I believe so, for FBI Director.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Printable View
I believe so, for FBI Director.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Mueller protection Bill is advancing in the Senate:
This would have been more useful a few months ago. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely at this point that Trump will go for Mueller directly. He's going to go for Rosenstein, and this Bill likely won't do anything for that.Quote:
Grassley is seeking agreement from his committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, to add the combined Mueller legislation to the panel's agenda for a Thursday markup, according to a source briefed on his plans. Since Judiciary rules allow items to get held over by one week, that move would likely tee up the bill for a markup next week.
Grassley who declared Tuesday that a Mueller firing would amount to "suicide" by Trump, still has constitutional concerns about the special counsel protection legislation. But after pushing proponents of the special counsel bill to develop the compromise proposal, Grassley has decided to put the legislation before the committee.
The Iowan may introduce an amendment intended to strengthen the bill by adding additional reporting requirements, a provision that he hopes would survive any future constitutional challenge, the source told POLITICO.
Re: Constitutional concerns- though Congress has long-ceded the ability to fire appointees to the President- technically it's not actually outlined in the Constitution as such. There's probably extensive case law on this, and I'm curious as to whether the Courts have determined it's the sole right of the Executive to fire, or if it has been positioned as simply a right.
If it's the latter, there's a potential argument here that because the right to hire/appoint is a joint venture between the President and Congress (with Congress acting as a check in that process), the right to fire could likewise be construed as such. The Courts have long recognized that with the greater comes the lesser- that is to say that if the Constitution grants you a greater right- it is implied that you also have all lesser rights. Under that doctrine, if Congress has the right to stop an appointment- that could be construed to include the "lesser" right to stop a firing as well.
All purely speculative and way beyond my background in con law.
Better late than never.
If it doesn't protect Rosenstein- is it really any good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Rosenstein is the easiest target right now- the most risk-free. It's also the one that allows him to do the most damage under the radar.
The one silver lining here, at least, is that with Ryan not running for re-election- he'll be far more likely to actually put this up to a vote. Every Dem will vote for it, and there will be enough Republicans in Clinton districts to vote for it and push it over majority without requiring any other GOP Reps to stick their necks out right before a primary.
I doubt Trump will veto it. Signing it would be a great way to provide cover for firing Rosenstein.
Firing Rosenstein would only add to the list of obstruction charges. I'm not particularly worried.
Yes, because if/when he starts firing people like rosenstein he has to explain what they did wrong besides investigating him. Was Rosenstein late for work three times? Did he steal food from the company refrigerator in the break room? What reason is there to fire him except for attempting to obstruct justiceQuote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Trump should just start pardoning people... watch the meltdown ensue.
Explain to whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
If he puts someone in his place who is willing to do his bidding that person has a lot of power to suppress the investigation. There's a contingency in there that requires the AG or acting-AG to report any decisions to effectively overrule Mueller to the Majority and Minority members of both Congressional Judiciary Committees. But there are two sticking points here:
1) The report doesn't have to happen until after the investigation is completed (which is also something that can be delayed as long as it is politically expedient)
2) There's a provision in the statute that effectively allows an AG or acting-AG to put an indefinite hold on that disclosure.
Also Mueller is only allowed to give his final report to the AG/Acting AG- where it can easily be effectively quashed.
Technically Congressional subpoena power could compel the Executive Branch to submit all of Mueller's investigation files, but that won't happen unless the Democrats control at least one House of Congress. The minority party has no weight behind their requests because they have no power to enforce compliance.
Also, unfortunately, Trump could repeal the statute (or portions of it) at any time
It's funny how you didn't learn anything from the Nixon era, despite having personally lived through it. Oh well -- idiots live doomed to repeat their mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
says a gay. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ashliana