PDA

View Full Version : Would Trump fire Meuller?



Norman Bernstein
06-12-2017, 08:51 AM
Legally, he can.

Some key allies of President Trump are already making the case for dismissing special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the investigation into possible Trump presidential campaign collusion with Russia.

In a series of tweets since last night, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, conservative pundit Ann Coulter, and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham all expressed doubts about Mueller.

https://politicalwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-12-at-9.34.30-AM-300x186.png (http://politicalwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-12-at-9.34.30-AM-e1497274583542.png)
https://politicalwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-12-at-9.34.41-AM-300x185.png (http://politicalwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-12-at-9.34.41-AM-e1497274594494.png)
https://politicalwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-12-at-9.35.08-AM-300x143.png (http://politicalwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-12-at-9.35.08-AM-e1497274606708.png)

Meanwhile, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow refused in an appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-11-17-preet-bharara-jay-sekulow/story?id=47957684) to promise that the president would not fire Mueller.


"Look, the president of the United States, as we all know, is a unitary executive. But the president is going to seek the advice of his counsel and inside the government as well as outside. And I’m not going to speculate on what he will or will not do."

I can’t imagine that that issue is going to arise,” he added moments later, “but that again is an issue that the president with his advisers would discuss if there was a basis."

TomF
06-12-2017, 08:58 AM
The ghost of Archibald Cox rides again.

I'd advocate a similar outcome for a latter day Cox-sacker.

S.V. Airlie
06-12-2017, 09:07 AM
Didn't the ASSISTANT AG hire him and isn't he on the Trump team along with Sessions? He wrote the note Trump used? to fire Comey.

And Newt should get himself neutered.

Tom Montgomery
06-12-2017, 09:19 AM
I hope he does. It would bring this entire affair to a head.

TomF
06-12-2017, 09:21 AM
I hope he does. It would bring this entire affair to a head.Like a really yuuge nasty boil.

S.V. Airlie
06-12-2017, 09:37 AM
Like a really yuuge nasty boil.On some part of his anatomy!

Jim Mahan
06-12-2017, 10:20 AM
If he tries, he surrenders the last vestige of doubt as to whether he is somehow all sly and vulpine, the evil genius, or really just a stupid tool, who would be, if not born rich, an ignonimously anonymous wage slave bigot.

The Rs machine will try to grind this out to some kind of stalemate with a move along, nothing here but smoke. I don't think he or his can pull it off even with the support of his billionaire sh!tacrat cadre's support.

Firing Mueller would be like a caught game fish, running while the line unspools, swallowing and the crapping out the hook in an effort to get away from the fisherman and his boat.

He is not exactly in a negotiating position, and certainly not working from even a barely tenable, let alone strong, position. Dude is historic toast, to be eventually more reviled than Tricky Dick, Ronnie the popular and w, combined. (Maybe not w.)

I just hope that for whatever reason, the mug shot that becomes the backdrop image for every story even remotely connected to the trmp scandal, on the evening news, will be in the orange jump suit, with the hair reminiscent of Professor Irwin Corey, and the vacant, WTF stare of a captured beast. How about two big scoops of that?

mdh
06-12-2017, 10:28 AM
He should.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/corner/448459/donald-trump-fbi-investigation-chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren

Marco Rubio's statement that the only thing not leaked was the fact that Trump was not under investigation, shows that Comey could have stopped this charade with a simple statement. That he didn't shows him to be a part of the cabal attempting to undermine the President of the United States; not exactly a positive attribute for an FBI Director. Comey is now, likely an admitted criminal, with criminal intent, and his action, nor his statement show basis for need of a Special Council.
Comey and Schumer are buddies. Comey and Mueller are buddies. This whole thing stinks.

oznabrag
06-12-2017, 10:30 AM
Didn't the ASSISTANT AG hire him and isn't he on the Trump team along with Sessions? He wrote the note Trump used? to fire Comey.

And Newt should get himself neutered.

I think you are mixing up a lot of different people together.

Canoez
06-12-2017, 10:37 AM
If Trump is not guilty of anything, he should welcome the investigation as it would clear his name.

On the other hand, if Trump or his compatriots are guilty, it will likely be the last ditch effort to get rid of his "meddlesome priests".

