BIG SURPRISE: Paul Ryan Has Mueller’s Back, Not President Trump’s

[rangerrebew]

BIG SURPRISE: Paul Ryan Has Mueller’s Back, Not President Trump’s

July 24, 2017| by Donn Marten

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan defended special counsel Robert Mueller’s search and destroy mission against President Donald Trump on Monday.

The treacherous Ryan was an adversary of Trump during the duration of the Republican primaries all the way up to the election and cannot be trusted to see that an “America First” agenda or at the very least, the repeal of Obamacare is going to ever become a reality as long as he is the proverbial bleep in the woodpile for special interests.

https://downtrend.com/donn-marten/big-surprise-paul-ryan-has-muellers-back-not-president-trumps

[jpsb]

I certainly hope enough deplorable rise up and throw this swamp creature out of office.

[Cripplecreek]

Trump's pick to head the FBI says he supports Mueller too. 

[cato potatoe]

Since when is it Paul Ryan's job to interfere with an independent investigation?  If Trump decides to fire Mueller, then Trump alone should answer for it.

[driftdiver]

This whole thing stinks.  A special counsel to investigate something which there is no evidence and if there was there was no crime.  Its a fishing expedition by the establishment being used to stop a threat to the establishment. 

That should concern us all if we really want to clean up Washington.

[Cripplecreek]

Since when is it Paul Ryan's job to interfere with an independent investigation?  If Trump decides to fire Mueller, then Trump alone should answer for it.

The need for a scapegoat is strong with Trumpers.

[Sanguine]

Since when is it Paul Ryan's job to interfere with an independent investigation?  If Trump decides to fire Mueller, then Trump alone should answer for it.

No kidding.

[skeeter]

Since when is it Paul Ryan's job to interfere with an independent investigation?  If Trump decides to fire Mueller, then Trump alone should answer for it.

Because its not really an independent investigation.

But yes, Trump should fire Mueller and should answer for it. Which shouldn't be difficult.

[Applewood]

This whole thing stinks.  A special counsel to investigate something which there is no evidence and if there was there was no crime.  Its a fishing expedition by the establishment being used to stop a threat to the establishment. 

That should concern us all if we really want to clean up Washington.

I thought the whole point of an investigation is to gather evidence.  If Mueller is still investigating, how do you know there is no evidence?

Personally, I believe all this commotion over Mueller"s alleged bias and what not is meant to corrupt and frustrate the investigation.  If Trump and/or his associates did nothing wrong, why are they making all this noise?  The more Trump tweets,  bitches and moans about this investigation, the more guilty he looks.   Why doesn't he just let the investigation run its course?  If he did no wrong, we will find out soon enough.

[skeeter]

I thought the whole point of an investigation is to gather evidence.  If Mueller is still investigating, how do you know there is no evidence?

Personally, I believe all this commotion over Mueller"s alleged bias and what not is meant to corrupt and frustrate the investigation.  If Trump and/or his associates did nothing wrong, why are they making all this noise?  The more Trump tweets,  bitches and moans about this investigation, the more guilty he looks.   Why doesn't he just let the investigation run its course?  If he did no wrong, we will find out soon enough.

Those of us who've seen this scenario play out in the past know whats happening here, and it has nothing to do with justice or truth and everything to do with politics.

[Sanguine]

I thought the whole point of an investigation is to gather evidence.  If Mueller is still investigating, how do you know there is no evidence?

Personally, I believe all this commotion over Mueller"s alleged bias and what not is meant to corrupt and frustrate the investigation.  If Trump and/or his associates did nothing wrong, why are they making all this noise?  The more Trump tweets,  bitches and moans about this investigation, the more guilty he looks.   Why doesn't he just let the investigation run its course?  If he did no wrong, we will find out soon enough.

This thing has been being investigated since last July.  If they don't have anything by now, there's probably nothing there.

[HonestJohn]

This whole thing stinks.  A special counsel to investigate something which there is no evidence and if there was there was no crime.  Its a fishing expedition by the establishment being used to stop a threat to the establishment. 

That should concern us all if we really want to clean up Washington.

There was nothing for Ken Starr to investigate in the beginning.

I guess you think that was a mistake.

[Sanguine]

There was nothing for Ken Starr to investigate in the beginning.

I guess you think that was a mistake.

So, if there was nothing to investigate, why was Starr hired to investigate?

[driftdiver]

There was nothing for Ken Starr to investigate in the beginning.

I guess you think that was a mistake.

@HonestJohn
We're we talking about Ken Starr?

If theres a crime investigate it.   If theres not a crime don't.    Of course what they are trying to do is dig until they find a crime or can invent one like with Libby.

[Victoria33]

I thought the whole point of an investigation is to gather evidence.  If Mueller is still investigating, how do you know there is no evidence Personally, I believe all this commotion over Mueller"s alleged bias and what not is meant to corrupt and frustrate the investigation.  If Trump and/or his associates did nothing wrong, why are they making all this noise?  The more Trump tweets,  bitches and moans about this investigation, the more guilty he looks.   Why doesn't he just let the investigation run its course?  If he did no wrong, we will find out soon enough.

@Applewood

You have a severe personal problem - you think and you make sense.  We just cannot have that. 

[driftdiver]

@Applewood

You have a severe personal problem - you think and you make sense.  We just cannot have that. 

These things are a prosecutor in search of a crime.

We have REAL CRIMES with Clinton, Comey and even Obama that they have evidence of a crime which are being swept under the rug.     

[HonestJohn]

So, if there was nothing to investigate, why was Starr hired to investigate?

Good question.  There was no criminal evidence at the start of Starr's investigation.  There is no criminal evidence at the start of Mueller's investigation.

Both started with political 'smoke'.

Yet one is supported and the other not.

I see rank hypocrisy in that.

[Suppressed]

I certainly hope enough deplorable rise up and throw this swamp creature out of office.

He's only 6 months into a 4-year term.  I wonder what the chances are he will make it through his whole term.  BTW, I like that term, "swamp creature", for him...he said he'd drain the swamp, but he's sure been filling it with more muck!

[Sanguine]

Good question.  There was no criminal evidence at the start of Starr's investigation.  There is no criminal evidence at the start of Mueller's investigation.

Both started with political 'smoke'.

Yet one is supported and the other not.

I see rank hypocrisy in that.

Could be that you're putting the rank hypocrisy before the cart. I don't remember it that way. 

[endicom]

Good question.  There was no criminal evidence at the start of Starr's investigation.  There is no criminal evidence at the start of Mueller's investigation.

Both started with political 'smoke'.

Yet one is supported and the other not.

I see rank hypocrisy in that.

Smoke?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline2.htm