James Comey Tainted The Special Counsel Investigation

[Colonel Hogan]

Actually, my concern goes a bit deeper. I question the constitutional premise of the statutes authorizing the Special Counsel. When the Congress moves to limit or diminish the Art.II Section 1 plenary powers of the executive to manage the Executive branch by legislation instead of an amendment, it has the appearance of a violation of the separation of powers. has this statute been reviewed by the SCOTUS?

This is obviously because your reading of the law, not unlike KO elsewhere in this forum, is negligently cursory.

What on earth makes you think the Vesting Clause of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is "plenary" when Section 2 clearly distinguishes between Executive powers that are apparently plenary (those of Commander in Chief and the granting of Presidential pardons) and those that he shares upon "advice and consent of the Senate"?? Not to mention that portion of Section 2 that states: "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." In other words, they also "may not"!!

Excuse me???? That sounds "plenary" to you?

As to your question with regard to Supreme Court review of the Special Counsel statute, this is where your "cursory negligence" comes into play. As has been pointed out to you before, the original Independent Prosecutor statute was one that allowed for a Special Prosecutor to be legislated by Congress. A modicum of research would have revealed to you that the Constitutionality of that legislation (Ethics in Government Act of 1978) WAS, indeed, upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1988 case of Morrison v. Olson. The case was a 7 - 1 decision with Justice Scalia registering the lone dissent under the very separation of powers issue you embrace. He lost.

But that law has since been allowed to sunset. It no longer exists. The current law DOES NOT present a separation of powers issue, because the current statute does not IMPOSE a Special Counsel upon the Executive Branch BY either of the other branches of government. IT ALLOWS the Executive Branch in the person OF the Attorney General to APPLY to the "Division of the Court" to APPOINT a special counsel (see 28 USC § 593 - "Duties of the division of the court"). The various STATUTES (Title 28 USC Chapter 40) governing the appointment and jurisdiction of the Special Counsel are further codified as administrative RULES under Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). They are NOT, however, verbatim as to language, but they are legally presumed not to be in conflict unless contested in a court of law, i.e. the CFR DOJ rules governing dismissal of a Special Counsel is presumed to be in harmony despite the fact that the circumstances of such dismissal are NOT addressed with that same specificity under the applicable United States Code.

Since the DECISION to SEEK APPLICATION FOR a Special Counsel is VOLUNTARY on the part of the Executive Branch, one can hardly characterize the statutory jurisdiction and circumstances under which the President subjects himself as a Congressional usurpation of Executive power designed to "limit or diminish."

How is it that you blithely jump around Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations in search of a "conflict of interest," yet do not know this? Clearly because you don't understand the relationship between the Code of Federal Regulations and the United States Code. Here it is from the "Straight Dope" message board forum. Read and learn:

constantine is offline
Guest

Join Date: Jun 2002
Re: USC (law) or CFR (rule)?

Originally posted by Jinx
What is the difference between a Federal Law (USC) and Federal Rule (CFR)? Let's use the Clean Water Act, for example. Congress passes some Law which I presume becomes part of the USC, correct? Also, once passed, the Act is the Law, correct? After this, is the regulatory agency (i.e.: EPA) now free to write the details of this law...and these are the Rules published in the CFR????

Very Confusing! How does this all work, and what is the technical difference (in simple terms) between a Law, Act, and Rule???

Sheepishly,
Jinx :smack

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: By posting to this thread, I am discussing an abstract question of law. I am not offering you legal advice. If you are motivated by anything other than idle curiosity, you should consult an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. I am not your lawyer. You are not my client.

Now on to your question.

Under the Constitution, the legislative powers of the United States are vested in Congress. U.S. Const., Article I, Section I. Congress exercises this power when it enacts "statutes" a.k.a. "acts," a.k.a. "laws." Laws (a.k.a. "statutes" or "acts") validly enacted by Congress have the force of law (i.e. the Courts will enforce them), as long as they are consistent with the Constitution.