That said, both sides of the aisle say that Mueller is a "straight shooter". The only thing that stinks of late is the White House.

oznabrag
06-12-2017, 10:43 AM
He should.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/corner/448459/donald-trump-fbi-investigation-chuck-schumer-elizabeth-warren

Marco Rubio's statement that the only thing not leaked was the fact that Trump was not under investigation, shows that Comey could have stopped this charade with a simple statement. That he didn't shows him to be a part of the cabal attempting to undermine the President of the United States; not exactly a positive attribute for an FBI Director. Comey is now, likely an admitted criminal, with criminal intent, and his action, nor his statement show basis for need of a Special Council.
Comey and Schumer are buddies. Comey and Mueller are buddies. This whole thing stinks.

You are confusing the reeking pile of garbage you elected, with the custodians assigned to clean it up.

Sky Blue
06-12-2017, 10:50 AM
That he didn't shows him to be a part of the cabal attempting to undermine the democratic choice of the People of the United States; not exactly a positive attribute for an FBI Director.

ftfy

mdh
06-12-2017, 10:51 AM
If Trump is not guilty of anything, he should welcome the investigation as it would clear his name.

On the other hand, if Trump or his compatriots are guilty, it will likely be the last ditch effort to get rid of his "meddlesome priests".

That said, both sides of the aisle say that Mueller is a "straight shooter". The only thing that stinks of late is the White House.

Nobody in their right mind would welcome an investigation, especially one as open ended as a Special Council. Comey cleared it up: no collusion, no obstruction, no need to investigate further.

Bobcat
06-12-2017, 10:54 AM
Nobody in their right mind would welcome an investigation, especially one as open ended as a Special Council. Comey cleared it up: no collusion, no obstruction, no need to investigate further.

Trump's followers are so gullible it staggers me.

TomF
06-12-2017, 10:56 AM
You figure that was the interpretation Comey gave to his own testimony, mdh? Or maybe if that's your view, it could suggest that Comey could have chosen his words more carefully?

I dunno, seems to me that Comey was *very* clear with many of his word choices. Like the word "liar" applied to the POTUS for instance. But perhaps that wasn't an issue which really needed any clearing up, and Comey was just being redundant. ;)

Keith Wilson
06-12-2017, 10:57 AM
Comey cleared it up: no collusion, no obstruction, no need to investigate further.This is false. Comey did nothing even vaguely resembling that. You are either lying or seriously confused. (Source here, with links to original sources (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/no-comey-did-not-say-trump-is-in-the-clear-on-russia.html))


No, Republicans, James Comey Did Not Say President Trump Is in the Clear on Russia
By Jonathan Chait

In the days since James Comey’s testimony, as Republicans have picked through the fired FBI director’s account for any possible grounds for defense, the element they have seized upon most enthusiastically is Comey’s claim that he informed President Trump that he was not personally under investigation. “Now we know, thanks to former FBI director James Comey’s testimony last week, that President Trump was not a target of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election,” writes former Reagan official Peter Wallison in the Wall Street Journal. “That’s by far the most important thing Mr. Comey said.” Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers, anti-anti-Trump conservative Dan McLaughlin, among others, have echoed this line. McLaughlin even insists that Trump is owed an apology by those who implied he is under investigation: “In light of Comey’s repeated confirmation that the FBI was never investigating Trump during his tenure at the FBI, and that he had privately briefed both Trump and Congress to that effect, a whole lot of people — starting with Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren — owe President Trump an apology.”

It is true that Comey told Trump that the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation was not targeting him personally at the time. But many portions of Comey’s testimony also indicated just how precarious that assurance was. Comey explained that his leadership team did not agree on whether they could even give Trump this assurance at all. Here is how Comey replied when asked if the decision was unanimous:

"Wasn’t unanimous. One of the members of the leadership team had a view you that although it was technically true we did not have a counter-intelligence file case open on then President-elect Trump. His concern was because we’re looking at the potential, again, that’s the subject of the investigation, coordination between the campaign and Russia, because it was President Trump, President-elect Trump’s campaign, this person’s view was inevitably his behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work. And so he was reluctant to make the statement. I disagreed. I thought it was fair to say what was literally true."

