Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the lifesyles-of-the-rich-and-famous dept.

The New York Times reports "Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit":

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

Previously:
Mueller Investigation: Three Former Trump Aides Charged
Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I.
UK Election Results; Fired FBI Director's Testimony on Trump; Trump Nominates New FBI Director


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:11PM (1 child)

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:11PM (#629172)

    "Lastly, if he had done nothing wrong, why would he care if there were an investigation?"

    Let's say I stood up at the dinner table at thanksgiving and said, "Look martyb, I know you cheated on your wife and your daughter told me that she was raped by you when you were drunk last week. I've called the police, and they are conducting an investigation."

    Your pulse wouldn't even quicken, right? Why would you care if a police investigation was underway? I'm sure you wouldn't mind.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by martyb on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:29AM

    by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:29AM (#629309) Journal

    I'm not agreeing with that sentiment... it was meant more of a dig at those who have trotted out that old warhorse far too many times. Seemed apropos to me to bring it out and show how ridiculous a concept it was. If the establishment can use it against the people, why can he people not use it against the establishment?

    In retrospect, I should have put a sarcasm tag on that. Well have I learned, again, the wisdom behind Poe's Law [wikipedia.org]:

    Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views.[1][2][3]

    The original statement of the adage, by Nathan Poe, was:[1]

    Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

    In other words "we are in furious agreement." =)

    Thanks for calling me out on this — I appreciate the chance to clarify.

    --
    Wit is intellect, dancing.