Congress also has the authority to delegate to administrative agencies--who are part of the executive branch--power to make rules. While nowadays we take this for granted (although not everyone is happy with it) in the early part of the Twentieth Century, especially during the FDR administration when the size and scope of administrative agencies grew enormously, this "delegation" by Congress was extremely controversial. The essence of the objection was that it violated the separation of powers: Congress was supposed to pass laws, NOT the executive branch, and Congress could not delegate its legislative power to the executive branch. It's all very interesting (really) but it's a story for another time.

It is up to Congress to decide whether, and how much, rulemaking authority each agency should have. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has considerable authority to make rules related to, wait for it, protecting the environment. These rules (aka regulations) promulgated (not "enacted") by the agency are published in the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules have the force of law so long as they do not contradict statutes passed by Congress. (Note the parallel with the principle that statutes are valid so long as they are consistent with the Constitution.) This principle may sound simple, but in fact armies of lawyers spend their careers arguing about whether, when and how a certain regulation does or does not contradict a certain statute.

So, here's how it goes in the example you mentioned. Congress passes the Clean Water Act. This act will then be codified in the US Code. BTW the codification does not happen immediately, BUT the act has the force of law as soon as of its effective date, whether it has been codified or not. Codification just makes it easier to look up.

Under the Clean Water Act, Congress explicitly grants the EPA authority to promulgate rules in order to enforce the act. The EPA then goes through a process (called notice and comment rule making) of formulating these rules. These rules are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, and "have the force of law."

When lawyers set to arguing before a Court about who did or did not violate the law, they will usually wind up citing relevant statutes (enacted by Congress) and relevant rules (promulgated by an administrative agency.) In practice, most of the time when you cite a federal statute, it is in the US Code, but sometimes its too new, so you have to cite to the actual Public Law Number (and that is a pain in the rear). As far as I know, all regulations are always published in the CFR.

On rare occasions, a Court will find that there is a contradiction between a statute and a regulation, and in that case, it will hold that the statute trumps the regulation, and the regulation is invalid. (There is an even further wrinkle: the Supreme Court has said that under certain circumstances, Courts should defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of statutes related to that agency, and thus to the agency's interpretation of whether its own rules are consistent with those statutes. Again, that's another story for another time.)

To sum up, the hierarchy goes

1) Constitution;
2) Statutes enacted by Congress under the power granted to it by the Constitution (usually but not always these statutes are codified in the USC); and
3) Regulations promulgated by agencies under power granted to them by Congress (these rules or regulations are published in the CFR).

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=201341

And, yes, the objections of FDR and Rightgourd notwithstanding, the hierarchy of Constitution over USC over CFR has long been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in an entire shitload of cases far too numerous to mention. It is the veritable composition of Constitutional case law.

 

[HisArpy]

At this point with Mueller hiring even more Hillary lawyers, I think there's really only 1 solution. It goes something like this:

Trump: Sorry Jeff, but this has become a clusterfuck. I need you to resign. Please.
Session: Ok Mr. President. I resign effectively immediately.
Trump: Mr. Rosenstein, I accept your resignation.
Rosenstein: But, Mr. President, I haven't given you one.
Trump: That's ok. I accept it anyway. Or you're fired. Either way works for me.
Trump. Mr. X you are now my nominee for head of the DOJ
Mr X: Thank you Mr. President. I accept the nomination.
Trump: That's it everyone. Have a great day making America Great Again.
<intermission while the Senate confirms Mr. X>
Mr X: Mr. Mueller? You're fired.

End of saga.

 

[about_average]

At this point with Mueller hiring even more Hillary lawyers, I think there's really only 1 solution.

What are the names of these :Hillary lawyers"?

I only know of one "Hillary lawyer" on Mueller's team, Jeannie Rhee. So he has the same number of "Hillary lawyers" on his team as are on the Trump team.

 

[HisArpy]

What are the names of these :Hillary lawyers"?

I only know of one "Hillary lawyer" on Mueller's team, Jeannie Rhee. So he has the same number of "Hillary lawyers" on his team as are on the Trump team.

