There’s now a bipartisan bill to protect Mueller’s investigation from Trump

[busybee01]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.

Why is that a good cause, snowflake? Is Mueller in some sort of danger? Why are people like you so impossibly ignorant of everything you write? Firing Mueller wouldn't stop the investigation. How much will you still like Mueller if he comes to the conclusion there is nothing to the Russia probe? Besides, the bill is probably unconstitutional anyway. Congress cannot usurp presidential power, it is a little thing called Separation of Powers. You should read it.

Thye President does not have the power to fire a special prosecutor. Only the Justice Department can do that and only for very specific reasons.

 

[busybee01]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.
The odds continue to stack up against Trump.

Top Senate legislators are moving to protect former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference in case President Donald Trump tries to derail it.

On Thursday, Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced they would introduce a bill to allow Justice Department special counsels, like Mueller, to challenge their removals in court. A three-panel judge would then get to adjudicate the challenge — meaning Trump could be overruled should he try to fire the special counsel.

The decision is a preemptive attempt to curtail the president, who has publicly criticized Mueller and derided the Russia investigation. In an interview with the New York Times, Trump even flirted with the idea that he’d fire Mueller if the former FBI director’s investigation winds up looking at Trump’s finances.

There’s now a bipartisan bill to protect Mueller’s investigation from Trump

Who signs bills into law, or vetoes them, geniuses?

You think that's going to get 2/3 support?

Another day, another "Trump's really really done now" thread.

Yes. In the Senate, every Senator has to agree to go into a pro forma session. The reason that Congress went into a pro forma session was to prevent Trump from getting rid of Sessions and making a recess appointment to fire Mueller.

 

[Avatar4321]

So, lets say this bill passes, does anyone honestly believe trump will sign it?

That will be even more damning evidence against him if he doesn't sign it.
Amazing you cant see the truth right in front of your eyes.

Why would he sign a bill that is clearly unconstitutional?


.

It is not unconstitutional. It provides for a judicial review to determine if the firing is justified.

It's completely unconstitutional. The legislative branch has no authority to interfere with the executive branch and it's duties

 

[OKTexas]

Could you provide an example?


.

Omg. Have you been living in a cave the past 6 months?
Hundreds of posts have dealt with Trump in violation of the emolument clause of the Constitution.
He refuses to divest from his businesss after saying he would.

ROFLMFAO, I was talking about actual violations, not regressive wet dreams.


.

Spoken like a true trump whore.
He is indeed in violation of the Constitution but you laugh it off.

Did Reagan sell his ranch, did Carter sell his peanut farm. I bet Carter even exported his peanuts. Selling consumer goods and services at market rates are not emoluments no matter who the fuck buys them. Get back to me when they start taking money far above the market form select government officials.


.

Reagan was not a businessman. He made appearances on television and made speeches. George W Bush divested himself of his businesses when he entered politics including selling his stake in the then Texas Rangers.

And, there's nothing in the Constitution that says a person elected president must divest themselves of anything. Of course you're free to dream up anything you want, but that doesn't make them law or constitutional.


.

 

[Avatar4321]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.

Why is that a good cause, snowflake? Is Mueller in some sort of danger? Why are people like you so impossibly ignorant of everything you write? Firing Mueller wouldn't stop the investigation. How much will you still like Mueller if he comes to the conclusion there is nothing to the Russia probe? Besides, the bill is probably unconstitutional anyway. Congress cannot usurp presidential power, it is a little thing called Separation of Powers. You should read it.

Thye President does not have the power to fire a special prosecutor. Only the Justice Department can do that and only for very specific reasons.

The doj is an arm of the executive branch. The buck stops at trump

 

[2aguy]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.
The odds continue to stack up against Trump.

Top Senate legislators are moving to protect former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference in case President Donald Trump tries to derail it.

On Thursday, Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced they would introduce a bill to allow Justice Department special counsels, like Mueller, to challenge their removals in court. A three-panel judge would then get to adjudicate the challenge — meaning Trump could be overruled should he try to fire the special counsel.

The decision is a preemptive attempt to curtail the president, who has publicly criticized Mueller and derided the Russia investigation. In an interview with the New York Times, Trump even flirted with the idea that he’d fire Mueller if the former FBI director’s investigation winds up looking at Trump’s finances.

There’s now a bipartisan bill to protect Mueller’s investigation from Trump

You mean you are happy to see them violating the Constitution....since this is not in the Constitutional powers allowed to congress.....and Trump has full authority over the executive branch.....of course, you guys can't stand the Constitution, so it is no surprise you would support this coup against the President.

 

[OKTexas]

So, lets say this bill passes, does anyone honestly believe trump will sign it?

That will be even more damning evidence against him if he doesn't sign it.
Amazing you cant see the truth right in front of your eyes.

