Nearing the end game: The 6 phases of Trump’s plan to fire Robert Mueller

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Anybody that could possibly believe that the Clintons are innocent little lambs, and all the controversy surrounding them, is living in La La land. Do you really think that people make this stuff up about the Clintons?

LCDR (Join to see) - Think so. Prove me wrong.

SN Ron Jett - As politicians, I am sure they have their own dirty laundry, but I am equally certain that a very large portion of the controversy surrounding them is fabricated and politically motivated - Benghazi, UraniumOne, or pick your own fabricated scandal. I know she is your favorite scapegoat, and you just can't get over your Hillary Derangement Syndrome, but that is your problem to live with. I can't learn anything from you that Sean Hannity hasn't said already.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Benghazi, UraniumOne, she so far deep in that, she could be 30,000 feet up, look up and still not see daylight. Hannity, don't listen to him, I do have standards.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Well, congressional investigation committees are partisan in nature. They have democrats and republicans on them and they have a committee leader (who is from the party that controls the chamber). Congressional investigations are not special counsels but have some balance because of the make up of the committee itself. They also have limited power.

Special counsels are supposed to be fair, impartial, unbiased etc. The leader of that office is supposed to hire investigators, lawyers etc. that are fair and impartial (as reasonably as is possible). I don't think Mueller hit the mark on that buy a long shot. He has a number of very partisan people and those with political ties that bring their objectivity into question. Special counsels have a lot of power to do damage and have an obligation to be unpartisan in their work.

I will see your Twain quote and raise you one: "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." - Twain.

Cpl Jeff N. - I would think that someone so concerned with impartiality would take the line that all investigations are supposed to be impartial, unbiased, etc. rather than try to justify the bias nature of congressional investigations. I really doubt that the actual concern is related to the objectivity of the investigation, especially since the only ones attempting to discredit Mueller (who is a Republican) are from one side of the aisle, and how that fact never factors into the not so objective nature of the accusations.

Let's be honest - the accusations of Mueller's lack of credibility and objectivity are all speculative, politically motivated, and only surfacing as the investigation starts to take tangible actions. Newt Gingrich and many other Republicans touted Mueller's "unimpeachable integrity" when he was appointed, a Republican Special Counsel appointed by a Republican member of the DOJ. Why is there not equal concern for impartiality with Donald Trump attempting to exert executive influence on the investigation through his public statements? Don't you think Trump's tweets deteract from the impartial and objective nature of the investigation? Should a sitting president be able to use his platform to influence opinion about an ongoing investigation, especially when he is subject to that investigation?

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Steve, a congressional investigation has partisans on the committee. It is partisan by definition and construct. Does that mean there is not fairness, well both sides get to ask their questions, do their follow ups and cast their votes so in that sense it is "fair" but not unpartisan. A congressional committee is not a criminal investigation like a special counsel who can have you arrested, charged, tried and imprisoned so they are not apples to apples "investigations" .

Mueller is being hammered for his selection of people to his team not necessarily his character his impartiality. His judgment on selecting investigators is the larger issue. His integrity may me unimpeachable in some eyes that does not mean he cannot make a bad judgment. HIs integrity can still be whole while making a bad decision or two. His personal integrity and his judgment on hiring people are not inextricably linked.

Trump is well within the law to make statements and question things going on in the investigation. Look at what Clinton did to Ken Starr back in the day. No one is suggesting what his comments are illegal, he is the head of the government conducting the investigation. The DOJ reports to him through the AG. I guess a fair criticism would be if you don't think they are doing a good job or being fair, fire them. We all know how that would go down but he would be 100% within his legal standing to do so.

I don't think anyone has said he is a subject of the investigation. The investigation is looking into Russian influence and "possible collusion" into the election. No evidence has been put forward on any of that so far.

Cpl Jeff N. - So no need for fairness or impartiality for Congressional investigations because they have no real power - is that your assertion? They can just do whatever they want for whatever politically motivated reason they want. Interesting angle.

Please provide a single example of what "Clinton did to Ken Starr back in the day" that even compares. When nothing on Whitewater panned out, Starr was investigating Clinton for getting a blow job - not exactly an issue with earth shattering national security ramifications.

You know as well as I do that the campaign against Mueller is politically motivated by people that don't want Trump and his administration exposed. ... "No evidence has been put forward on any of that so far." - You mean besides verified e-mails and numerous unreported contacts, not to mention the indictment of the campaign chairmen with deep connections to Russia, and the former NSA head with ties to Russia. Much of it circumstantial, and not all the dots have been connected in public, yet. But to say there is "no evidence" is just plain wrong. That ship has sailed. The new line is "collusion is not illegal" because the old lies just didn't hold up. People have indicted Obama as a "secret Muslim", and questioned his legitimacy with far less evidence.

Perhaps you can shed some light on why after nearly 30 years of accusations, not a single indictment against Hillary. Is she just that good? It was the ridiculous UraniumOne scandal that sealed it for me. Just dangerous enough to scare the gullible into believing, but those who know better.... If the Russians actually had control of 20% of U.S. uranium, why wouldn't the current POTUS do anything about it besides cry on Twitter.?.. unless of course, the Russians have something on him.

Have you heard Mueller at all on TV? Twitter? He is doing his job while the talking heads talk about him. Some people are really impressed by what the talking heads have to say, especially on certain "news" infotainment channels. Meanwhile, Trump, openly obstructing justice and attempting to exert influence on the investigation by discrediting it, just like he did the election... before he "won".