Michael Dreeben - the deputy solicitor general overseeing the Department of Justice's criminal docket for the Obama Administration;
Andrew Weissmann - Currently taking a leave of absence from his position at the DOJ under the Obama Administration and has worked with Mueller when Mueller was head of the FBI. He is also 1 of several Democrats on the team who has donated money to Democrats;
Jeannie Rhee - Represented Hillary Clinton and advised Eric Holder as well as donating large dollars to Democrats.
James Quarles - Associate of Rhee's at the WilmerHale Law firm. He gave several thousands of dollars to Democrats running for office.
Aaron Zebley - Another associate at the WilmerHale law firm. He also worked for Mueller when Mueller was head of the FBI.
Lisa Page - Trial attorney in the DOJ under the Obama Administration.

The list is pretty much a who's who of Obama admin attorneys and Hillary supporters.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

At this point with Mueller hiring even more Hillary lawyers, I think there's really only 1 solution. It goes something like this:

Trump: Sorry Jeff, but this has become a clusterfuck. I need you to resign. Please.
Session: Ok Mr. President. I resign effectively immediately.
Trump: Mr. Rosenstein, I accept your resignation.
Rosenstein: But, Mr. President, I haven't given you one.
Trump: That's ok. I accept it anyway. Or you're fired. Either way works for me.
Trump. Mr. X you are now my nominee for head of the DOJ
Mr X: Thank you Mr. President. I accept the nomination.
Trump: That's it everyone. Have a great day making America Great Again.
<intermission while the Senate confirms Mr. X>
Mr X: Mr. Mueller? You're fired.

End of saga.

Which would only begin the new saga of partisan public howling calling for the President's impeachment, which would go absolutely nowhere due to the partisan composition of Congress, but which would almost certainly solidify the belief in the minds of the majority of the 64% of Americans who ALREADY believe the President is doing a shitty job that he is almost certainly hiding criminal culpability and just got away with obstructing justice, which, in turn, would just as certainly hand political control BACK to the Democrats by the mid-term elections and with equal certainty deny Trump re-election in 2020.

And that is going to be hard enough for him to win even if he doesn't follow your advice and fuck this up by shooting himself in the foot.

 

[HisArpy]

Which would only begin the new saga of partisan public howling calling for the President's impeachment, which would go absolutely nowhere due to the partisan composition of Congress, but which would almost certainly solidify the belief in the minds of the majority of the 64% of Americans who ALREADY believe the President is doing a shitty job that he is almost certainly hiding criminal culpability and just got away with obstructing justice, which, in turn, would just as certainly hand political control BACK to the Democrats by the mid-term elections and with equal certainty deny Trump re-election in 2020.

And that is going to be hard enough for him to win even if he doesn't follow your advice and fuck this up by shooting himself in the foot.

This would depend on who Mr. X turned out to be. If it was a Dem or someone so impeccable that neutrality could not be denied, it would work as long as Trump NEVER discusses the investigation with Mr. X.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This would depend on who Mr. X turned out to be. If it was a Dem or someone so impeccable that neutrality could not be denied, it would work as long as Trump NEVER discusses the investigation with Mr. X.

As for "a Dem or someone so impeccable that neutrality could not be denied," that neutral impeccability would be denied the very moment Mr. X fired Mueller. Who are you kidding?

It seems to me a far wiser course to simply bite the bullet and let this nonsense play out and cease chumming the opposition sharks by ACTING GUILTY OR AFRAID OF WHAT THE INVESTIGATION MIGHT TURN UP.

If there is truly NO EVIDENCE against the President, which so far there isn't much, then it is not as if Mueller or anyone else can INVENT IT. As I said earlier, what the hell is wrong with EXONERATION?? If it's warranted it can't be denied forever -- unless, of course, you preclude it by denying oneself the opportunity.

 

[HisArpy]

As for "a Dem or someone so impeccable that neutrality could not be denied," that neutral impeccability would be denied the very moment Mr. X fired Mueller. Who are you kidding?

It seems to me a far wiser course to simply bite the bullet and let this nonsense play out and cease chumming the opposition sharks by ACTING GUILTY OR AFRAID OF WHAT THE INVESTIGATION MIGHT TURN UP.

If there is truly NO EVIDENCE against the President, which so far there isn't much, then it is not as if Mueller or anyone else can INVENT IT. As I said earlier, what the hell is wrong with EXONERATION?? If it's warranted it can't be denied forever -- unless, of course, you preclude it by denying oneself the opportunity.

