Just curious.

If you are guilty, it's not in your best interest to let an investigation proceed.

I mean, sure, you can say that it would be "a disaster" for him to forcefully try to stop it, but it will be a disaster for him to let it run its course.

Take Martha Stewart, if there had been evidence of her insider trading, then she might have gone up the river for longer than lying to the FBI during the investigation. It's not as if obstruction necessarily implies you are guilty. It certainly suggests you are guilty, but you aren't guilty of something unless it is proven.

That's why they are trying to construct the narrative that the investigation is corrupt.

hell, why not give the nuclear option* a go?

*meant as both metaphor AND literal.

They are under the delusion that the hunt is invalid and that it will dissipate if the hunter is fired.

For those who know it is a legitimate investigation and know anything about law, those people realize it would be a disaster.

...could be a strawman. Put out there, over and over, that Trump is about to fire Mueller. Get everyone worried. So that when they figure out a way to have Rosenstein or his replacement merely hamstring the investigation by limiting scope or time...the GOP can say that, well, at least he's halfway responsible and didn't fire Mueller. The goal is to limit the investigation, not fire Mueller

...could also be that impeachment is viewed as a viable exit path for Trump and the GOP. Much better to torpedo the investigation and risk impeachment than let Mueller hammer them for another year. Impeachment may or may not be successful but in either case the GOP gets to act like it believes in checks and balances...and might help their mid term outcomes.

...could also be that the GOP and RW media thinks that they will get away with anything...including shooting someone on the streets of New York, figuratively.

I doubt anyone really believes that Mueller and Rosenstein are corrupt or incompetent. So there are other reasons why they are calling for their removal.

as jberryhill said, "you aren't guilty of something unless it is proven." So far I haven't noticed any of the anti-Mueller faction trying to "prove" that the investigation is corrupt -- it's all barking and spitballs.

But back to my question: do these anti-investigation people really think the issue is going to go away if DJT fires Mueller et al? Or is there something they expect to get out of it if he does fire them?

[edit] I hit the Reply button before I saw wiggs' post.

that some of what they are doing is "testing" the limits of the law (and the response to hitting the boundaries of it). It's not unlike the corporate mentality where they cut cut cut and until a furor erupts and then take the cuts back a notch.

So they want to see how far they can go violating the law/rules/regulations until such point when they get push back and then back off a notch (and reformulate a strategy to breach that barrier). And with the GOP controlling Congress, there will certainly be no impeachment. And even if we took back the House, there would be no conviction in the Senate because that would require 67 votes. So it is all win-win for them (even if they lose because they seem to operate best as an "opposition party" - i.e., whine and point fingers, vs a "governing party" ).