Will Trump Attempt to Dismiss Mueller?

[Freudian_Slit]

White House insiders report Trump wanted to dismiss Mueller once it was believed a relationship existed between him and Comey. But that close advisors convinced Trump of the inappropriateness of that action.

Will knowing that he is now under investigation by the special counsel for possible obstruction of justice change his mind?

Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say

The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

Link.

 

[Rightguide]

Obstruction of justice doesn't exist against the President when he is lawfully exercising his constitutional authority. His actions with Comey as testified to by him were lawful.

 

[adrina]

Wow... I'm impressed at the ability to rationalize this bullshit.

If it were Obama (or Hillary) you'd be frothing at the mouth.

You guys are seriously impressive at your ability to simultaneously suck Donald's dick while spewing out the party line.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, I think Trump should definitely announce that he's firing Mueller--preferably in a tweet calling Mueller a nut job, sent while the media is filming him meeting with the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office and telling him to assure Putin that everything is taking care of, so can he erase those golden showers hooker tapes now?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

White House insiders report Trump wanted to dismiss Mueller once it was believed a relationship existed between him and Comey. But that close advisors convinced Trump of the inappropriateness of that action.

Will knowing that he is now under investigation by the special counsel for possible obstruction of justice change his mind?

Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say

The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

Link.

Not if he has a brain left in his head.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86287694&postcount=14

 

[cjh]

Obstruction of justice doesn't exist against the President when he is lawfully exercising his constitutional authority. His actions with Comey as testified to by him were lawful.

And the State of Florida is well within its rights when it makes it a crime for pediatricians to inquire about guns in the household.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

The scope of the special counsel investigation has expanded to include possible money laundering by Trump campaign officials. Which really isn't all that surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to Trump's past dealings.

Linky.

 

[Rightguide]

And the State of Florida is well within its rights when it makes it a crime for pediatricians to inquire about guns in the household.

???

What does that have to do with what I posted?

 

[HisArpy]

What's funny is that when I heard the news that Mueller had hired the Hillary legal team I said; "Hmmm." It didn't take long after that before the focus shifted from Russian interference and collusion to obstruction of justice. Why was I not surprised. Why is no one surprised.

 

[Libsam]

Not if he has a brain left in his head.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86287694&postcount=14

can only be fired "for cause."

Isn't that a bit of a rorschach blot, open to interpretation?

I've read a few opinion pieces and I'm getting the impression that nobody really knows the legality of firing Mueller, but they are all saying it would be a bad political move because a lot of the Rs like George W's Mueller.

But, one opinion said that Mueller must resign because conflict of interests is clearly defined legally.

Related: Another opinion piece went on to say that we need to pass some legislation that requires "plain speak" in bills. I agree with that, Bernard Cornwell is easier to read than the shit that gets sent to congress.
I know why...

 

[NOIRTRASH]

For now the whole deal serves the Democrat political terrorism agenda as they have no influence or power in the Congress, and less influence in government every day that passes. Whatever Moooler decides is dead on arrival and the new FBI director can go after Hillary. Plus voters are weary of the Democrat fake drama. Its 1980 for Democrats.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Trump can't actually fire Meuller himself. He could demand that Rosenstein fire him or order the special-counsel regulations repealed and then fire him. He could argue that the special-counsel is hampering his responsibilities for foreign affairs. Which he has stated is already impeding his trying to repair relations with Russia.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

It's hilarious there are talking heads actually calling for this.

Gregg Jarrett: Trump should demand Mueller quit as special counsel

The Washington Post is reporting that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president’s alleged statement to Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

...

This conflict of interest is manifest. It is not fair to President Trump as the reported subject of the investigation, and it is certainly not fair to the American public. They deserve a legal process that is utterly devoid of partiality and bias. Even the appearance of a conflict requires recusal under the law.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...d-demand-mueller-quit-as-special-counsel.html

Trump moving to attempt to dismiss Mueller would be some of the best political theater in decades.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Isn't that a bit of a rorschach blot, open to interpretation?