And then later he affirmed that this internal disagreement persisted:

"With the FBI leadership team? Sure. And the leader had that view that didn’t change. His view was still that it was probably although literally true, his concern was it could be misleading, because the nature of the investigation was such that it might well touch, obviously it would touch, the campaign, and the person that headed the campaign would be the candidate, and so that was his view throughout."

Comey used the word “technically” once, and “literally” twice, to describe the non-investigation of Trump. And he explained the reason for these caveats: The FBI was investigating the Trump campaign. Since Trump ran the Trump campaign, it seemed highly plausible that the investigation could and would eventually lead to Trump himself.

Later, in the hearing, Comey explained that his assurance to Trump was mostly related to the context of the Christopher Steele dossier, and Comey’s desire to let Trump know that Comey was not using it to blackmail the president:

"I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him. So the context then was actually narrower, focused on what I just talked to him about. It was very important because it was, first, true, and second, I was worried very much about being in kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation. I didn’t want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way. I was briefing him on it because, because we had been told by the media it was about to launch. We didn’t want to be keeping that from him. He needed to know this was being said. I was very keen not to leave him with an impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him. So that’s the context in which I said, sir, we’re not personally investigating you."

Comey, incidentally, did not say the Steele dossier was categorically false; indeed, given two questions about the dossier by Republican Senator Richard Burr, Comey insisted he could not answer them in an open setting.

The most telling exchange came when Republican Senator Tom Cotton asked Comey whether Trump personally colluded with Russia. This is a different question than whether the FBI was investigating Trump personally at the time the two spoke, and it produced a very different answer:

"Cotton: Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia?
Comey: That’s a question I don’t think I should answer in an opening setting. As I said, when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump. But that’s a question that will be answered by the investigation, I think."

It is possible that the investigation will yield no evidence of criminality either by Trump nor the many Trump associates who have misled the Senate or the FBI about their ties to Russia. It is also possible that Trump’s deep, persistent interest in sparing his fired adviser Michael Flynn was motivated entirely by an uncharacteristic personal loyalty, rather than a fear that Flynn might “have a story to tell,” as his lawyer put it, that implicates Trump. Trump’s defenders have treated these potential outcomes as certainties. But maybe they should wait before proclaiming the innocence of a man who does not seem to be acting especially innocent.

TomF
06-12-2017, 11:08 AM
But Keith. If they accept that Comey only meant what Comey clearly said within a ring of caveats etc., and not the universal statement being pronounced by the Trump surrogates... how ever will they convince folks of his hypocrisy in future? If, for instance, some evidence comes to light through the investigations which does implicate Trump in a criminal (though not counter intel) situation?

Much better strategy to build the straw man now, to have it available in future.

Lew Barrett
06-12-2017, 01:38 PM
Trump's followers are so willfully oblivious it staggers me.

More accurate in the majority of cases;)

Osborne Russell
06-12-2017, 02:35 PM
Nobody in their right mind would welcome an investigation, especially one as open ended as a Special Council. Comey cleared it up: no collusion, no obstruction, no need to investigate further.

Dude, think about it. I know you are familiar with the concept of undercover cop.

Drug dealer to undercover cop: Am I under investigation?
Cop: No.

Does this mean the drug dealer can never be convicted, or investigated?

Suppose it's true. Suppose five minutes later, it's not. So what?
Suppose it's a lie. So what?

Suppose an elaborate sting has been set up over five years. It's ready, they're just waiting for the right time to spring it. Is the investigation done? Yes. Are the criminals in the clear?

The only thing that has anything like the effect you're looking for -- exoneration -- is a not guilty verdict, i.e. after a trial. Prospective exoneration is not on the menu. You walk out the door of the courthouse with your not guilty verdict, you're under investigation up the wazoo, again. Maybe you were under investigation during the trial. Maybe you weren't. They told you were, or they didn't, or they lied. So what?

Nicholas Scheuer
06-12-2017, 03:51 PM
Gingrich has never exhibited any redeeming values, and is proving it once again.

