It’s just a bluff anyway. Trump’s way of reminding people that he could fire Mueller if he wanted to.
Yes, but the inescapable current point will be that the Republicans will demonstrate that they are getting in bed with Trump and all his abuses. It will then more of a reason to throw all the rascals out that clearly do not care to catch the Trump fleas.
I don’t think Congress can appoint an independent counsel anyway. So I don’t know what Schiff is talking about altogether.
There’s already plenty of reason. What’s lacking is the will to do it. Republicans aren’t going to turf your idiot president as long as his idiocy is useful.
Throwing the rascals out also relies on the Democrats getting their shit together. Sadly, I’ve seen no evidence this is going to happen any time soon.
Uh uh. Therefore seeing the Republicans becoming a poison for the nation doesn’t mean that we should consider the only party that will really clean the swamp?
You have to remember that in the last election even less capable Republicans were swept into office allegedly to do the right thing. Well, this is not, but they are rubber stamping what is really bad for the nation.
If we were talking about a normal politician, I’d say this was a trial balloon: send one of your surrogates out to suggest some hare-brained idea, and see how much blowback you get. But with Trump…who knows. He may think this is absolutely brilliant and wants to start the accolades early.
Yeah, this is a real problem. 
It’s odd that Republicans, who all had fantastic things to say about Mueller when he was appointed, now seem to have reasons that he should be disqualified. Chief among those reasons appears to be that he is actually doing his job.
A Constitutional law professor educates the MSNBC journalist that:
and
You could at least PRETEND not to be cheering on a fascist dictatorship here.
Replace “educates” with “opines.” Since we haven’t had too many possible historical cases of presidential obstruction of justice, her opinion does not have a very solid constitutional or historical footing.
For instance, a former deputy U.S. solicitor general in the DOJ during the Nixon era opines that there is sufficient evidence already for a criminal obstruction of justice charge. Elizabeth Foley is also heavily involved in Republican and Tea Party causes, including working for Republican congressmen. She’s not exactly a neutral observer (i.e. she’s a political hack). She doesn’t seem to have much, if any, actual experience in the criminal justice system. That’s especially helpful, if not absolutely necessary, when giving ultimate issue opinions about what can or cannot be proven in a criminal setting.
That’s two law professors saying basically the same thing.
Democrat Alan Dershowitz has been saying for awhile that Trump gives orders to the FBI. It’s part of the function of the executive branch.
An astute point. Trump can be challenged in other areas.
The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph is not true.
If you prefer a direct link to Dershowitz’s op ed column. He posted it shortly after Comey testified.
Okrahoma’s links were two different files of the same professor speaking - Elizabeth Foley.
Not really following your point. I don’t disagree the D’s would be a better choice than the GOP. My point is just because a majority of likely voters think the President is a boob doesn’t mean the D’s have a guaranteed win come 2018 or 2020. Just relying on the other guy to make everything FUBAR is not necessarily a winning strategy.
The FUBAR is already there.
“Hey, look, this Democrat is saying that the only way to get to Trump is to stop all the investigations right now! It’s totally in your best interests to listen to him!”
Mm hmm.
Exactly. That hardly guarantees the D’s win next time.
Who said that? I missed it.