearance of conflict of interest’?

How many federal prosecutors are there? I don’t know, but let’s go with a low number and say there’s 50 of them. But they choose the one that was turned down for a job by the very person who was going to be targeted in the investigation.

Really lol?

In fact, the whole show was initiated by what amounts to a clique: Rosenstein-Comey-Mullet, they’re all three good buddies, going back years or even decades. And they wonder why we call it a swamp.

If Rosenstein wanted to avoid ‘even the appearance of conflict of interest’ he would have gone miles out of the beltway to find a prosecutor to lead the investigation. A prosecutor that wasn’t interviewed for a job by one of the principle subjects of the investigation. One that didn’t have a personal relationship with anyone involved would have been perfect.

Apparently, that would have been too risky. Such a prosecutor might not play along. So Rosenstein accepted the risk that the investigation would be criticized for being conflicted. And it turned out to be a good gambit because the Fake Newsers would run interference for him and no one has the balls to do anything about it.

Pretty easy to figure out.

Nope.. Not friends.. associates. There is a difference.. and your lie is old and debunked.

 

[Darth Omar]

Nope.. Not friends.. associates. There is a difference.. and your lie is old and debunked.

It’s not a lie that it ‘appears to be conflicted’ lol.

The potential for conflict just gets explained-away, by willing stooges—like you just did.

 

[Phantasmal]

Nope.. Not friends.. associates. There is a difference.. and your lie is old and debunked.

He doesn’t care. They keep pushing a lot of tripe.

 

[kudzu]

It’s not a lie that it ‘appears to be conflicted’ lol.

The potential for conflict just gets explained-away, by willing stooges—like you just did.

Legit business associations are NOT secret.. Do a bit of reading up on conflict of interest.

 

[Getin the ring]

Mueller has two choices, neither are which good ones for him.

Either admit the dirt bag witch hunt turned up nothing on "collusion", or
continue embarrassing himself, his institution, and the country

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

What makes no sense is why choose Mullet if one wanted to avoid ‘at least the appearance of conflict of interest’?

When Mueller was appointed there was no question of his qualifications. The appointment was well received by members of both parties. All criticism of Mueller began after President Trump began to, without basis, put him down on Twitter. I know you want to believe in Trump, but I tell you it is a huge mistake. He has not changed. He is just as unethical as he has been his whole life. He makes a terrible President. You should be far more critical of what he says. No way anyone should ever believe him unless he has proof of what he says, (which he usually does not!) President Trump makes things up. You should know this by now.

How many federal prosecutors are there? I don’t know, but let’s go with a low number and say there’s 50 of them.

Making things up is right in line with your entire deep state conspiracy theory.

But they choose the one that was turned down for a job by the very person who was going to be targeted in the investigation.

Really lol?

Everybody in the country who did not get that job was turned down for it.

In fact, the whole show was initiated by what amounts to a clique: Rosenstein-Comey-Mullet, they’re all three good buddies, going back years or even decades. And they wonder why we call it a swamp.

So what? These people have worked together well for a long time and they are very experienced. What makes that a swamp? The boards of many big corporations have had relationships with one another for many decades and worked together also. Are major corporate boards also included in your definition of the swamp? Or is it simply government people who are either Democrats, or willing to talk to and respect and work with Democrats? I guess as far as you are concerned: 'It's your Dems and RINOs that are the problem,' right? They are not far enough right? Only the furthest right views are 'spot on?' So far to the right that you don't even believe the mainstream news? You think it's fake? Like the President says? You take his word over the news? Well, ya know what? I think that's extremist. I think that kind of thinking is extremist thinking. No wonder you're so far out there that you justify disrespecting this person so much, that you believe it is justified to use a derogatory term to refer to him instead of his actual name, a basic respect everyone deserves. That's just pathetic. I am sensing a lot of misplaced hatred there. You think it is OK to dehumanize somebody because you disagree with them. Pathetic. Thanks for letting me know how your mind works, but know that your approach is unlikely to attract any more people to your position. It's ugly.

If Rosenstein wanted to avoid ‘even the appearance of conflict of interest’ he would have gone miles out of the beltway to find a prosecutor to lead the investigation.

He was under absolutely no such requirement. It is probably better that an insider with a record of impartiality be appointed. And that is exactly what it appears happened.

A prosecutor that wasn’t interviewed for a job by one of the principle subjects of the investigation. One that didn’t have a personal relationship with anyone involved would have been perfect.

In your view.

Apparently, that would have been too risky. Such a prosecutor might not play along. So Rosenstein accepted the risk that the investigation would be criticized for being conflicted.

Do you think Giuliani is an idiot? Don't you realize that if there was ANYTHING the least bit improprietous about the investigation that he would have been able to use that to challenge it? If such an impropriety existed, why has it not been filed in court action or used as justification for some kind of Executive Order?

And it turned out to be a good gambit because the Fake Newsers would run interference for him and no one has the balls to do anything about it.

Pretty easy to figure out.

You have 'figured out' nothing. You've made something up. You have others who agree with you ( a minority; ) so you think it's justified. It is not. You have no proof that there is any such 'deep state.' The term is pure spin. If there was any 'there' there, there would be a huge and very REAL controversy over the investigation. There isn't. The only controversy is a completely made-up one; without basis. You are free to say anything you like. We are not obligated to believe nonsense.