Foolhardy to fire Mueller?

It has been a long time since I linked to Betsy's Page, so I decided to give her page a look once again.

Her criticism of Trump seems to have simmered down a bit, but it is still there.

However, there is one opinion that a lot of folks seem to have that I do not share--- that Mueller should be allowed to stay on.

The Wall Street Journal's advice ( to Trump I suppose)  was linked on Betsy's Page, as she seems to agree.  But it just seems like another way to be critical of Trump as opposed to actually helping the guy succeed.

After all, Trump is merely doing what the GOP claims that they always have wanted to do.  Now they don't want to do these things?  Is it Trump's fault that they won't act?  No, the idea is to obstruct Trump so that they can blame him for the failure to enact the agenda.

Mueller is part of the plan.  Now you've got Mueller going off the Russian probe by going after Trump's lawyer.  To add to that is the suspicious way in which the raid was conducted.  To top it all off, Rosenstein is not looking like a savory character.  He also has a conflict of interest. 

They just can't get over Trump's victory.  Betsy doesn't appear to be an all out never Trumper, but it is clear she doesn't like him.

Women seem to be willing to believe the worst about some guys.  Until it is a guy like Clinton.  Don't ask me why.  It didn't seem to bother women so much when Clinton's bimbo eruptions took place.

But Clinton is far worse.  Not to mention that Clinton is actually accused of RAPE.

Not to minimize what Trump is alleged to have done, but look who is making the accusations.  I would think that a lot more evidence is required of someone like a porn star, before you start believing them.  But maybe they just would prefer to believe the guy is guilty, and prefer to believe a guy like Clinton is not, or that it doesn't matter.  But it could matter.  It could matter a lot more when it comes to Bill Clinton. 

Even if Trump really did have an affair with Stormy Daniels, so what?  It has already been established that this doesn't matter.  Now all of a sudden, it does.

Just asking, why the difference?

Why tolerate a fishing expedition, anyway?  There was no law violated here--- they are fishing for a violation.  Is it foolhardy then, to challenge people who are shredding the Constitution?  It shreds the Bill of Rights to investigate people without a violation of a law being established first.  If nobody defends the Constitution, then why have investigations at all?  Just to harass people we don't like?  Is that what this is all about?  The abuse of law for political purposes?

They want to accuse Trump of also having a hot temper.  If he wasn't mad at these outrages, I'd say he was a fool.  It has been said that a man who cannot get angry is a fool.  Sometimes, you have to get mad.  I'd also say he has damn good reason to be mad as hell.

It is definitely not unreasonable to be mad at this point.  Trump has put up with a lot.  Probably more than he should have.