Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
fish'nmagician

More Bipartisan efforts against Trump Obstruction

Rate this topic

28 posts in this topic

18 minutes ago, fish'nmagician said:

any doubt I will?

no sooner will a Trumper be exposed for lying about Russia,

than I will be here posting it.

You're obsessed. When's the last time you fished?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, fish'nmagician said:

Muller might be getting Legal protection to prevent Trump from firing him.

nice to see Congress unite against Putin's Puppet.

How is the combination of this thread title and the two lines above even enough to start a thread? This is the second or third mindless troll line that you have laid out into the wake this morning. 

Hey Tim, at what point do threads that neither make a rhetorical point nor ask a legit question get locked down? This is nothing more than pollution. 

 

ETA: It is spelled Mueller, not Muller like the noodles. 

Edited by tomkaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, fish'nmagician said:

any doubt I will?

no sooner will a Trumper be exposed for lying about Russia,

than I will be here posting it.

 

Well, can you stop posting until the exposure comes about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tomkaz said:

Hey Tim, at what point do threads that neither make a rhetorical point nor ask a legit question get locked down?

if MINE gets locked down there are a hell of a lot of others that are just as bad or worse.

and if you don't like a thread don't post in it.

allegedly we aren't supposed to be derailing threads,

but every thread critical of Trump seems to get shut down quickly by the same group of derailing right wingers.

it's annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller’s job would be protected by bipartisan Senate bill

WASHINGTON -- Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are moving to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller's job, putting forth legislation that aims to ensure the integrity of current and future independent investigations.

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware plan to introduce the legislation Thursday. The bill would allow any special counsel for the Department of Justice to challenge his or her removal in court, with a review by a three-judge panel within 14 days of the challenge.

The bill would be retroactive to May 17, 2017 - the day Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible ties to Donald Trump's campaign.

"It is critical that special counsels have the independence and resources they need to lead investigations," Tillis said in a statement. "A back-end judicial review process to prevent unmerited removals of special counsels not only helps to ensure their investigatory independence, but also reaffirms our nation's system of check and balances."

Mueller was appointed as special counsel following Mr. Trump's abrupt firing of FBI Director James Comey. Mueller, who was Comey's predecessor as FBI director, has assembled a team of prosecutors and lawyers with experience in financial fraud, national security and organized crime to investigate contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

 Wave of disapproval through Congress amid talk of Trump dismissing Mueller 


Mr. Trump has been critical of Mueller since his appointment, and the president's legal team is looking into potential conflicts surrounding the team Mueller has hired, including the backgrounds of members and political contributions by some members to Hillary Clinton. He has also publicly warned Mueller that he would be out of bounds if he dug into the Trump family's finances.

Mueller has strong support on Capitol Hill. Senators in both parties have expressed concerns that Trump may try to fire Mueller and have warned him not to do so.

"Ensuring that the special counsel cannot be removed improperly is critical to the integrity of his investigation," Coons said.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another member of the Judiciary panel, said last week that he was working on a similar bill that would prevent the firing of a special counsel without judicial review. Graham said then that firing Mueller "would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions."

The Tillis and Coons bill would allow review after the special counsel had been dismissed. If the panel found there was no good cause for the counsel's removal, the person would be immediately reinstated. The legislation would also codify existing Justice Department regulations that a special counsel can only be removed for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or other good cause, such as a violation of departmental policies.

In addition, only the attorney general or the most senior Justice Department official in charge of the matter could fire the special counsel.

In the case of the current investigation, Rosenstein is charged with Mueller's fate because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from all matters having to do with the Trump-Russia investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fish'nmagician said:

if MINE gets locked down there are a hell of a lot of others that are just as bad or worse.

and if you don't like a thread don't post in it.

allegedly we aren't supposed to be derailing threads,

but every thread critical of Trump seems to get shut down quickly by the same group of derailing right wingers.

it's annoying.

Trumpswabs are getting more thin skinned by the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, moonbat said:

Trumpswabs are getting more thin skinned by the day.

I know snowflakes is a term that allegedly is a liberal insult,

but the PG is being transformed into a right wing safe space,

a LOT of threads to bash liberals,

and any thread Critical of Trump gets derailed instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tomkaz said:

See, now you actually supplied the source material, try that from the OP and you won't get razzed for posting three incoherent sentences. 

 

 I would not be razzing someone for incoherence when putting out a run-on sentence like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.