I've read a few opinion pieces and I'm getting the impression that nobody really knows the legality of firing Mueller, but they are all saying it would be a bad political move because a lot of the Rs like George W's Mueller.

But, one opinion said that Mueller must resign because conflict of interests is clearly defined legally.

Related: Another opinion piece went on to say that we need to pass some legislation that requires "plain speak" in bills. I agree with that, Bernard Cornwell is easier to read than the shit that gets sent to congress.
I know why...

I've had this fight with "Rightguard" extensively. Hopefully, you will attempt to read and understand the law more objectively than he is inclined.

The two relevant statutes of federal law governing grounds for Mueller's dismissal and any alleged "conflict of interest" that would justify it are as follows:

28 CFR §600.7 Conduct and accountability

(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in §600.9(a)(3).

(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=260043d8c53d2ddb13476e1f27e3e8ea&mc=true&node=se28.2.600_17&rgn=div8

The second applicable statute is 28 C.F.R. § 45.2. For my most recent detailed exchange with RG on that subject, I would refer you HERE.

For reference, however, here is the statute in full. Something RG never cited. Please note the statutory definition of "personal relationship" in paragraphs (c)(2) as it applies to a "conflict of interest":

§45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:

(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee's service less than fully impartial and professional; and

(2) The employee's participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.

(c) For the purposes of this section:

(1) Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and

(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.

(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=260043d8c53d2ddb13476e1f27e3e8ea&mc=true&node=pt28.2.45&rgn=div5#se28.2.45_12

In short, at no point has James Comey's personal conduct been "substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation" and as a result, he clearly has no legal "specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation."

Therefore, whatever arguable personal relationship he has with Special Counsel Mueller, it does not currently affect Mueller's legal ability or ethical responsibility under applicable federal law.

If at some point, Mueller decides to investigate Comey's testimony before Congress as a potential act of perjury, that would DRAMATICALLY CHANGE the situation and Mueller would need to recuse himself from that aspect of the investigation. But even at that point he would not need to resign as special counsel if the Attorney General as Mueller's "supervisor" was not convinced of a violation under 28 C.F.R. § 45.2.

Notwithstanding the above, the statutory discretion given Mueller's "supervisor" in paragraph (b) -- namely the AG -- prevails under the law. Deputy AG Rosenstein, who directly serves the President and appointed Mueller, is on record before Congress as stating that there is no "cause" under law for firing Bob Mueller. That is presently Rosenstein's sole call to make. And IF the President IS NOW a subject of Mueller's investigation for a possible obstruction of justice as has been reported, it effectively takes it out of Trump's hands to affect as Rosenstein's superior. The President would almost certainly be viewed as obstructing justice by ordering Mueller's firing in that instance and would easily leave him open to impeachment.

Attempts to read the law in a partisan nature that would DEPRIVE ACTING AG ROSENSTEIN OF THE DISCRETION HE IRREFUTABLY HAS is the largest foul-smelling pile of bullshit a partisan could create.

 

[HisArpy]

I agree with your analysis except for 1 small point.

If Mueller FAILS to investigate Comey.

Comey's testimony is ripe for investigation. He admitted giving a document to his friend to leak to the media. Whether it was a government document or personal note, the issue is unclear without an investigation.

Mueller has no choice except to investigate that. Failure to do so would show partisanship which is a conflict of interest. Yet, doing so directly creates a conflict of interest.

Mueller is between a rock and a hard place. And no investigation by him will be viewed as nonpartisan. The best thing he can do for the DOJ, the FBI, the Country and Congress is to resign and let someone else take over as head witch hunter.

That said, he won't. It is in his interest to stir the pot.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I agree with your analysis except for 1 small point.

If Mueller FAILS to investigate Comey.

Comey's testimony is ripe for investigation. He admitted giving a document to his friend to leak to the media. Whether it was a government document or personal note, the issue is unclear without an investigation.

Mueller has no choice except to investigate that. Failure to do so would show partisanship which is a conflict of interest. Yet, doing so directly creates a conflict of interest.

