Trump considering firing Rosenstein to check Mueller

[IronWing]

Folks keep mentioning the New York state AG. So far this raid seems to be a purely federal project. How does the state get tied into the info obtained?

 

[HomerJS]

Folks keep mentioning the New York state AG. So far this raid seems to be a purely federal project. How does the state get tied into the info obtained?

It was referred by the feds. It is now a state project

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Any system where 51% of the vote gives you 100% of the representation will strongly trend towards only two viable parties in any given election. The lack of a viable third party is a consequence of our voting system, which I find it unlikely people will change. (Ranked choice!)

What about a mandate that a single party can attain no more than, say, 40% of electoral college votes?

 

[IronWing]

It was referred by the feds. It is now a state project

I thought the Mueller team referred it to the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York?

 

[vi edit]

No, you're right on that I think. It's the closest thing we've had to an attempted ... coup? or attempt at dictatorial overthrow? or whatever you'd call it when the head of the executive branch basically usurps 'the everything'. Nixon would have been second, I guess.

As sad as it is to say, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the situation got 'handled' by some random citizen. I really, really don't want something like that to be the final news headline of this dumpster fire.

In my mind some secret service or fired aid/advisor pulls a Frank Underwood and he takes a long dive down a set of very hard steps.

But in relation to Mueller, I hope he has his obstruction report already signed and prepared with big note that says "Tear open in event of firing". Inside is his report that basically lays out everything with a final note that says "If he fires me or a DoJ employee that oversees the special council in attempt to stop this investigation, it is our opinion it is a clear cut obstruction case and and recommend immediate action by congress".

Oh and that packet is mailed out to every major news outlet.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

In my mind some secret service or fired aid/advisor pulls a Frank Underwood and he takes a long dive down a set of very hard steps.

But in relation to Mueller, I hope he has his obstruction report already signed and prepared with big note that says "Tear open in event of firing". Inside is his report that basically lays out everything with a final note that says "If he fires me or a DoJ employee that oversees the special council in attempt to stop this investigation, it is our opinion it is a clear cut obstruction case and and recommend immediate action by congress".

Oh and that packet is mailed out to every major news outlet.

Deadman switch, I like the cut of your jib.

 

[HomerJS]

I thought the Mueller team referred it to the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York?

You are right, my mistake. SDNY is still federal just outside the purview of the special counsel

 

[senseamp]

This is developing splendidly. Really, all this moron had to do is not fire Comey. Instead he keeps doubling down on stupid.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It was referred by the feds. It is now a state project

No, not really. This was a request by Mueller and approved by Rosenstein. It was then referred to the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office, which is entirely an entity of the Federal Government. It's not the NY AG, it's a US Attorney IN NY. It is confusing.

 

[zinfamous]

I feel like there's other options, it needs to be developed by very, very smart minds though. Implementing changes to how our government works, in terms of either additional checks/balances, limits to certain aspects of certain groups, or even fundamental changes in requirements such as always requiring at minimum a 3 party system could potentially limit the capability of something like this happening again. And by 'something like this' I'm more generally talking... not just the pres firing the DAG to avoid his own investigation.

I do feel like that needs to be an immediate and clear statement by congress though. A president flatly cannot obstruct justice on investigations toward him, or any that may have colluded to him. If someone's under investigation, the pres should *not* be able to halt that investigation. I would include pardons in that.

Parliamentary republic.

 

[zinfamous]

In my mind some secret service or fired aid/advisor pulls a Frank Underwood and he takes a long dive down a set of very hard steps.

But in relation to Mueller, I hope he has his obstruction report already signed and prepared with big note that says "Tear open in event of firing". Inside is his report that basically lays out everything with a final note that says "If he fires me or a DoJ employee that oversees the special council in attempt to stop this investigation, it is our opinion it is a clear cut obstruction case and and recommend immediate action by congress".

Oh and that packet is mailed out to every major news outlet.

I was thinking that this is pretty much what the raid was about: orders and recommendation already written, they just needed to get the hard evidence that they already knew was there (informants), in hand. He would have a few days buffer, minimum, to add to the recommendations, photocopy, stuff some envelopes, hand them to the proper people, then sit back and open that bottle of 30 year Macallan, while loosely monitoring Twitter.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is developing splendidly. Really, all this moron had to do is not fire Comey. Instead he keeps doubling down on stupid.

Too late. Sorry. No do-overs.

 

[HomerJS]

No, not really. This was a request by Mueller and approved by Rosenstein. It was then referred to the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office, which is entirely an entity of the Federal Government. It's not the NY AG, it's a US Attorney IN NY. It is confusing.

Separate entity but they hear federal criminal cases

 

[vi edit]

I was thinking that this is pretty much what the raid was about: orders and recommendation already written, they just needed to get the hard evidence that they already knew was there (informants), in hand. He would have a few days buffer, minimum, to add to the recommendations, photocopy, stuff some envelopes, hand them to the proper people, then sit back and open that bottle of 30 year Macallan, while loosely monitoring Twitter.

