Mueller’s credibility problem

[Aglaopheme]

Interesting article written by Josh Blackman - South Texas College of Law Houston. Where have I heard that name before? I know!...


http://www.stcl.edu/about-us/faculty/josh-blackman/

Supreme Court Fantasy League? LMAO!!

Okay, so you will discount this.

Either as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, the president cannot obstruct justice when he exercises his lawful authority that is vested by Article II of the Constitution.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Good reading in the obstruction issue if anyone is so inclined.


https://lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-and-presidency-part-i

https://lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-and-presidency-part-i

Yeah, these are good. I was going to jump in and make the following point, but he did it right up front:

I agree with the first argument, concur-in-part with the second, and dissent from the third. Although the president is unitary, certain structural limits exist over his control of federal law enforcement. The president can obstruct justice. However, the president cannot obstruct justice when he exercises his lawful authority that is vested by Article II of the Constitution. Thus, the question whether the president obstructs justice will turn on whether his actions are supported by Article II itself.

It really is that simple, which, as he points out isn't really simple at all. But I have said from the beginning, Trump was on the 'good' side of that issue when he was gently exercising his Article II authority with Comey concerning Flynn. A line was crossed however as soon as a special prosecutor was appointed. That act legally prevented Trump or anyone else in the Executive Branch exercising the same type of influence on Mueller that Trump applied to Comey -- most particularly including "firing without cause." Comey could be. Mueller can't.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah, these are good. I was going to jump in and make the following point, but he did it right up front:



It really is that simple, which, as he points out isn't really simple at all. But I have said from the beginning, Trump was on the 'good' side of that issue when he was gently exercising his Article II authority with Comey concerning Flynn. A line was crossed however as soon as a special prosecutor was appointed. That act legally prevented Trump or anyone else in the Executive Branch exercising the same type of influence on Mueller that Trump applied to Comey -- most particularly including "firing without cause." Comey could be. Mueller can't.

Actually, I disagree. The Congress can legislate nothing that diminishes the constitutional Art II authority of the Executive. The DOJ cannot maintain a tribunal under its purview that falls outside the authority of the Executive and Congress cannot legislate an office in the DOJ that is subordinate to the Assistant AG but not subordinate to the Executive. This whole setup is dangerous to the republic and threatens the separation of powers and the Constitution itself. Just my opinion

 

[TalkRadio]

And you can remain delusional as long as you want. We'll all see what actually happens. You seem to be one of the ones sweating what's happening. D) Some, like you (and Trump), will probably say it never happened even when it catches you on tape doing it. You go, guy.

Speaking of someone with a credibility problem...

When a white man, Sr71plt calls a black woman a "black bitch" is it racist?
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1364984

 

[sr71plt]

Speaking of someone with a credibility problem...

When a white man, Sr71plt calls a black woman a "black bitch" is it racist?
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1364984

Explain how that relates to the topic, please.

The poster was swinging her blackness as some sort of special medal of honor from the chandeliers (which was her hallmark while she was posting here. I haven't seen her around recently).

And she was being bitchy at the time.

So, I was just noting what she purposely was projecting. It would have been more racist, I think, not to acknowledge what she was purposely projecting--that she was black and that she was being a bitch. I don't have anything, in particular, against her being either as she chose.

The point is, though, what's your point?

 

[TalkRadio]

Explain how that relates to the topic, please.

The poster was swinging her blackness as some sort of special medal of honor from the chandeliers (which was her hallmark while she was posting here. I haven't seen her around recently).

And she was being bitchy at the time.

So, I was just noting what she purposely was projecting. It would have been more racist, I think, not to acknowledge what she was purposely projecting--that she was black and that she was being a bitch. I don't have anything, in particular, against her being either as she chose.

The point is, though, what's your point?

My point? You're a racist.

It's time for you to crawl back under your rock.

 

[sr71plt]

My point? You're a racist.

Umm, no.

It's time for you to crawl back under your rock.

I feel honored that my posts threaten you so. But, again, ummm, no.

But don't go expecting that I'm going to continue to respond to your racism jabs.