Mueller is between a rock and a hard place. And no investigation by him will be viewed as nonpartisan. The best thing he can do for the DOJ, the FBI, the Country and Congress is to resign and let someone else take over as head witch hunter.

That said, he won't. It is in his interest to stir the pot.

Your point is well-founded, but even at that point, it would be Rosenstein's call (assuming he's still acting AG) to make that Mueller's "failure to investigate" is an actionable dereliction of duty under the law.

One simply cannot get around the clear statutory language giving the AG discretion to decide matters of "conduct and accountability" and "conflict of interest" surrounding the Special Counsel's job performance.

 

[Conager]

Your point is well-founded, but even at that point, it would be Rosenstein's call (assuming he's still acting AG) to make that Mueller's "failure to investigate" is an actionable dereliction of duty under the law.

One simply cannot get around the clear statutory language giving the AG discretion to decide matters of "conduct and accountability" and "conflict of interest" surrounding the Special Counsel's job performance.

There is no statuatory language. The law expired, yes?

 

[Freudian_Slit]

There is no statuatory language. The law expired, yes?

Are you referring to the "United States Office of the Independent Counsel" whose function was taken on by the DoJ office of special counsel?

 

[HisArpy]

There is no statuatory language. The law expired, yes?

No. Well, sorta.

There were 2 laws which authorized the appointment of a special counsel/prosecutor.

1 which allows the AG to do so. And, 1 which allowed Congress to do so. The law allowing Congress to appoint one has expired. However, the law which allows the AG to appoint a special counsel still exists.

 

[HisArpy]

Your point is well-founded, but even at that point, it would be Rosenstein's call (assuming he's still acting AG) to make that Mueller's "failure to investigate" is an actionable dereliction of duty under the law.

One simply cannot get around the clear statutory language giving the AG discretion to decide matters of "conduct and accountability" and "conflict of interest" surrounding the Special Counsel's job performance.

Oh, I agree. It's going to be Rosenstein's call. And it's a political death sentence no matter which way he goes.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Just to be clear, here is the exact language on the general powers of special counsel, which are still in effect.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

 

[Rightguide]

Oh, I agree. It's going to be Rosenstein's call. And it's a political death sentence no matter which way he goes.

I'm not sure the Constitution allows Congress to seize control of the executive branch and carve out a portion of the President's Article II plenary executive authority and grant that authority to the Assistant Attorney General. Has this alleged authority been reviewed by the SCOTUS? As we know the Constitution in Article II Section 1 grants the executive authority to the President of the United States, not the Congress or the Attorney General.

 

[sr71plt]

My goodness the Trump rats are rustling about in high agitation inside the walls.

Yes, Trump, try to fire his ass. Do it, do it, do it. You've done so well with this so far.

 

[HisArpy]

I think there's an EO about the President separating himself from the DOJ. Or there's some kind of agreement that the President will not step on the toes of the DOJ.

I believe that is where the idea that the AG has the power to do what he does and the President doesn't have the authority to say otherwise. Plus Congress can create different departments and it is up to the Exec wing to fill them. Congress can designate who the new dept head answers to.

 

[Rightguide]

I think there's an EO about the President separating himself from the DOJ. Or there's some kind of agreement that the President will not step on the toes of the DOJ.

I believe that is where the idea that the AG has the power to do what he does and the President doesn't have the authority to say otherwise. Plus Congress can create different departments and it is up to the Exec wing to fill them. Congress can designate who the new dept head answers to.

Congress cannot amend the Constitution by legislation. EOs are written by the Executive. Seems to me the President does have the right to fire the Special Counsel for cause by ordering the Attorney General or in this case the Assistant Attorney General to do so. Rosenstein said as much when he said he would review such an order for legality before assenting to do so, otherwise, he wouldn't. Which would put his job on the line. A shit storm would erupt if the President did so. He might be impeached, but absent actual law breaking by the President, one really couldn't say he actually violated the Constitution in firing the Special Counsel. Just my view