Why would he sign a bill that is clearly unconstitutional?


.

It is not unconstitutional. It provides for a judicial review to determine if the firing is justified.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows


So where does it say that power is subject to congressional approval or judicial review?


.

 

[toobfreak]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.

Why is that a good cause, snowflake? Is Mueller in some sort of danger? Why are people like you so impossibly ignorant of everything you write? Firing Mueller wouldn't stop the investigation. How much will you still like Mueller if he comes to the conclusion there is nothing to the Russia probe? Besides, the bill is probably unconstitutional anyway. Congress cannot usurp presidential power, it is a little thing called Separation of Powers. You should read it.

Thye President does not have the power to fire a special prosecutor. Only the Justice Department can do that and only for very specific reasons.

WRONG, bugbee. And he is a Special Counsel, NOT a prosecutor. Where did you get your law degree, on the back of a box of Trix?

 

[Doc1]

So, lets say this bill passes, does anyone honestly believe trump will sign it?

That will be even more damning evidence against him if he doesn't sign it.
Amazing you cant see the truth right in front of your eyes.

Only in the eyes of kooks like you.

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.

Why is that a good cause, snowflake? Is Mueller in some sort of danger? Why are people like you so impossibly ignorant of everything you write? Firing Mueller wouldn't stop the investigation. How much will you still like Mueller if he comes to the conclusion there is nothing to the Russia probe? Besides, the bill is probably unconstitutional anyway. Congress cannot usurp presidential power, it is a little thing called Separation of Powers. You should read it.

Thye President does not have the power to fire a special prosecutor. Only the Justice Department can do that and only for very specific reasons.

Feel free to show us the basis for your claim.

 

[Boss]

It is not unconstitutional. It provides for a judicial review to determine if the firing is justified.

But that's unconstitutional. We have separation of powers. You cannot usurp constitutional powers of one branch with another branch. What IF the legislature proposed a law that they could override a SCOTUS ruling? Would you say that's okay? What if a president signed an executive order to nullify a law passed by congress? You down with that?

You see, we have separate branches of government who retain their own autonomy over each other. The hiring and firing in the Executive Branch is the responsibility of the Executive Branch alone. Unless it is the appointment of a cabinet level position which requires congressional confirmation or the hiring/firing is a direct violation of the constitution. (i.e.; If the president fired someone because they are a woman or black, etc.)

I can see where congress may think they can do this. The three branches have a history of stepping on each other's constitutional toes through the years. This isn't uncommon. What amazes me is this left-wing audacity and hypocrisy when it comes to Executive Branch powers. For 8 years, you had no problem with a president who routinely overstepped his constitutional authority, legislating by executive fiat, disregarding laws passed by congress and essentially making his own rules as he went along. Now, suddenly, you want to hamper ALL presidential powers. It's absolutely stunning!

 

[Boss]

Thye President does not have the power to fire a special prosecutor. Only the Justice Department can do that and only for very specific reasons.

The Justice Dept. is headed by the AG who answers to the President. The President presides over the Executive Branch which includes the Justice Dept. The President wouldn't directly fire the SC but he could direct his AG to do so.

This is a silly conversation because the President isn't going to order Mueller be fired... he could but he won't.

A much more likely scenario is that the AG (or Deputy AG), after a reasonable period, will issue an order to the SC to present his findings so that an evaluation can be made as to whether the investigation should continue. He will likely be given 60~90 days to wrap things up and present his results to the Justice Dept.

 

[paperview]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.

Why is that a good cause, snowflake? Is Mueller in some sort of danger? Why are people like you so impossibly ignorant of everything you write? Firing Mueller wouldn't stop the investigation. How much will you still like Mueller if he comes to the conclusion there is nothing to the Russia probe? Besides, the bill is probably unconstitutional anyway. Congress cannot usurp presidential power, it is a little thing called Separation of Powers. You should read it.

Thye President does not have the power to fire a special prosecutor. Only the Justice Department can do that and only for very specific reasons.

WRONG, bugbee. And he is a Special Counsel, NOT a prosecutor. Where did you get your law degree, on the back of a box of Trix?

Er...

§ 600.6 Powers and authority.Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
28 CFR 600.6 - Powers and authority.

You are right the term now is Special Counsel, but it is often interchangeable with SP:
Special prosecutor

And he most certainly has prosecutorial powers/

Need some help with this? Look up Patrick Fitzgerald.

 

[paperview]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.
The odds continue to stack up against Trump.

Top Senate legislators are moving to protect former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference in case President Donald Trump tries to derail it.

On Thursday, Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced they would introduce a bill to allow Justice Department special counsels, like Mueller, to challenge their removals in court. A three-panel judge would then get to adjudicate the challenge — meaning Trump could be overruled should he try to fire the special counsel.

