192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:26 am
Quote:


Close friend of Trump says he’s considering firing special prosecutor Bob Mueller

Chris Ruddy, CEO of the right-wing media company NewsMax, is a close friend of President Donald Trump. They golf together. On Monday, Ruddy visited the White House.

Shortly after leaving the White House, Ruddy appeared on PBS Newshour and said that Trump is considering firing special prosecutor Bob Mueller, who is investigating the Trump campaign’s potential collusion with Russia, Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey, and related matters.

Ruddy’s comments followed days of seemingly coordinated attacks on Mueller’s integrity by Trump allies. On Sunday, Jay Sekulow, who recently joined Trump’s legal team, would not rule out the firing of Mueller. “Look, the president of the United States, as we all know, is a unitary executive,” Sekulow said.

Could Trump actually fire Mueller? Probably, but it would be very difficult.

Federal regulations says special prosecutors can be “removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General.” Here, that would mean Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, since Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the matter. According to the regulations, Rosenstein could only remove Mueller “for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.”

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) “asked Rosenstein to provide a letter to Mueller that assure he will be fully independent as he leads the Justice Department’s investigation into potential collusion between associates of the Trump campaign and Russia.” Rosenstein refused.

Theoretically, Trump could order Rosenstein to fire Mueller. Rosenstein could refuse to do so, but Trump could then fire Rosenstein and find a replacement who would do his bidding.


Think Progress

(computer seems to be acting up a little, I ended up deleting where I apologized for posting this if already posted.)
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:41 am
@revelette1,
The White House isn’t denying that Trump might fire Robert Mueller
Quote:
Here is the brief statement issued by White House press secretary Sean Spicer:

Mr. Ruddy never spoke to the president regarding this issue. With respect to this subject, only the president or his attorneys are authorized to comment.

Where is the denial? The White House did not say that Ruddy's claim is untrue — a fact Ruddy pointed out to Politico in his response to the response:

Spicer issued a bizarre late-night press release that a) doesn’t deny my claim the president is considering firing Mueller and b) says I didn’t speak to the president about the matter — when I never claimed to have done so. Memo to Sean: focus your efforts on exposing the flimflam Russian allegations against POTUS and highlighting his remarkable achievements! Don’t waste time trying to undermine one of your few allies.
farmerman
 
  4  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:44 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
it seems natural for the people to rally around him.
This was so scripted that it was like those news ops that Kim jung Un stges for the Western Press.
Everyone was READING glowing Trump crap about "what an honor it is...."

Strange how gullible is his base.
revelette1
 
  3  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:48 am
@Walter Hinteler,
If TP is correct (easy enough for anyone to check out). He can't fire Mueller directly, he would have to fire the acting AG, then the replacement would presumably fire Mueller.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:49 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Obviously you have no factual information bout McCain and his capture than the crap you suck up from our "Liar -in-Chief" Trump.

I am fully aware of all the facts. If McCain doesn't want me to denounce him as a surrendering coward then he should stop knifing his fellow Republicans in the back.


"Maverick" McCain often drives me nuts, but you are absolutely wrong to denigrate his service in the Navy during the Vietnam War.

He despises Trump for several reasons, but chief among them, in my opinion, were Trump's uncalled for comments about his service. However, McCain attacked Trump and Trump counter-punched...with a low blow. but politics aren't fought in accordance with the Marquess of Queensberry rules.

At some point in his life it came to Trump that the best way to win a fight is an asymmetrical response, or The Chicago Way. The other guy pushes you; you sock him square in the face and then kick him when he's down. Chances are that if the other guy is a bully, he won't push you again, but McCain is not a bully in the sense that he doesn't only pick on people he knows he can beat, but then the same thing can be said of Trump.

Trump is far too indiscriminate in making enemies, and often the only reason he does is due to a relatively minor offence. I don't know what McCain was saying or doing to prevent Trump from winning the nomination, but I'm sure Trump thinks he does, and maybe the counter-punch wasn't truly asymmetrical. After all, McCain sent an aide to London to secure a copy of the highly questionable Dossier, and then immediately sent a copy to the FBI without making any effort what-so-ever to confirm any of the allegations or even to determine if the FBI was aware of it already. I think it's safe to assume that he wanted Trump to know he sent it.

McCain is far too quick to criticize his fellow Republicans, and my sense is that it is due to his wanting to polish the image he has cultivated with the MSM. He is one of those people who seems to be able to forget past slights and slurs if you speak of him in glowing terms. Maybe if Trump were to highly praise him in public, he would find McCain a lot more friendly. I wouldn't be surprised. After repeated profanity laced tirades directed at his Republican colleagues, I don't think McCain has too many friends in the Senate, and none in the House.

