Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[DogofWar1]

This makes me quite happy.

 

 

 

The public statements of these gaslightin' fools have not been met with punishments; they act as though the lack of being under oath gives them free rein to say whatever happens to be most convenient at the time, regardless of if its found to be a lie or they outright contradict themselves a short time later.

 

My hope is that all of these individuals' public statements start biting them in the rears in their criminal proceedings, as they should.  Just because you aren't under oath doesn't mean you can just lie andnlie and lie.

[Bang]

Trump is confident that when he tells HIS STORY it will all be over?

 

Wait a minute.. all this time he's been saying there is NO STORY at all.

So is this what he intends to say to get it to blow over? 967th time's a charm?

 

As with all liars, they can't ever keep track of their lies, and they end up outing themselves.  My bet is the interview with Mueller isn't even necessary to hang this ****ing pig.

Just icing on the cake for our entertainment, and to close the book emphatically. I want him to scream "WITCH HUNT" the second the spring the trap door and his fat ass drops those final 2 feet.

 

~Bang

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[techboy]

Taken in a vacuum, it's not a ridiculous position. The Special Counsel is appointed and overseen by the Deputy Attorney General. This is all part of the executive branch, which is headed by the President, who therefore has oversight over the whole deal.

 

For the legislative branch to pass a law interfering with the functioning of the executive branch could well cause a Constitutional crisis in itself, as a violation of the separation of powers.

 

There are remedies given to the legislative branch in the Constitution for abuse of power of the executive, primarily impeachment.

 

They could also simply appoint their own special counsel or perform their own investigation, I think.

 

It's definitely an issue that they don't seem likely to do any of those things, so this is probably just an excuse, but it doesn't mean they're wrong.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

The DOJ is part of the executive branch, but is not there to do the bidding of the president who doesn't have oversight, he makes appointments just like every other cabinet. The DOJ is the investigatory and prosecution arm of the United States Government. 

 

Trump, some Republicans, and some citizens seem to not know or acknowledge this fact.  Otherwise we would have presidents using the DOJ as their personal investigatory and prosecution force. You see where I am going with this.

 

When he says its his DOJ, he's 100% wrong.

 

About the special prosecutor bill: if they pass it, the House passes it, and Trump signs it, they can get it before the Supremes and get it declared unConstitutional.

Edited April 26, 2018 by LadySkinsFan

[visionary]

12 minutes ago, techboy said:

Taken in a vacuum, it's not a ridiculous position. The Special Counsel is appointed and overseen by the Deputy Attorney General. This is all part of the executive branch, which is headed by the President, who therefore has oversight over the whole deal.

 

For the legislative branch to pass a law interfering with the functioning of the executive branch could well cause a Constitutional crisis in itself, as a violation of the separation of powers.

 

There are remedies given to the legislative branch in the Constitution for abuse of power of the executive, primarily impeachment.

 

They could also simply appoint their own special counsel or perform their own investigation, I think.

 

It's definitely an issue that they don't seem likely to do any of those things, so this is probably just an excuse, but it doesn't mean they're wrong.

I don’t think he has the authority to fire Meuller.  Also think it’s illegal for him to directly get rid of Rosenstein considering the circumstances.  Pressuring someone else to do so may also be an issue legally, but would be harder to prove.

[LadySkinsFan]

Bork fired Archibald Cox and ruined his career. People will look at firing Mueller with a jaundiced eye. Better to be fired by Trump than to fire Mueller. Short term career impact rather than career torching.

[techboy]

16 minutes ago, visionary said:

I don’t think he has the authority to fire Meuller.  Also think it’s illegal for him to directly get rid of Rosenstein considering the circumstances.  Pressuring someone else to do so may also be an issue legally, but would be harder to prove.

 

Even if that's true, I don't think that's the role of the legislature. It'd be up to the courts to rule on that.

[techboy]

21 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Bork fired Archibald Cox and ruined his career. People will look at firing Mueller with a jaundiced eye. Better to be fired by Trump than to fire Mueller. Short term career impact rather than career torching.

 

This is pretty much the point. Nobody stopped Bork from firing Cox, or Nixon from engineering it. Under a strict reading of the Constitution, he had that power.