To me, the issue is that I'm pretty sure there's no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing on Trump's part. Had there been evidence, it would have come to light already.

No, the issue with me is that this a secondary "FBI" investigation with no accountability to anyone and which cannot be stopped without triggering another investigation. And it will cost us millions in taxpayer dollars AND lost manhours/time to reveal NOTHING. At even then, the D's will claim there's a another coverup.

At what point do we stop the nonsense? The GOP controls the Congress. Repeal the damn law that allows for the special prosecutor and it's over. Barring that, replace the guys who can't be involved with someone who CAN and who WILL do what is necessary.

We do not need 2 "FBI's". We do not need the disruption. We do not need the distraction. We do not need to feed the D trolls behind this. Time to end it.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

To me, the issue is that I'm pretty sure there's no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing on Trump's part. Had there been evidence, it would have come to light already.

How do you figure that? Have you seen his tax returns? Have you heard his Comey tapes?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

To me, the issue is that I'm pretty sure there's no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing on Trump's part. Had there been evidence, it would have come to light already.

No, the issue with me is that this a secondary "FBI" investigation with no accountability to anyone and which cannot be stopped without triggering another investigation. And it will cost us millions in taxpayer dollars AND lost manhours/time to reveal NOTHING. At even then, the D's will claim there's a another coverup.

At what point do we stop the nonsense? The GOP controls the Congress. Repeal the damn law that allows for the special prosecutor and it's over. Barring that, replace the guys who can't be involved with someone who CAN and who WILL do what is necessary.

We do not need 2 "FBI's". We do not need the disruption. We do not need the distraction. We do not need to feed the D trolls behind this. Time to end it.

At a later point when NO reasonable person can deny that the Trump administration did not allow the Special Counsel reasonable time to complete the investigation. Trump only FEEDS the trolls when he takes away the very thing they were demanding he give them, which he did. Now they're basically starving because there isn't squat they can bitch about as long as Mueller is holding the reins.

As things stand now, you are basically correct that this isn't a criminal investigation. It's a public relations battle. I just don't think your way is the way to truly WIN it. In fact, I think it is a guaranteed loser.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Actually, my concern goes a bit deeper. I question the constitutional premise of the statutes authorizing the Special Counsel. When the Congress moves to limit or diminish the Art.II Section 1 plenary powers of the executive to manage the Executive branch by legislation instead of an amendment, it has the appearance of a violation of the separation of powers. has this statute been reviewed by the SCOTUS?

Oh, and one more thing about that.

Read this: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2124&context=faculty_scholarship

It will tell you all you ever wanted to know about how the courts view and have adjudicated issues of Executive branch Constitutional authority.

 

[about_average]

Oh good, partisan Republican talking points.

Michael Dreeben - the deputy solicitor general overseeing the Department of Justice's criminal docket for the Obama Administration - Also worked in Republican administrations
Andrew Weissmann - Currently taking a leave of absence from his position at the DOJ under the Obama Administration and has worked with Mueller when Mueller was head of the FBI. He is also 1 of several Democrats on the team who has donated money to Democrats - Also worked in Republican administration as you note;
Aaron Zebley - Another associate at the WilmerHale law firm. He also worked for Mueller when Mueller was head of the FBI. - Also donated to Republicans
Lisa Page - Trial attorney in the DOJ under the Obama Administration. "...deep experience with money laundering and organized crime cases, including investigations where she’s partnered with an FBI task force in Budapest, Hungary, that focuses on eastern European organized crime. That Budapest task force helped put together the still-unfolding money laundering case against Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, a one-time business partner of Manafort." Sure sounds unqualified to me

As for Rhee, her colleague when she worked for the Clinton Foundation was hired by Jared Kushner. So apparently Kushner was tricked in to falling for the Democratic plot too.

If you want lawyers who haven't donated to a political parties you'd probably have to get someone immediately out of law school.

Oh, then there's the little matter of the fact that the person leading the investigation was appointed as head of the FBI by a Republican, confirmed 98-0 and more recently appointed by a Republican in a Republican administration.
Then there's the ardent Trump apologist who said

Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity. Media should now calm down

— Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) May 18, 2017

But, apparently after decades of being "impeccable for honesty and integrity" in the span of a month he's become a liar and corrupt.