Tom Montgomery
06-12-2017, 05:52 PM
This is false. Comey did nothing even vaguely resembling that. You are either lying or seriously confused. (Source here, with links to original sources (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/no-comey-did-not-say-trump-is-in-the-clear-on-russia.html))
Wishful thinking (putting it as nicely as possible).

Chris Smith porter maine
06-12-2017, 06:12 PM
Yes while grabbing Mueller wife's lady parts.

TomF
06-12-2017, 06:37 PM
Trump friend Chris Ruddy just now said he believes Trump is considering this. And that there is a whole lot of angst in the West Wing worrying exactly about this.

CWSmith
06-12-2017, 07:41 PM
Sacking Mueller goes beyond foolish.

It can only be described as hubris.

Rich Jones
06-12-2017, 08:00 PM
Sacking Mueller goes beyond foolish.

It can only be described as hubris. At this point, I put nothing past DT. He just might be crazy enough to do it and, with a Congress of gutless Republicans, get away with it.

TomF
06-12-2017, 08:08 PM
Not gutless; look at the boldness of their unethical secrecy on the Trump care bill.

Not gutless: this is actual carefully considered but bold subversion. It approaches Evil. I find myself utterly shocked, writing that word.

Boater14
06-12-2017, 08:16 PM
Meh, cool down you sound nuts. Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the election. I know your daily marching order from Rush is to hammer on Comey saying trump wasn't under investigation so end of story. Any loyal American would want to know the part Putin played in our election. Are you in favor of Putin weakening America? Seems you are. Do you even know what this is all about? Don't want to be a bore now do you. I think he will fire mueller.

Sky Blue
06-12-2017, 09:23 PM
Do you lot really want Mike Pence running this thing with Mitch and Paul nicely hand-in-glove?

Mike Pence nominating your Supreme Court justices?

Rich Jones
06-12-2017, 10:07 PM
Do you lot really want Mike Pence running this thing with Mitch and Paul nicely hand-in-glove?

Mike Pence nominating your Supreme Court justices? What I want is for this national nightmare to end. 2020 can't come fast enough for America. Just as it took a Democrat to fix the eight year George W. disaster, it'll take another Democrat eight years to heal the wounds inflicted on America and the world by this mentally challenged "president".

skuthorp
06-12-2017, 10:18 PM
"Just as it took a Democrat to fix the eight year George W. disaster,…"

We're still in Iraq, we're still in Afghanistan, the ME is noisily melting down…………….

It ain't fixed yet.

Sky Blue
06-12-2017, 10:20 PM
It would be the perfect coup by the religious right, holding the Presidency, with a majority most likely, with the Democrats leaderless and rudderless and out of power throughout the land. He'd be there without having won an election.

And Pence will be the Democrats' President, gift wrapped to them by the media. They've been calling for him since Trump was elected.

A real case of be careful what you wish for.

Keith Wilson
06-13-2017, 07:25 AM
Chait's column this morning is on this subject precisely: (source (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/trump-is-not-too-crazy-to-fire-the-special-prosecutor.html)) Anybody who doesn't remember the name Archibald Cod would do well to look him up. Whether Pence would be worse - hard to tell.


Trump Is Crazy Enough to Fire the Special Prosecutor
By Jonathan Chait

Christopher Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax (a right-wing media organ) and a close confidante of President Trump — indeed, Ruddy visited the White House on Monday — tells Judy Woodruff that Trump is considering firing special prosecutor Robert Mueller. The prospect has struck many people as the kind of outlandish move Trump might rant about in private, but would hesitate to actually do. But the administration has declined to repudiate the trial balloon. (Sarah Sanders says only that Ruddy “speaks for himself,” a non-response.)

Trump will probably not fire Mueller right away. But the odds that he will fire him eventually are quite strong, perhaps 50-50 or higher.

First, Trump has a very srrong motive to fire Mueller: He is probably guilty. Several of Trump’s associates have obscured or lied about their meetings with or financial ties to Russia, Trump has taken a curiously pro-Russian approach to a series of diplomatic issues (including handing over sensitive information to Russian diplomats), and his son-in-law tried to establish a secret communications line to Moscow. Even if Trump and his inner circle turn out to be innocent of the underlying crime, he is obviously guilty of obstructing justice: demanding loyalty of the FBI director and asking him to halt an investigation into a presidential crony, asking other intelligence officials to make this request as well, firing the director, and then publicly admitting he did it to quash the Russia investigation is comically transparent fact pattern.