I agree that he's sanctimonious show boater. He and John Glenn seemed to be the least culpable of the infamous Keating Five but you might think that his experience would have tempered his urge to declare "Scandal!", but it seems to have had the opposite effect.

I also agree, however, with FM that you can't be aware of all the facts if you consider him a surrendering coward relative to his service in Vietnam. Frankly, your regard for him is not about to change his behavior.




revelette1
 
  2  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:50 am
@farmerman,
Schumer parodies Trump's praise-filled Cabinet meeting (The Hill)
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:55 am
@oralloy,
The Democrat Party is not going to be outlawed.
farmerman
 
  6  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:56 am
@revelette1,
I saw that.IMO it was kinda cheap shot. I think Trump should just orchestrate these silly honorifics and let hitory judge him. It makes Shumer look like hes making fun of the handicapped.


I think I finally get it. TRUMP thinks he has some kind of unlimited power and the Constitution be damned. I feel sad for our nation for the next 3.5 years
blatham
 
  5  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:56 am
From Jennifer Rubin
Quote:
What stops Republicans from behaving rationally
...First, unlike Senate and House Republicans during Watergate, there are few genuine leaders of principle whose sense of propriety is offended by Trump. The moral and intellectual quality of the current crew of Republicans pales in comparison to the type of Republicans who finally told Richard Nixon the jig was up. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), House Minority Leader Jacob Rhodes (R-Ariz.) and Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-Pa.), who went to the White House, have few if any equals in today’s House and Senate. Those who do have the stature to move against Trump don’t necessarily have the base of the party, and those who have visions of the presidency dancing in their heads have been among the most craven apologists (e.g., Sen Tom Cotton (Ark.), Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.)) for Trump. In short, the charge that Republicans by and large put party above country is entirely valid. They’d rather let the country careen from disaster to disaster and scandal to scandal than stick their necks out.

Second, elected Republicans by and large cower in the shadow of Fox Non-News hosts, talk-radio opportunists and right-wing interest groups. They fear noticeable distancing from Trump will prompt the vultures of the right to swoop down up them, leaving only bones behind. So long as the characters who populate the right stick with Trump, elected Republicans, sadly, won’t lead. The tribal identification with party has robbed most in the GOP of common sense, good judgment and even patriotism...

Yes.
izzythepush
 
  5  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 08:56 am
@farmerman,
Response moderated: Personal attack. See more info.

Able2Know is currently phasing out this manner of removing posts that violate the A2K rules. Soon all such posts will simply be pulled again.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  5  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:02 am
I posted this on the Mueller thread but since I brought the question up here, I have a hard time leaving things hanging.

Quote:
Can Mueller be fired?

Yes, but not by the president, at least not directly. Only the acting attorney general — in this case, Rosenstein — can discipline or fire a special counsel, and then only for cause. According to the federal code, “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 president can, however, fire the deputy attorney general.


fact check
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  6  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:04 am
@farmerman,
I think it would be very frustrating to be a democrat in the senate or the house, I say, let them get their digs in where they can. He practically brought that on himself.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:06 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Re: oralloy (Post 6445062)
The Democrat Party is not going to be outlawed.

But it could be a great plot line for a Three Stooges dystopian screenplay.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:16 am
@Blickers,
The difference is that a full investigation was conducted and we know Clinton lied under oath, whereas with Trump, the investigation is ongoing and we don't know anything but allegations.

I don't agree at all that Clinton's transgressions were trivial, and simply because the allegations being made about Trump are serious as well, doesn't mean anyone needs to jump to conclusions.

I'm content to allow the investigation to play out (as quickly as possible) and then reach conclusions when we learn of the findings. You're not required to do so, of course, but you should stow your sanctimonious criticism of conservatives who are not inclined to follow your partisan lead.

revelette1
 
  5  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:22 am
Quote:
Jeff Sessions is reportedly going to dispute James Comey's sworn testimony

A new report says Attorney General Jeff Sessions will double down on a Department of Justice claim that former FBI Director James Comey misrepresented an interaction between the two during sworn testimony last week.

Jonathan Swan at the news website Axios says Sessions will repeat under oath a DOJ claim that he "was not silent"
following a conversation in which Comey, then the FBI director, informed him of a one-on-one meeting with President Donald Trump.



Business Insider

So how is the senate investigation going to resolve the dispute between Comey and Sessions? Are there records for Sessions to prove he didn't remain silent? Personally, considering Session has lied by omission concerning his meetings Russians at least two times (perhaps three), I am not so sure Sessions in credible.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  4  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:25 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't agree at all that Clinton's transgressions were trivial...


Agreeing with the rest of your post, but I have a question regarding this part.

I was in high school when this whole thing was playing out and it was pretty much pre-internet in my rural town. I've done some reading in the last 20 years but nothing that would have led me to believe that the Lewinsky stuff was all that serious in general. The lying, I agree, is something that should be punished (even though I can understand why he lied).