You people crack me up.

 

[Rightguide]

Oh, and one more thing about that.

Read this: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2124&context=faculty_scholarship

It will tell you all you ever wanted to know about how the courts view and have adjudicated issues of Executive branch Constitutional authority.

Truth is, 28 CFR section 600 is a DOJ regulation without an underlying statutory basis. The SCOTUS did rule on the previous law in Morrison v. Olson, Scalia's dissent, however, carries the same concerns I have previously outlined. The present DOJ regulation hasn't been reviewed by the SCOTUS.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Kushner IS a Democrat you blithering moron.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Truth is, 28 CFR section 600 is a DOJ regulation without an underlying statutory basis. The SCOTUS did rule on the previous law in Morrison v. Olson, Scalia's dissent, however, carries the same concerns I have previously outlined. The present DOJ regulation hasn't been reviewed by the SCOTUS.

Well, why don't you try thinking for a moment? If the previous Supreme Court ruled 7 - 1 IN FAVOR of Congress being empowered to IMPOSE a Special Prosecutor on the Department of Justice how do you THINK they would rule on a new, replacement law GIVING THE AUTHORITY DIRECTLY TO THE DOJ to ESSENTIALLY APPOINT a Special Prosecutor? How would the current law be MORE RESTRICTIVE AND VIOLATIVE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS than the one which had already been upheld by SCOTUS and allowed to expire in favor of one that was more deferential to the Execuitve Branch????

As for 28 CFR 600 the "truth is" the "underlying statutory basis" is referenced by the following "Parallel Table of Authorities" from the Government Printing Office: https://www.law.cornell.edu/ptoa/uscode/28. The relevant statute, as hopefully even YOU can see from the table, is 28 U.S. Code § 509 - "Functions of the Attorney General."

THAT is your fucking statutory authority. THAT is how the law works.

Stop trying to play cute with shit you know nothing about -- namely the law.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh good, partisan Republican talking points.

Michael Dreeben - the deputy solicitor general overseeing the Department of Justice's criminal docket for the Obama Administration - Also worked in Republican administrations
Andrew Weissmann - Currently taking a leave of absence from his position at the DOJ under the Obama Administration and has worked with Mueller when Mueller was head of the FBI. He is also 1 of several Democrats on the team who has donated money to Democrats - Also worked in Republican administration as you note;
Aaron Zebley - Another associate at the WilmerHale law firm. He also worked for Mueller when Mueller was head of the FBI. - Also donated to Republicans
Lisa Page - Trial attorney in the DOJ under the Obama Administration. "...deep experience with money laundering and organized crime cases, including investigations where she’s partnered with an FBI task force in Budapest, Hungary, that focuses on eastern European organized crime. That Budapest task force helped put together the still-unfolding money laundering case against Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, a one-time business partner of Manafort." Sure sounds unqualified to me

As for Rhee, her colleague when she worked for the Clinton Foundation was hired by Jared Kushner. So apparently Kushner was tricked in to falling for the Democratic plot too.

If you want lawyers who haven't donated to a political parties you'd probably have to get someone immediately out of law school.

Oh, then there's the little matter of the fact that the person leading the investigation was appointed as head of the FBI by a Republican, confirmed 98-0 and more recently appointed by a Republican in a Republican administration.
Then there's the ardent Trump apologist who saidBut, apparently after decades of being "impeccable for honesty and integrity" in the span of a month he's become a liar and corrupt.

You people crack me up.

I listed facts. You dug deeper and came up with other facts. We disagree as to which facts are more indicative of the political viewpoint of Mueller's team. Time will show which of us is correct but what I've seen so far is a close knit group of Democrat donors and Hillary supporters being hired. YMMV. *shrug*

As for Mueller's "reputation for honesty". Seems to ME, that a lot of people were saying the same about Comey not too long ago. You know, Mueller's BFF. Comey, the guy who did the dirty deed to get Mueller appointed. The guy that Mueller SO FAR has shown no interest in investigating.

I hope that you enjoy your political amusement. It is said that laughter is the best medicine.