Trump continues to take actions that are difficult to explain if he is innocent and only sensible if he is guilty. A year ago, it seemed implausible to imagine that he could actually make it through the campaign without releasing his tax returns. What could he possibly have to hide that would be worse than the appearance of guilt he was inviting? Perhaps the answer is the same as why he might fire Mueller. What would be worse than the backlash from firing Mueller? The outcome of Mueller’s investigation, maybe.

Second, Trump has no intrinsic respect for political norms. He fired Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York who had investigative authority over some aspects of Trump’s business, after trying to ascertain his loyalty. He fired Comey after the same process. He pursues vendettas against those who challenge or threaten him with irrational vengeance. His need for deference and flattery is abnormal by the standards of either human beings in general or non-dictator politicians in particular. Trump is an instinctive authoritarian; the existence of an independent law enforcement system beyond his control is intolerable to him.

Third, Trump has endlessly violated a series of norms that appeared to be inviolable. From the outset of his candidacy, party officials warned him that his behavior — the absurd and promiscuous lying, refusal to disclose his tax returns, refusal to divest his business interests as president, undisciplined tweeting, and on and on — would have to stop.

These experiences have taught Trump that the caterwauling Republicans have no real power to hold him back. He can accuse Ted Cruz’s father of killing Jack Kennedy, and call his wife ugly, and however angry Cruz gets, Cruz will come crawling back. Republican warnings have always proved empty.

Why should the firing of Mueller play out much differently than the firing of Comey? The pro-Trump right will back him enthusiastically on Fox News and talk radio. The anti-anti-Trump right, a smaller and weaker faction, might initially object, but will quickly turn its attention to quibbling with or mocking his critics. (Get a load of this Berkeley professor who says firing Mueller is like the Reichstag fire! Or what about the time Bill Clinton or Barack Obama did something bad?)

Trump is not impervious to public opinion. He has already dropped to the 38-40 percent of the country that constitutes his hard-core base. But firing Mueller will play out as a process debate. The arguments conservatives will see on Fox News — that firing Mueller is legal, that Mueller had surrounded himself with suspiciously liberal lawyers — will carry the day with the base. The Republican Congress will put up no more resistance than it did in the face of the equally shocking act of demanding loyalty of Comey and then firing him. Only failures with tangible effect, like a recession, a failed war, or a bungled disaster response, could drive Trump’s approval rating down into the 20s, which is what it would take for Republicans in Congress to contemplate impeachment.

Finally, Trump’s erratic personality makes the firing of Mueller a mathematical probability. The way to game out the odds is not to try to figure out the factors playing in Trump’s mind, or the arguments mustered by competing advisers. This is far too rational. It assumes the decision will be made in a singular moment. Trump is a creature of impulses. Every time he is reminded of Mueller’s existence, there is some chance he will immediately move to fire him. The chance that he will act upon his urge at any given moment is small — say, one percent — but the number of the moments will be high.

And it is probably realistic to assume that every time Trump is persuaded to repress his instinct to fire Mueller, the difficulty of maintaining his discipline the next time rises. If there is a one percent chance Trump fires Mueller the next time he sees a Russia story on cable news, perhaps the odds rise to one and a half percent the next time, and two percent the time after. These numbers are obviously pure guesses. But the general principle accords with the style of decision-making Trump has displayed from the outset.

Trump is almost characterologically bound to test the limits of the system until he finally goes so far he cannot go any further. Firing the special prosecutor is the next unthinkable step before him, very much like all the other unthinkable steps he has already taken.

Norman Bernstein
06-13-2017, 07:31 AM
Comey cleared it up: no collusion, no obstruction, no need to investigate further.

I don't know why in the world you'd want to perpetuate such a false statement.

Comey said NOTHING about whether there was any collusion or not, since the investigation was by no means complete by the time he got fired. He said NOTHING about obstruction of justice... that would be up to the judgment of a prosecutor, to bring charges (for the record, I don't believe that Trump's statements rise to the level of obstruction... but they came close).

