Right wing media sites as well as Republican politicians have been baying for Robert Mueller to be fired. As far as I'm aware, Forty Two hasn't joined the chorus, but in the post quoted above he brings up some items of interest.Forty Two wrote:Is that where Mueller is going to learn his lesson in honesty? Wasn't it Mueller who sent FBI agents to Iceland to try to get the Icelandic government to help frame Julian Assange? That was reported in the news, quotes from former Icelandic minister Ogmundurr Jonasson. Is that a report we should believe, or ought we scrutinize it and ask for evidence?
What about the reports that Mueller lied to the Senate committee, and the multiple whistleblowers coming out against him? Dennis Montgomery, etc. Do we believe those sources? Or, should we get some evidence?
Mueller is the stand-up guy, eh? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/co ... 940169cdc8
Starting with the only source actually cited, the Huffington Post article does describe some cases that Mueller was involved in that don't show him in the best light. I don't think that anything in the article actually could serve as a basis for firing him from his current position as Special Counsel, but the allegations make it appear as if Mueller is a willing tool of some darker aspects of the US government. While Forty Two is all too willing to disparage The Huffington Post when it serves his rhetorical aims, I suppose that's part of his point here: What he views as a questionable source is presenting evidence that purports to impugn Mueller's integrity. I don't know that The Huffington Post qualifies as mainstream media, though.
Dennis Montgomery is described as a 'con man' and characterized by his own former lawyer as 'habitual liar engaged in fraud.' Again, hard to see a parallel between statements coming from him and anonymous sources used by mainstream media. Still, I suppose that if you're getting your perspective on the mainstream media from inside the right-wing bubble then yes, a habitual liar and con man is basically just the same as news sources generally thought to be reputable. No idea who the 'etc.' is supposed to be here.
The most interesting story is the one involving Ögmundur Jónasson (source). Jónasson's version of events is rather slanted and not exactly accurate but that appears to be the idea. All those mainstream media news organizations are slanted and therefore untrustworthy, right? However as I said, an interesting story, given in detail by WIRED here. Jónasson uses the term 'framed' which unequivocally implies that the FBI was trying to get false evidence in order to prosecute Assange. That doesn't appear to be true.
I don't buy the apparent attempt at equivalence between sleazy, known unreliable sources and mainstream media and US government intelligence agencies, but I don't doubt that there are people who take that equivalence and run with it, preferring to get their information from places like 'Gateway Pundit.'