 

[Rightguide]

Well, why don't you try thinking for a moment? If the previous Supreme Court ruled 7 - 1 IN FAVOR of Congress being empowered to IMPOSE a Special Prosecutor on the Department of Justice how do you THINK they would rule on a new, replacement law GIVING THE AUTHORITY DIRECTLY TO THE DOJ to ESSENTIALLY APPOINT a Special Prosecutor? How would the current law be MORE RESTRICTIVE AND VIOLATIVE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS than the one which had already been upheld by SCOTUS and allowed to expire in favor of one that was more deferential to the Execuitve Branch????

As for 28 CFR 600 the "truth is" the "underlying statutory basis" is referenced by the following "Parallel Table of Authorities" from the Government Printing Office: https://www.law.cornell.edu/ptoa/uscode/28. The relevant statute, as hopefully even YOU can see from the table, is 28 U.S. Code § 509 - "Functions of the Attorney General."

THAT is your fucking statutory authority. THAT is how the law works.

Stop trying to play cute with shit you know nothing about -- namely the law.

Legislation that allows the DOJ to write regulations does not preclude constitutional legal challenges to those regulations...does it, genius?

 

[Rightguide]

THAT is your fucking statutory authority. THAT is how the law works.

Stop trying to play cute with shit you know nothing about -- namely the law.

Listen up, Dopey. I will post whenever, whatever, and wherever, I damn well please, whether you like it or not. So STFU with your personal instructions about the content of what I post. If it bothers you, put me on ignore or stay the fuck out of my threads.

 

[Peregrinator]

Yup. That's vetteman.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Legislation that allows the DOJ to write regulations does not preclude constitutional legal challenges to those regulations...does it, genius?

Nope. Sure doesn't. But no one is about to make such a Constitutional challenge based on your absurd legal theory that "legislation that ALLOWS the DOJ to write regulations" for itself IS legislation that serves to "limit or diminish the Art. II Section 1 plenary powers of the executive to manage the Executive branch." The notion is laughably self-contradictory on its face. But that is exactly the "concern" you expressed in this most recent post: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86424298&postcount=144

The current law AND DOJ regulations under Title 28 of the CFR CORRECTS the previous arguable possibility of Congress infringing on Executive authority -- it doesn't compound or exacerbate it. Any competent rational mind understands that simply by reading the law. You don't. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, who would be "concerned" about the very "plenary rolleyes:) authority" of the President that you are so obviously worried about is going to challenge a law or regulation THAT GIVES THE PRESIDENT THROUGH HIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE OPTION OF APPOINTING -- OR NOT APPOINTING -- A SPECIAL COUNSEL.

Not a single Constitutional law expert is out there advocating such nonsense. You stand alone.

Listen up, Dopey. I will post whenever, whatever, and wherever, I damn well please, whether you like it or not. So STFU with your personal instructions about the content of what I post. If it bothers you, put me on ignore or stay the fuck out of my threads.

Lighten up, Francis. It wasn't an order. It was just a strong "suggestion." I'm trying to help you stop embarrassing yourself by being wrong all the time and then stomping around justifying your stupidity on the sole basis that it is an opinion you are entitled to have.

Liberals love to do that, too. Whenever they're wrong they go on the counterattack rather than fessing up to fucking up. It seems to be a strategy common to both political extremes. You don't help "our cause" when you follow their lead.

But, yeah, you (and they) can post anything the mind and heart desires, and if it's bullshit in general or legal bullshit most particularly, I'll be here to call you on it.

Whether YOU like it or not.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I have no opinion...

~*~ but ~*~




I am entertained.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I have no opinion...

~*~ but ~*~




I am entertained.

Save me some popcorn.

 

[zipman]

Nope. Sure doesn't. But no one is about to make such a Constitutional challenge based on your absurd legal theory that "legislation that ALLOWS the DOJ to write regulations" for itself IS legislation that serves to "limit or diminish the Art. II Section 1 plenary powers of the executive to manage the Executive branch." The notion is laughably self-contradictory on its face. But that is exactly the "concern" you expressed in this most recent post: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86424298&postcount=144

The current law AND DOJ regulations under Title 28 of the CFR CORRECTS the previous arguable possibility of Congress infringing on Executive authority -- it doesn't compound or exacerbate it. Any competent rational mind understands that simply by reading the law. You don't. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, who would be "concerned" about the very "plenary rolleyes:) authority" of the President that you are so obviously worried about is going to challenge a law or regulation THAT GIVES THE PRESIDENT THROUGH HIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE OPTION OF APPOINTING -- OR NOT APPOINTING -- A SPECIAL COUNSEL.