What is your perception why what Clinton did was so serious (the underlying actions, not the lying to protect his image stuff).
revelette1
 
  6  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:27 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Tell me this then Finn, if we "know" Clinton lied under oath, why wasn't he convicted of perjury in a court of law? He was cited for contempt, but not perjury. Technically, Clinton didn't lie under oath when he denied sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky because he was going by the definition provided by the civil court case in which it was decided sexual relations didn't include oral sex. (I was obsessed with the case, it is what got me interested in politics to start with.)
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:29 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
An official exercising their discretion over whether to pursue a given case is not in any way wrongdoing.

You have it backwards. Trump was not in charge of pursuing the Flynn case and Russia investigation. The FBI was. Prosecutors decide not to pursue charges often because what the individual did was not too bad and could be hard to prove, so it wasn't worth the time and effort. However, if you are the President and you decide to try to get the head of the FBI to stop the pursuit of a case because he's a buddy of yours, that's obstruction of justice.

Remember, we are talking about a guy who lied about links to Russia, our nuclear enemy since the end of WWII. This is vital national security being protected by this investigation.


Trump is the chief executive of the Executive branch. Unless you can show me where it is written in law otherwise, I don't believe any of his subordinates have greater powers (including discretion) than him.

Trump could decide not to pursue charges often because what the individual did was not too bad and could be hard to prove, so it wasn't worth the time and effort. He didn't of course, and at this point in time we only have the testimony of one witness to suggest he made any effort to intercede with Comey on Flynn's behalf.

There are a lot more facts that need to be developed before obstruction can be proved. If all Comey had were his notes on his conversations with Trump, he would have come to the same conclusion he reached with the HRC investigation: No experienced prosecutor would decide to move forward with the case.

...we are talking about a guy who lied about links to Russia

You mean Flynn here.

Do you know the full extent of those links? Do you know that he was engaged in espionage?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -3  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:41 am
@oralloy,
This is how dense these people have become when it comes to Clinton and the whole scandal back in the 90's. It wasn't about the sex acts themselves, it was the cover-up that got them all in trouble. This is the timeline from CNN, certainly not part of the "Vast right-wing conspericy".
Quote:
June 1995: Monica Lewinsky, 21, comes to the White House as an unpaid intern in the office of Chief of Staff Leon Panetta.

November 1995: Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton begin a sexual relationship, according to audiotapes secretly recorded later by Linda Tripp.

December 1995: Lewinsky moves into a paid position in the Office of Legislative Affairs, handling letters from members of Congress. She frequently ferries mail to the Oval Office.

1996

April 1996: Then-Deputy White House Chief of Staff Evelyn Lieberman transfers Lewinsky to a job as an assistant to Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon. Lieberman told The New York Times the move was due to "inappropriate and immature behavior" and inattention to work. At the Pentagon, Lewinsky meets Tripp, a career government worker.

Summer 1996: Lewinsky begins to tell fellow Pentagon employee Linda Tripp of her alleged relationship with Clinton.

1997

August 1997: Tripp encountered Kathleen Willey coming out of Oval Office "disheveled. Her face red and her lipstick was off." Willey later alleged that Clinton groped her. Clinton's lawyer, Bill Bennett said in the article that Linda Tripp is not to be believed.

Fall 1997: Tripp to begin taping conversations in which Lewinsky details her alleged affair with the president.

October 1997: Tripp meets with Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, Lucianne & Jonah Goldberg at Jonah's apartment in Washington, according to a Newsweek report. The Goldberg's listen to a tape of Tripp/Lewinsky conversations.

October 1997: Lewinsky interviews with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bill Richardson for a low level public affairs position.

December 1997: Lewinsky leaves the Pentagon.

Dec. 8: Betty Currie, Clinton's personal secretary, asks presidential pal Vernon Jordan to help Lewinsky find a job in New York.

Dec. 11: Lewinsky meets with Jordan and he refers her to several job leads.

Dec. 17: Lewinsky is subpoenaed by lawyers for Paula Jones, who is suing the president on sexual harassment charges.

Dec. 28: Lewinsky makes her final visit to the White House, according to White House logs, and was signed in by Currie. Lewinsky reportedly met privately with Clinton and he allegedly encouraged her to be "evasive" in her answers in the Jones' lawsuit.

January 1998

Jan. 7, 1998: Lewinsky files an affidavit in the Jones case in which she denies ever having a sexual relationship with President Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/
Baldimo
 
  -3  
Tue 13 Jun, 2017 09:44 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
Officials in Washington State sued and got Trump's travel ban shot down because it violated Constitutional rights.

How can you violate the Constitutional rights of people who do not live here? They live in another country and therefor have no Constitutional Rights in the US.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 09:37:12