As for the need to investigate further, Trump doesn't get to decide that.

So, why do you persist in propagating such lies?

Paul Pless
06-13-2017, 07:33 AM
I don't know why in the world you'd want to perpetuate such a false statement.

like geng, he either fancies himiself a spinmeister, or he's a fake news koolaide drinker, or he's a troll. . .

we report, you decide :D

Tom Lathrop
06-13-2017, 07:51 AM
If trump thinks his base and the republican members of Congress that depend on the loyalty of that base will hold together, he will fire Meuller or anyone else that he can. That is the only truth operating in the White House today.

TomF
06-13-2017, 08:00 AM
It would be the perfect coup by the religious right, holding the Presidency, with a majority most likely, with the Democrats leaderless and rudderless and out of power throughout the land. He'd be there without having won an election.

And Pence will be the Democrats' President, gift wrapped to them by the media. They've been calling for him since Trump was elected.

A real case of be careful what you wish for.A real case of the lesser of two weevils. Pence is indeed odious, for all the reasons you've described - he's been described as the most conservative VP in the last 40 years, and said that he'd model his own VP actions on Dick Cheney. Pence's time as Governor of Indiana was marked by opposition to minimum wage laws, by what some describe as attacks on public education, by opposition to the resettlement of Syrian refugees, and various predictable stands on guns, abortion, tax policy, public health, religion etc. This is hardly inspirational, I agree, but Pence's Indiana trended firmly in the middle of the pack of American states in terms of outcomes during his tenure. He didn't tank Indiana the way Brownback tanked Kansas, though perhaps not for lack of trying. While Indiana wasn't the booming success he's claimed, it only performed slightly worse than the National average. Which suggests that a Pence presidency would likely follow a similar, survivable trajectory.

And from all present evidence, he's not actively criminal - though it's amusing to see that there was a controversy while he was Indiana Governor over his own routine use of AOL e-mail to conduct official business. But Pence is seemingly not actively obstructing justice, not actively flouting the Constitution's emoluments clause, not actively installing family members into senior Government roles defying the spirit of America's laws against nepotism. Not actively undercutting American Intelligence institutions or the Judiciary, or America's commitment to traditional foreign alliances.

Trump, OTOH, is doing all of those things. And has proved resistant to taking the advice even of the subject matter experts he's had in his sphere, causing no end of embarrassment personally and instability internationally.

Lesser of two weevils, SB. Though I agree, a different election result a few months ago would have been less weevilly again.

Keith Wilson
06-13-2017, 08:34 AM
https://www.whatsthatbug.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/weevil_australia_belinda.jpg

oznabrag
06-13-2017, 08:39 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Sky Blue http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=5261043#post5261043)
It would be the perfect coup by the religious right, holding the Presidency, with a majority most likely, with the Democrats leaderless and rudderless and out of power throughout the land. He'd be there without having won an election.

And Pence will be the Democrats' President, gift wrapped to them by the media. They've been calling for him since Trump was elected.

A real case of be careful what you wish for.



A real case of the lesser of two weevils. Pence is indeed odious, for all the reasons you've described - he's been described as the most conservative VP in the last 40 years, and said that he'd model his own VP actions on Dick Cheney. Pence's time as Governor of Indiana was marked by opposition to minimum wage laws, by what some describe as attacks on public education, by opposition to the resettlement of Syrian refugees, and various predictable stands on guns, abortion, tax policy, public health, religion etc. This is hardly inspirational, I agree, but Pence's Indiana trended firmly in the middle of the pack of American states in terms of outcomes during his tenure. He didn't tank Indiana the way Brownback tanked Kansas, though perhaps not for lack of trying. While Indiana wasn't the booming success he's claimed, it only performed slightly worse than the National average. Which suggests that a Pence presidency would likely follow a similar, survivable trajectory.

And from all present evidence, he's not actively criminal - though it's amusing to see that there was a controversy while he was Indiana Governor over his own routine use of AOL e-mail to conduct official business. But Pence is seemingly not actively obstructing justice, not actively flouting the Constitution's emoluments clause, not actively installing family members into senior Government roles defying the spirit of America's laws against nepotism. Not actively undercutting American Intelligence institutions or the Judiciary, or America's commitment to traditional foreign alliances.