Behind the scenes in special counsel office:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Separate entity but they hear federal criminal cases

At this point NY is not involved in this although the relevant authorities likely have been informed on the investigation in part for quite some time. In a case of overlapping jurisdictions the Feds usually have the first shot and the state has the option of pursuing its own case later. Trump pardons and NY eats Cohen anyway. There's no way out for bank fraud and the like. At the very least NY can remove his license to practice law independent of any prosecution. That would make Stormy and her attorney very happy.

 

[glenn1]

No, you're right on that I think. It's the closest thing we've had to an attempted ... coup? or attempt at dictatorial overthrow? or whatever you'd call it when the head of the executive branch basically usurps 'the everything'. Nixon would have been second, I guess.

As sad as it is to say, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the situation got 'handled' by some random citizen. I really, really don't want something like that to be the final news headline of this dumpster fire.

So the solution would be to disallow the POTUS from removing any of his at-will appointees? That tells me we've created a problem without a good solution and the actual structure for this should be Independent Counsel reports to a branch other than the Executive. I'll be the first to admit that's likely an impractical solution in terms of implementation, but it's likewise impractical to make an Executive branch appointee an essentially unfire-able due to political considerations. Either the appointee is subject to at-will termination by the POTUS or they aren't and making it a situation where answering that in the affirmative causes a constitutional crisis then that's a crisis of our own poor design and lack of prior planning.

 

[HomerJS]

So the solution would be to disallow the POTUS from removing any of his at-will appointees? That tells me we've created a problem without a good solution and the actual structure for this should be Independent Counsel reports to a branch other than the Executive. I'll be the first to admit that's likely an impractical solution in terms of implementation, but it's likewise impractical to make an Executive branch appointee an essentially unfire-able due to political considerations. Either the appointee is subject to at-will termination by the POTUS or they aren't and making it a situation where answering that in the affirmative causes a constitutional crisis then that's a crisis of our own poor design and lack of prior planning.

Congress can create a law that firing IC investigating same entity is auto admission of obstruction of justice.

 

[zinfamous]

Behind the scenes in special counsel office:

So, who plays B.A. and who has the unenviable task of knocking him unconscious before they get on the plane?

 

[glenn1]

Congress can create a law that firing IC investigating same entity is auto admission of obstruction of justice.

So if there was video of an IC saying some extremely racist stuff or was indicted for pedophilia then POTUS would be prevented by law from firing him else POTUS would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? Sounds like a wonderful law.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So the solution would be to disallow the POTUS from removing any of his at-will appointees? That tells me we've created a problem without a good solution and the actual structure for this should be Independent Counsel reports to a branch other than the Executive. I'll be the first to admit that's likely an impractical solution in terms of implementation, but it's likewise impractical to make an Executive branch appointee an essentially unfire-able due to political considerations. Either the appointee is subject to at-will termination by the POTUS or they aren't and making it a situation where answering that in the affirmative causes a constitutional crisis then that's a crisis of our own poor design and lack of prior planning.

I dunno, maybe the firing of an at-will appointee/appointees should also come with the resignation from the position of POTUS, since it's clearly gotten bad enough that the POTUS had to retract his own appointees, suggesting he's unfit for the position of running the executive branch due to his inability to recommend/appoint quality people.

Or, alternatively, perhaps the firing of those at-will appointees should require approval from both the POTUS and congress (majority of, whatever). That might lead to an obstructionist congress refusing what a POTUS wants, but we already have that.

 

[vi edit]

So the solution would be to disallow the POTUS from removing any of his at-will appointees? That tells me we've created a problem without a good solution and the actual structure for this should be Independent Counsel reports to a branch other than the Executive. I'll be the first to admit that's likely an impractical solution in terms of implementation, but it's likewise impractical to make an Executive branch appointee an essentially unfire-able due to political considerations. Either the appointee is subject to at-will termination by the POTUS or they aren't and making it a situation where answering that in the affirmative causes a constitutional crisis then that's a crisis of our own poor design and lack of prior planning.

Is there a way to simply write in that the disbanding of a special council requires a passing vote in both the senate and house? POTUS still has the ability to impede by selecting an AG that can limit the counsel scope and impede access to resources. But the AG (or acting AG) doesn't have to be in the position of being the person that has to kill the counsel. The fact that we've faced this twice now in the last 50 years means we should probably look into it better.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Is there a way to simply write in that the disbanding of a special council requires a passing vote in both the senate and house? POTUS still has the ability to impede by selecting an AG that can limit the counsel scope and impede access to resources. But the AG (or acting AG) doesn't have to be in the position of being the person that has to kill the counsel. The fact that we've faced this twice now in the last 50 years means we should probably look into it better.

It might be better to have Special Council be supervised by SCOTUS instead of the DOJ. Congress appoints one, but from then they are under the realm of the judiciary branch as a balance.