 

The consequences came in the form of reputational damage, political fallout, and eventually, Congress moved to exercise their power to impeach.

 

The independence of the Justice Department isn't really Constitutional or even legal, it's based on precedent from within the executive branch itself.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/independence-and-accountability-department-justice

 

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.

Every presidency since Watergate has embraced policies for preserving DOJ and FBI independence from the President in certain law enforcement and intelligence matters. These internal regulations and memoranda, and the norms they foster, acknowledge the President’s ultimate power and responsibility for law enforcement and intelligence while at the same time recognizing that in certain matters, the Executive branch needs internal divisions of authority that achieve a type of independence from presidential control. One example is the restrictions that every administration from Carter to Trump has placed on communications between DOJ (including the FBI) and the White House concerning law enforcement investigations and other matters.  Another is the Special Counsel regulations that govern Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conduct and termination.

 

The problem here is that technically, a President could move to change these precedents, norms, and practices, and unless the courts move to stop it, or Congress impeaches, I'm not sure anything could be done.

 

In my view, this is the true danger of Trump. His policies can be overturned or reversed.

 

I fear that the damage will be done to our institutions, precedents, and practices.

 

This is why it's so important that Democrats maintain the high ground, and NEVER use Trump as an excuse for doing something. That leads to a slide we may never recover from.

 

We can't let Trump define normal.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Larry]

Oh, I think maybe the best way to deal with a scenario of Trump firing Mueller (and I'm thinking "best" as in "least constitutional crisis") is:

 

1). Trump fires Mueller

2). And the new, majority-Dem House hires him back, and tells him to carry on. 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Boy she turned out to be an outlier. I consider her a traitor too.

[DogofWar1]

Is that Grassley rider still on the Senate's Mueller protection bill?  If that came out then good, but if not, bill becomes a trojan horse.

[mcsluggo]

3 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Bork fired Archibald Cox and ruined his career. People will look at firing Mueller with a jaundiced eye. Better to be fired by Trump than to fire Mueller. Short term career impact rather than career torching.

 

bork was a couple of senate votes (in a democratic controlled senate!) away from being confirmed as a supreme court justice after his career was "ruined"

 

to this very day, republican buttholes use the term "borked" to refer to the unfair politicization of a court nomination vote, honoring that grand poobah butthole 

 

if i was a career stoolie, i would easily take the lesson from the Bork example that the GOP doesn't give a **** about pesky ethics, and my stoolie train would just keep on chugging on down the GOP greased track 

[LadySkinsFan]

All too true, mcsluggo. But Bork is only revered by Republicans.

 

The rest of us use borked as a pejorative.

Edited April 26, 2018 by LadySkinsFan

[visionary]

Didn't get much play today amid everything else, but still pretty bad.

 

 

 

[twa]

Is he still recused?

I thought that ended when he was cleared of the accusation.

[Larry]

21 minutes ago, twa said:

Is he still recused?

I thought that ended when he was cleared of the accusation.

 

Which was right after they arrested Putin. 

[twa]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Which was right after they arrested Putin. 

 

Funny, but he was accused of improper/unreported meetings and was cleared by the FBI ....right?

He is no longer under his self imposed recusal.

[LadySkinsFan]

Haven't heard that he's been cleared. The main issue was he was on the transition team when Russia was discussed. So I am guessing that they are looking at all of the transition team for collusion. 

 

Collusion questions don't stop at the election. 

[twa]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Haven't heard that he's been cleared. The main issue was he was on the transition team when Russia was discussed. So I am guessing that they are looking at all of the transition team for collusion. 

 

Collusion questions don't stop at the election. 

 

questions w/o specific allegations are poor basis for recusal.(and not the reason he gave for doing so)

[LadySkinsFan]

I guess we will see what happens. Speculation to me is unproductive.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, twa said:

Is he still recused?

I thought that ended when he was cleared of the accusation.

Of course he’s still recused, that’s why the focus has been on Rosenstein and whether Trump would fire him to get to Mueller.

37 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Funny, but he was accused of improper/unreported meetings and was cleared by the FBI ....right?

He is no longer under his self imposed recusal.

When did you hear that the FBI cleared him?

You mean when he lied about the Popadopalos meeting with Trump?