The decision is a preemptive attempt to curtail the president, who has publicly criticized Mueller and derided the Russia investigation. In an interview with the New York Times, Trump even flirted with the idea that he’d fire Mueller if the former FBI director’s investigation winds up looking at Trump’s finances.

There’s now a bipartisan bill to protect Mueller’s investigation from Trump

You mean you are happy to see them violating the Constitution....since this is not in the Constitutional powers allowed to congress.....and Trump has full authority over the executive branch.....of course, you guys can't stand the Constitution, so it is no surprise you would support this coup against the President.

If a president signs an Executive Order that is unconstitutional, does the Judicial branch have the authority to review it and claim it null by finding it to be unconstitutional?

 

[paperview]

It's almost as if Okey-T here skipped the "checks and balances" portion of Schoolhouse Rock.

We know you'd like him to be, but the President is not a dictator.

Trump's more of a dick-tater.

 

[whitehall]

It would be nice if there was a bipartisan bill to protect Trump from Mueller but republicans don't have the kind of balls and democrats ain't that bipartisan.

 

[toobfreak]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.

Why is that a good cause, snowflake? Is Mueller in some sort of danger? Why are people like you so impossibly ignorant of everything you write? Firing Mueller wouldn't stop the investigation. How much will you still like Mueller if he comes to the conclusion there is nothing to the Russia probe? Besides, the bill is probably unconstitutional anyway. Congress cannot usurp presidential power, it is a little thing called Separation of Powers. You should read it.

Thye President does not have the power to fire a special prosecutor. Only the Justice Department can do that and only for very specific reasons.

WRONG, bugbee. And he is a Special Counsel, NOT a prosecutor. Where did you get your law degree, on the back of a box of Trix?

Er...

§ 600.6 Powers and authority.Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
28 CFR 600.6 - Powers and authority.

You are right the term now is Special Counsel, but it is often interchangeable with SP:
Special prosecutor

And he most certainly has prosecutorial powers/

Need some help with this? Look up Patrick Fitzgerald.

You said it yourself: " Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part

And that scope is determined by the original mandate set forth by Rod Rosentein, Deputy AG.

 

[paperview]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.

Why is that a good cause, snowflake? Is Mueller in some sort of danger? Why are people like you so impossibly ignorant of everything you write? Firing Mueller wouldn't stop the investigation. How much will you still like Mueller if he comes to the conclusion there is nothing to the Russia probe? Besides, the bill is probably unconstitutional anyway. Congress cannot usurp presidential power, it is a little thing called Separation of Powers. You should read it.

Thye President does not have the power to fire a special prosecutor. Only the Justice Department can do that and only for very specific reasons.

WRONG, bugbee. And he is a Special Counsel, NOT a prosecutor. Where did you get your law degree, on the back of a box of Trix?

Er...

§ 600.6 Powers and authority.Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
28 CFR 600.6 - Powers and authority.

You are right the term now is Special Counsel, but it is often interchangeable with SP:
Special prosecutor

And he most certainly has prosecutorial powers/

Need some help with this? Look up Patrick Fitzgerald.

You said it yourself: " Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part

And that scope is determined by the original mandate set forth by Rod Rosentein, Deputy AG.

1. The poster I was replying to seemed to be under the impression a SC is not a prosecutor. He was wrong.

2. You should acquaint yourself with the "original mandate set forth by Rod Rosentein" which is rather far reaching, and allows great leeway.

 

[toobfreak]

Why is that a good cause, snowflake? Is Mueller in some sort of danger? Why are people like you so impossibly ignorant of everything you write? Firing Mueller wouldn't stop the investigation. How much will you still like Mueller if he comes to the conclusion there is nothing to the Russia probe? Besides, the bill is probably unconstitutional anyway. Congress cannot usurp presidential power, it is a little thing called Separation of Powers. You should read it.

Thye President does not have the power to fire a special prosecutor. Only the Justice Department can do that and only for very specific reasons.

WRONG, bugbee. And he is a Special Counsel, NOT a prosecutor. Where did you get your law degree, on the back of a box of Trix?

Er...

§ 600.6 Powers and authority.Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
28 CFR 600.6 - Powers and authority.

You are right the term now is Special Counsel, but it is often interchangeable with SP:
Special prosecutor

And he most certainly has prosecutorial powers/

Need some help with this? Look up Patrick Fitzgerald.

You said it yourself: " Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part

And that scope is determined by the original mandate set forth by Rod Rosentein, Deputy AG.

1. The poster I was replying to seemed to be under the impression a SC is not a prosecutor. He was wrong.

2. You should acquaint yourself with the "original mandate set forth by Rod Rosentein" which is rather far reaching, and allows great leeway.