Must say, though, that you've got this distract, deflect technique down to where you use it for all sorts of issues you want to ignore.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Actually, I disagree. The Congress can legislate nothing that diminishes the constitutional Art II authority of the Executive. The DOJ cannot maintain a tribunal under its purview that falls outside the authority of the Executive and Congress cannot legislate an office in the DOJ that is subordinate to the Assistant AG but not subordinate to the Executive. This whole setup is dangerous to the republic and threatens the separation of powers and the Constitution itself. Just my opinion

If we extend your premise to its illogical conclusion, the President of the United States is free to commit cold blooded murder without fear of criminal liability merely because the entire prosecutorial arm of the federal government lies within the Executive Branch. I do not believe the Constitutional Congress intended such a thing in the very document it legislated.

More particularly, the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Nixon (1974) held that the President IS subject to the law when he subjects himself to it under regulations consistent with the very Article II authority you cite. That is exactly what happened with the specific language of the Watergate Special Prosecutor authorization:

The special prosecutor shall have full authority for investigating and prosecuting offenses against the United States arising out of the unauthorized entry into Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate, all offenses arising out of the 1972 Presidential election for which the special prosecutor deems it necessary and appropriate to assume responsibility, allegations involving the President, members of the White House staff, or Presidential appointees, and any other matters assigned to him by the Attorney General.

In particular, the special prosecutor shall have full authority, with respect to the above matters, for:

—Conducting proceedings before grand juries and any other investigations he deems necessary;

—Reviewing all documentary evidence available from any source, as to which he shall have full access;

—Determining whether or not to contest the assertion of “executive privilege” or any other testimonial privilege;

Grants of Immunity

—Determining whether or not application should be made to any Federal court for a grant of immunity to any witness, consistently with applicable statutory requirements;
Continue reading the main story

—Deciding whether or not to prosecute any individual firm, corporation or group of individuals;

—Initiating prosecutions, framing indictments, filing informations and handling all aspects of any cases within the jurisdiction (whether initiated before or after his assumption of duties), including any appeals;

—Coordinating and directing the activities of all Department of Justice personnel, including United States attorneys;

—Handling relations with all Congressional committees having jurisdiction, over any, aspect of the above matters.

In exercising this authority, the special prosecutor will have the greatest degree of independence that is consistent with the Attorney General's statutory accountability for all matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. The Attorney General will not countermand or interfere with the special prosecutor's decision or actions. The special prosecutor will not be removed from his duties except for extraordinary improprieties on his part.

http://www.nytimes.com/1973/05/18/archives/richardsons-guidelines-for-watergate-prosecutor-grants-of-immunity.html

Then, when the heat got too hot, Nixon, knowing he personally did NOT have the authority to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, ordered Attorney General Richardson to do it. Richardson refused and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned.

Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General of the United States, Robert Bork, as acting head of the Justice Department, to fire Cox. Bork complied.

When the case was heard by the Supreme Court, the 9-0 decision repudiating a sitting President from invalidating at will the very legal authority both his Attorney General and Special Prosecutor had lawfully executed, the Court said:

(b) The Attorney General, by regulation, has conferred upon the Special Prosecutor unique tenure and authority to represent the United States, and has given the Special Prosecutor explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of his specially delegated duties. While the regulation remains in effect, the Executive Branch is bound by it. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U. S. 260. Pp. 418 U. S. 694-696.

The Department of Justice mandate under which Robert Mueller operates has greatly similar language with accompanying identical regulatory scope and legal implications.

No President is compelled to appoint a Special Prosecutor for anything. But once an Attorney General does so (or in the instant case when an Assistant AG has acted in place of a recused AG), the President,through his subordinates, is agreeing to the regulatory restrictive legislation that a previous Congress enacted AND a previous President signed into law. So the real question is, did whichever previous President, by virtue of signing said law into existence, have the authority to compromise HIS OWN Article II authority GRANTED to him by the Constitution? If so, did he have the authority, by virtue of that same signature, to impose that same compromise on future Presidents?

Well, he most certainly DID IF a future President is stupid enough to allow appointment of a special prosecutor that is given legal authorities that can come back and bite him in the ass. Because, as the Court said, While the regulation remains in effect, the Executive Branch is bound by it. And since the regulation was authorized by Congressional legislation, it would need to be undone by similar legislation OR at least through the standard regulatory process followed by the DoJ.