Trump, OTOH, is doing all of those things. And has proved resistant to taking the advice even of the subject matter experts he's had in his sphere, causing no end of embarrassment personally and instability internationally.

Lesser of two weevils, SB. Though I agree, a different election result a few months ago would have been less weevilly again.

Now that you have quoted That Person, be aware that 'he' is just churning the cesspool.

1) The Democrats' President would be Hillary. Not Pence. This is simply more cesspool-dregs that he hopes to smear on the wall, and have it stick.

2) If, as seems more likely every day, there was collusion between the Trump Campaign and Putin, then Pence is not a legitimate President EITHER.

TomF
06-13-2017, 08:41 AM
Orrin Hatch for Prez, or so I've heard. Which means his Utah seat may be open for Romney to take in a special election.

Norman Bernstein
06-13-2017, 08:51 AM
Here's a point of information, regarding whether Trump could fire Mueller:


Ari Melber (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/why-trump-acting-so-spooked-over-russia-investigation-n771421): “No, not lawfully in one action. That is because federal regulations mandate ‘only’ the attorney general can fire the special counsel for enumerated reasons, or an acting attorney general in the event of recusal (28 CFR 600)… Can the president take actions to lead to the firing of the special counsel? Yes, as a matter of technical authority, a president could conceivably: (1) instruct the DOJ to change those federal rules, and then fire the special counsel under any new rules that provide for the President to exercise that authority; or (2) the president could instruct a DOJ official to carry out the firing.”

“The current rules do not provide the President the authority to unilaterally fire the special counsel — the action requires changing the rules or demanding other officials carry out the request.”

Canoez
06-13-2017, 08:59 AM
Chait's column this morning is on this subject precisely: (source (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/trump-is-not-too-crazy-to-fire-the-special-prosecutor.html)) Anybody who doesn't remember the name Archibald Cod would do well to look him up. Whether Pence would be worse - hard to tell.

I think you mean Archibald Cox. The other suggestion is somewhat fishy...

Canoez
06-13-2017, 09:03 AM
Here's a point of information, regarding whether Trump could fire Mueller:



Ari Melber (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/why-trump-acting-so-spooked-over-russia-investigation-n771421): “No, not lawfully in one action. That is because federal regulations mandate ‘only’ the attorney general can fire the special counsel for enumerated reasons, or an acting attorney general in the event of recusal (28 CFR 600)… Can the president take actions to lead to the firing of the special counsel? Yes, as a matter of technical authority, a president could conceivably: (1) instruct the DOJ to change those federal rules, and then fire the special counsel under any new rules that provide for the President to exercise that authority; or (2) the president could instruct a DOJ official to carry out the firing.”

“The current rules do not provide the President the authority to unilaterally fire the special counsel — the action requires changing the rules or demanding other officials carry out the request.”

One has to wonder if Sessions recusal would hinder Trump's ability to do so. With Rosenstein's perspective, I'm sure he would refuse such a demand and be fired. I suppose Trump would just work his way down the chain in DOJ until he found someone willing to carry out his orders.

Tom Montgomery
06-13-2017, 09:09 AM
Orrin Hatch for Prez, or so I've heard. Which means his Utah seat may be open for Romney to take in a special election.
That will never happen. That was based on an unfounded internet rumor that both Pence and Paul Ryan were being investigated by the FBI wrt the Russian thing.

SMARTINSEN
06-13-2017, 09:47 AM
Richardson and Ruckelshouse had the good sense to resign. Sessions and Rothenstien should be asked if they would do the same under similar orders.

Sky Blue
06-13-2017, 10:48 PM
Mueller is said to have a conflict of interest and thus is disqualified from overseeing the investigation.

Here is the law and argument on that.

http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2017/06/my-view-mueller-is-conflicted-.html

Canoez
06-14-2017, 06:10 AM
Mueller is said to have a conflict of interest and thus is disqualified from overseeing the investigation.

Here is the law and argument on that.

http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2017/06/my-view-mueller-is-conflicted-.html

At this point, the claim of conflict of interest is innuendo. When originally nominated for the post both Democrats and Republicans supported Mueller's nomination.