I never said that Mueller wasn't a prosecutor, only that his title is that of Special Counsel.

As to your second statement, perhaps you should read these words by Robert Delahunty, a law professor at University of St. Thomas (Minneapolis) who was a career Justice Department official from 1986-2004:

A special counsel is an official appointed by the Justice Department and subject, like many other federal criminal investigators and prosecutors, to the Justice Department’s supervision and control. Under the Constitution, both Rosenstein and Mueller are ultimately answerable to the President as head of the Executive branch.

Scalia argued that under fundamental constitutional separation-of-powers principles, the powers to investigate and prosecute criminal activity in violation of federal law belonged exclusively to the President. Congress had no power to assign those powers to officials not subject to the President’s authority to supervise, control and remove.

It is vital to understand that Mueller is not and cannot be “independent” in the sense in which that term is often understood. President Trump may remove him for any cause or for none.

Second, it is obvious that no one can predict the outcome of Mueller’s investigation. Much will depend on the scope of the investigative jurisdiction that Rosenstein has assigned him, and on how he interprets his mandate. The Justice Department’s terse announcement said only that he had been appointed “to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.”

If Mueller focuses on the repeated (but so far unproven) claim that Trump or his campaign officials “colluded” with the Russian government to swing the election, the investigation could well be over quickly, and might well prove to be a vindication for Trump. If Mueller extends his investigation into the conduct of Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice and other Obama officials in the aftermath of November’s election, the results could prove to be extremely embarrassing for the former President, his associates, and his party. (Indeed, they might also embarrass former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump believes slow-walked the investigation of possible wrongdoing and criminality by Obama appointees.) And if Mueller chooses to engage in a broad-gauged investigation that includes all the business dealings between Trump’s associates or Trump’s business empire and Russian persons (whether governmental or not) reaching back over years, the investigation would likely be agonized, prolonged, politically polarizing, and deeply damaging to the public confidence in our legal system.

Of special interest, of course, is what might result if Mueller investigates the charge – tossed about rather cavalierly by Trump’s opponents – that he sought to “obstruct justice” by telling Comey to drop the investigation of General Michael Flynn, who briefly served as National Security Adviser before Trump discharged him. The only evidence to have surfaced so far is a memorandum Comey prepared for his own use that purported to record a conversation between himself and Trump. According to Comey’s memorandum, Trump said that he “hope[d] you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go . . . . He is a good guy.”

Barring far more evidence, we doubt that a statement as ambiguous as that would prove obstruction of justice. Furthermore, the interpretation put upon Trump’s alleged statement – that it amounted to an order to drop the Flynn investigation – has been emphatically denied by the White House. And, of course, it is only Comey’s version of what appears to have been a private conversation between the two men. In itself, it is a slender reed on which to build a criminal charge of a sitting President. And remember, the Constitution vests in Trump alone the power to supervise federal criminal investigations.

 

[oreo]

Good to see the Congress working together for a good cause.
The odds continue to stack up against Trump.

Top Senate legislators are moving to protect former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference in case President Donald Trump tries to derail it.

On Thursday, Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced they would introduce a bill to allow Justice Department special counsels, like Mueller, to challenge their removals in court. A three-panel judge would then get to adjudicate the challenge — meaning Trump could be overruled should he try to fire the special counsel.

The decision is a preemptive attempt to curtail the president, who has publicly criticized Mueller and derided the Russia investigation. In an interview with the New York Times, Trump even flirted with the idea that he’d fire Mueller if the former FBI director’s investigation winds up looking at Trump’s finances.

There’s now a bipartisan bill to protect Mueller’s investigation from Trump

There is no reason that a President who is under investigation is able to fire the special prosector. If Presidents are to abide by the same laws as any average citizen is--(whom can't fire the investigator or judge) nor should any President be able to.

At any rate Nixon did it, but it didn't work out well for him.
WashingtonPost.com: Nixon Forces Firing of Cox; Richardson, Ruckelshaus Quit

 

[paperview]

I never said that Mueller wasn't a prosecutor, only that his title is that of Special Counsel.

You said he wasn't a prosecutor. Derp.

YOU --> "he is a Special Counsel, NOT a prosecutor."

And you chided another poster after saying that with this insulting sludge: "Where did you get your law degree, on the back of a box of Trix?"

"As to your second statement, perhaps you should read these words by Robert Delahunty, a law professor at University of St. Thomas (Minneapolis) who was a career Justice Department official from 1986-2004:"

LOL. Citing the infamous "torture memo's" authors Robert Delahunty and John Yoo. Too funny.

Suck this in, again: Acquaint yourself with the "original mandate set forth by Rod Rosentein" which is rather far reaching, and allows great leeway.

After that, chomp on a tall glass of Patrick Fitzgerald.