According to the Supreme Court, the President just cannot escape legal consequences to which he "voluntarily submits" through tweets on Twitter. Once a President chooses that road, it is very hard to backtrack. Previous Presidents (with Nixon being the obvious exception), in using that law, fully intended it to be.

 

[snugglestruggle]

You seem to have forgotten a few people.

It was not my intention to make a list but by all means feel free to do so.

 

[Rightguide]

If we extend your premise to its illogical conclusion, the President of the United States is free to commit cold blooded murder without fear of criminal liability merely because the entire prosecutorial arm of the federal government lies within the Executive Branch. I do not believe the Constitutional Congress intended such a thing in the very document it legislated.

Bullshit nothing I said would lead to a conclusion, illogical or not, such as the one you just made. I never said the President could commit murder and get away with it. We aren't talking about murder but we are talking about a prosecutorial stacked deck looking for a chance to trap somebody in a process crime.

There's no such crime as "collusion" in the federal statutes to begin with and there has been no evidence of Trump being involved in any conspiracy with the Russians, in fact the whole probable cause for this investigation may have been totally fabricated by political operatives in the DOJ and the FBI.

Congress cannot establish an entity in the DOJ that isn't subordinate to the Executive without completely re-writing the Constitution. Can a rogue court rule it so, absolutely. Does that make it right? Was Dred Scott right?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Bullshit nothing I said would lead to a conclusion, illogical or not, such as the one you just made. I never said the President could commit murder and get away with it. We aren't talking about murder but we are talking about a prosecutorial stacked deck looking for a chance to trap somebody in a process crime.

There's no such crime as "collusion" in the federal statutes to begin with and there has been no evidence of Trump being involved in any conspiracy with the Russians, in fact the whole probable cause for this investigation may have been totally fabricated by political operatives in the DOJ and the FBI.

Congress cannot establish an entity in the DOJ that isn't subordinate to the Executive without completely re-writing the Constitution. Can a rogue court rule it so, absolutely. Does that make it right? Was Dred Scott right?

Congress did NOT establish an entity in the DOJ that is independent of the President. It simply gave, endorsed, sanctified or however you want to put it, broad regulatory authority by which the Executive Branch, through the DOJ, could do so. And they did. Whether you recognize that as a legitimate act of Congress is not really the point. The DOJ made the actual rule, not Congress. The Supreme Court is simply saying that once that regulation is lawfully in place AND the President voluntarily subjects himself to it by the very act of his AG appointing a special prosecutor, the President is legally bound by the regulation as long as it continues in force.

This isn't a case of Congress usurping Executive power. Congress didn't appoint the special prosecutor. In fact, they USED to be able to, but that "power" no longer exists. Special Prosecutors come strictly from the DOJ now. So the President really has nothing to whine about, including the fact that, as you say, there is no crime called "collusion" with respect to receiving politically advantageous information from a foreign government.

People keep trying to construct a crime by equating such alleged information as a "thing of value" in violation of campaign finance laws, but that's not about to fly either.

Even Mueller knows this is all going to eventually end. He didn't ask for this job, but now that he has it, what do you think he really has to gain by trying to extend it indefinitely. He isn't running for office. He's never held elected office. He's been a Republican throughout his years of government service in the Department of Justice including being nominated for FBI Director by George Bush. Why this rampant character assassination and suspicion of motives by Bob Mueller, ffs?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Yeah, I'd go with that. And under the same rubric that Michael Flynn lying to the FBI and Vice President Pence about what he said to Russians does not make President Trump a liar about what he did or said with respect to Russians.

But you can't sell either proposition on a street corner if you were giving it away, can you?

This may define false equivalency. Mueller affirmatively acted to protect the integrity of his investigation. Trump acted without integrity to impune an investigation. You are comparing apples and dumptrucks.

That's not the one they allowed to go forward while legal challenges work their way through the lower courts.

That is way too complex a concept for him. Plus his refutation does not even recapitulate what the SJC said in their ruling (which was basically "let the lower courts finish their process but in the meantime Trumpy can have his way", which for the record I agree with in this case. The POTUS should be able to halt immigration from certain countries, require a rethink of the process and make new policy determinations before reopening immigration from suspect countries).