Not a single Constitutional law expert is out there advocating such nonsense. You stand alone.




Lighten up, Francis. It wasn't an order. It was just a strong "suggestion." I'm trying to help you stop embarrassing yourself by being wrong all the time and then stomping around justifying your stupidity on the sole basis that it is an opinion you are entitled to have.

Liberals love to do that, too. Whenever they're wrong they go on the counterattack rather than fessing up to fucking up. It seems to be a strategy common to both political extremes. You don't help "our cause" when you follow their lead.

But, yeah, you (and they) can post anything the mind and heart desires, and if it's bullshit in general or legal bullshit most particularly, I'll be here to call you on it.

Whether YOU like it or not.

One thing is more than obvious, that vetteman still doesn't care about embarrassing himself on Lit.

Hell, it's almost like an obsession with him.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Extra butter?

 

[Rightguide]

Nope. Sure doesn't. But no one is about to make such a Constitutional challenge based on your absurd legal theory that "legislation that ALLOWS the DOJ to write regulations" for itself IS legislation that serves to "limit or diminish the Art. II Section 1 plenary powers of the executive to manage the Executive branch." The notion is laughably self-contradictory on its face. But that is exactly the "concern" you expressed in this most recent post

I expressed that concern because the regulation assumes, as do many others including members of Congress that at least in the present case, the Assistant Attorney General is the only person who can fire the Special Counsel. In my opinion, this notion violates the theory of a unitary executive contemplated by Article II Section I, and if true, diminishes the plenary authority of the executive, who certainly can fire anyone in the executive branch based on the language of Article II.

The current law AND DOJ regulations under Title 28 of the CFR CORRECTS the previous arguable possibility of Congress infringing on Executive authority -- it doesn't compound or exacerbate it. Any competent rational mind understands that simply by reading the law. You don't. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, who would be "concerned"

Not a single Constitutional law expert is out there advocating such nonsense. You stand alone.

I erred when I suggested the current regulations were a product of the Congress. I'll give you that, but the existing DOJ regulations replacing the older law does, in fact, assume the President to be subordinate to, in this case, Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in authority to fire the Special Counsel. That notion seems to be the prevailing legal sentiment.

This from Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School:

“As the head of the executive branch, Trump can claim the authority to fire any executive officer,” However, both the attorney general and the deputy attorney general have their own independent obligations. The actual firing of Mueller would have to be done by Mr. Rosenstein.”

According to the Professor, the President can only "claim' the authority to fire the Special Counsel because the Attorney General and his deputy have "independent" obligations and authorities, which seem counterintuitive when we consider the Attorney General and his Deputy, according to the Constitution, are exercising the executive authority derived from that vested in the President himself. All of which logically leads me to believe the President can limit or interdict it at will for good cause.

The idea of a DOJ or and FBI "independent' of the Executive is not contemplated in the Constitution.

Lighten up, Francis. It wasn't an order. It was just a strong "suggestion." I'm trying to help you stop embarrassing yourself by being wrong all the time and then stomping around justifying your stupidity on the sole basis that it is an opinion you are entitled to have.

Liberals love to do that, too. Whenever they're wrong they go on the counterattack rather than fessing up to fucking up. It seems to be a strategy common to both political extremes. You don't help "our cause" when you follow their lead.

But, yeah, you (and they) can post anything the mind and heart desires, and if it's bullshit in general or legal bullshit most particularly, I'll be here to call you on it.

Whether YOU like it or not.

I did fuck up as I admitted to in my answer above. I do believe I am right on the issues I've just defended. You believe you're right as you have so emphatically stated. That's okay with me as there are always two sides to every argument. I do regret our discussion has taken on a negative personal aspect but from what I've seen that is the way it is around here so I'll be ready for either.