|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
Why is that spot so tough? If he's an objective lawman interested in justice, then it really doesn't matter who he's investigating. Also, unlike the members of the House and Senate intelligence committees....Mueller doesn't have to answer to a voting constituency.
At the outset Mueller needed to walk a fine line between keeping the investigation open long enough to due his duty as an investigator and actually do his duty as an investigator. Any wrong step and if there is something to be uncovered, he would have squandered the only shot anyone was likely to have.
Disagree. By being secretive, with the only leaking details seeming to be far outside of his original directive, I think he has less credibility than ever. Firing Mueller would certainly create blowback for Trump. But the amount of potential blowback is probably at it's lowest point ever.
Right, I think I was unclear-- being secretive doesn't help his credibility, being secret was necessary for him to get far enough so that he could slowly build credibility. There are now several key figures cooperating with the investigation. It's much harder to convince onlookers that this is all a sack of nothing burgers. Why were they cut deals, in what way are they cooperating?
Whatever you think about the developments in the investigation, Mueller is part of the picture now. It may have been risky to fire him right off the bat, but its far riskier now because a significant portion of the population is expecting results and will feel that they were robbed of a forthcoming revelation.
Disagree again. If the democrats gained congressional power tomorrow, the very first thing they would do is move to impeach just based on what information is currently public. They won't even need Mueller.
These are separate issues. Whether or not it's politically prudent, congress has a lot of leeway regarding the reason they impeach and convict a president. Mueller's job is to find the truth, and if a crime has been committed he needs to present the evidence in a sufficiently convincing way. This applies to whether he indicts (unlikely) or submits a report that ultimately makes its way to a democrat controlled or republican controlled congress. If there's a crime and his case is weaksauce, the likelihood of conviction drops dramatically, meaning the likelihood of him failing to see to it that justice is served increases.
Manafort has not flipped. What does that tell you?
He's got some gamble in him-- this is readily apparent from his bio.
Is that what I said? I can recall pointing out the known democratic affiliations prominent on Mueller's team, but that was several hundred posts ago.
I apologize, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Even so, I think way too much is made about political affiliations. People in the DOJ, FBI, etc are not robots. Mueller, Rosenstein, Sessions, the SDNY guy-- pretty much everyone that is in a leadership role in this is a republican, many of them being Trump appointees. It would be inappropriate to exclude democrats from working on the investigation, yet when any semblance of bias has turned up, those investigators were promptly removed from Mueller's team.
I find the indictment of Michael Flynn to be quite dubious. I find the case against Popadopoulous to be flimsy. I find Mueller's inquiry into the Stormy Daniels situation to be an over-reach. I find his raid on Cohen's office to be borderline criminal. I find his interest into the Access Hollywood tape to be petty.
Neither Flynn nor Popadopolous seem to think the cases against them are either dubious or flimsy.
Mueller did not raid Cohen's office. The SDNY did. If lifting the Trump rock reveals all sorts of criminal critters, that's not Mueller's fault. It appears that he and Rosenstein intentionally referred evidence of potential crimes committed by Cohen to the SDNY office so as to avoid over reach.
How exactly can you spin these things into "hallmarks of a well run operation"
I don't think any spin is necessary.
So then, if Mueller is actually trying to get fired, as we both have speculated, then that means he must have given up on the quest for truth,
Nope, not sure how you made that leap.
and now he's just trying to force an outcome. So I'll ask again....how does that conjure up sentiments of "credibility" and "well run operation" for you?
My speculation is that Mueller does not necessarily view being fired, what with the likely actions his firing would trigger, as a negative outcome. That doesn't mean that's where he's steering the ship.
To stick with that analogy-- you're the captain of a ship navigating a narrow channel, on one side are treacherous rocks, the other side has shallow sand banks. Your goal is to make it through the channel, but should you fail that, you'd view beaching the ship as a success as compared to the only alternative, the jagged rocks.
|