It will be interesting to see the expressions on the Trumpets' faces when they go in for their cancer treatments to find they no longer are covered by government programs so that the rich can have a bigger yacht. At some point the Trumpets have got to realize that they screwed themselves the minute they signed up as a Trumpet.

Too bad the GOP could not repeal ACA. Those Red-state leeches should have gotten this part their comeuppance (and there is much more to come with this "Tax Reform" (sic)). Elections have consequences.


PS - No one ever said "collusion" is a crime. Collusion is just slang for "Trump the fucking asshole entered into a quid pro quo agreement with a foreign adversarial power to lift US sanctions against them in return for their timely release of information gained through illegal hacking activity to aide Trump's campaign for president". It is just easier to say "Collusion".

The crime is Obstruction of Justice. As in "Trump fired Flynn for breaking the law when he lied to the FBI and then obstructed justice by firing Comey when Comey did not agree to cover Flynn's crime up." Anyone remember how Bork became "acting AG" ?

 

[about_average]

People keep trying to construct a crime by equating such alleged information as a "thing of value" in violation of campaign finance laws, but that's not about to fly either.

The problem is Trump himself called it "Opposition Research".
There are people in the business of collecting and selling opposition research and making a decent living doing so. It is obviously "a thing of value."
It's another example of Trump needing to keep is mouth shut.

 

[about_average]

Speaking of someone with a credibility problem...

When a white man, Sr71plt calls a black woman a "black bitch" is it racist?
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1364984

Saying someone is presenting a particular persona is not the same as saying they are that.

All of which I explained in that very thread.
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=81427784&postcount=82

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The problem is Trump himself called it "Opposition Research".
There are people in the business of collecting and selling opposition research and making a decent living doing so. It is obviously "a thing of value."
It's another example of Trump needing to keep is mouth shut.

So you're saying the mere characterization of a one-off meeting that produced nothing meets the legal definition of "opposition research" for campaign finance purposes simply because Donald Trump has the world's shittiest command of the English language?

Fortunately for him, both the FEC and the courts adhere to a higher linguistic standard.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Tarmac meeting?

Anyone?

Ferris?

 

[Rightguide]

Congress did NOT establish an entity in the DOJ that is independent of the President. It simply gave, endorsed, sanctified or however you want to put it, broad regulatory authority by which the Executive Branch, through the DOJ, could do so. And they did. Whether you recognize that as a legitimate act of Congress is not really the point. The DOJ made the actual rule, not Congress. The Supreme Court is simply saying that once that regulation is lawfully in place AND the President voluntarily subjects himself to it by the very act of his AG appointing a special prosecutor, the President is legally bound by the regulation as long as it continues in force.

This isn't a case of Congress usurping Executive power. Congress didn't appoint the special prosecutor. In fact, they USED to be able to, but that "power" no longer exists. Special Prosecutors come strictly from the DOJ now. So the President really has nothing to whine about, including the fact that, as you say, there is no crime called "collusion" with respect to receiving politically advantageous information from a foreign government.

People keep trying to construct a crime by equating such alleged information as a "thing of value" in violation of campaign finance laws, but that's not about to fly either.

Even Mueller knows this is all going to eventually end. He didn't ask for this job, but now that he has it, what do you think he really has to gain by trying to extend it indefinitely. He isn't running for office. He's never held elected office. He's been a Republican throughout his years of government service in the Department of Justice including being nominated for FBI Director by George Bush. Why this rampant character assassination and suspicion of motives by Bob Mueller, ffs?

Okay, the Ethics in Government Act sunsetted in 1999 and the DOJ itself instituted rules governing the Special Prosecutor. Seems to me that means the Executive can end it or amend it by executive order. Something needs to happen because Mueller is looking more and more like a politically driven modern day Torquemada.

 

[about_average]

So you're saying the mere characterization of a one-off meeting that produced nothing meets the legal definition of "opposition research" for campaign finance purposes simply because Donald Trump has the world's shittiest command of the English language?

Fortunately for him, both the FEC and the courts adhere to a higher linguistic standard.

We'll never know, unless other such meetings are discovered to have taken place with his campaign's hoped for results.

It would be interesting to see what the FEC and courts would say about a candidate working with a foreign government that's providing "dirt" on the opponent while at the same time spreading false stories about that opposition candidate in an effort to get them defeated.

A situation that I'm not aware has ever happened before.