Bill to protect special counsels such as Robert Mueller blocked on the Senate floor again

[upsideguy]

They pull this weasel move all the time. My usual reply is along the lines of "Murder is a crime. So is attempted murder".

Thanks. I added the statement "Its a crime of intent" to better make my point.

 

[Perotista]

Senator Lee. Complicit traitor.

Bill to protect special counsels such as Robert Mueller blocked on the Senate floor again

A bill that would protect special counsels such as Robert Mueller was once again not allowed a vote on the Senate floor Wednesday.

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Democratic Sens. Chris Coons of Delaware and Cory Booker of New Jersey attempted to force the vote by unanimous consent, but that meant it could be blocked by just one senator, as Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah did Wednesday.​

I've seen this many times since the election or since Mueller was appointed. I've seen nothing that would indicate Mueller is/was about to be fired. That seems to be in one's party mind and no one else's. Since Mueller was basically an administration's appointment, not done by congress, I don't see any constitutional grounds for such legislation outside of political theater. Mueller in my opinion which probably doesn't mount to a hill of beans is nothing more than an employee of the DOJ. Not of congress, which I don't think has the constitutional power to tell the DOJ whom they can hire or fire. In other words, I think congress is way over stepping their authority, constitutional wise by legislation as this. But like anything else, this is just a personal opinion and until and if the SCOTUS were to rule on it, nothing more than that.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

I've seen this many times since the election or since Mueller was appointed. I've seen nothing that would indicate Mueller is/was about to be fired. That seems to be in one's party mind and no one else's. Since Mueller was basically an administration appointment, not done by congress, I don't see any constitutional grounds for such legislation outside of political theater. Mueller in my opinion which probably doesn't mount to a hill of beans is nothing more than an employee of the DOJ. Not of congress, which I don't think has the constitutional power to tell the DOJ whom they can hire or fire. In other words, I think congress is way over stepping their authority, constitutional wise by legislation as this. But like anything else, his is just a personal opinion and until and if the SCOTUS were to rule on it, nothing more than that.

LMAO, President Von Clownstick rages about Mueller all the time. Yup "no indication"

 

[Winston]

I've seen this many times since the election or since Mueller was appointed. I've seen nothing that would indicate Mueller is/was about to be fired. That seems to be in one's party mind and no one else's. Since Mueller was basically an administration appointment, not done by congress, I don't see any constitutional grounds for such legislation outside of political theater. Mueller in my opinion which probably doesn't mount to a hill of beans is nothing more than an employee of the DOJ. Not of congress, which I don't think has the constitutional power to tell the DOJ whom they can hire or fire. In other words, I think congress is way over stepping their authority, constitutional wise by legislation as this. But like anything else, his is just a personal opinion and until and if the SCOTUS were to rule on it, nothing more than that.

I agree with your constitutional analysis on the proposed law. I disagree that you see no indication Mueller could be fired. And I point to Trump's impulsivity as well as the stories that he already tried to fire him, as evidence that he could be fired.

I think the legislation is to protect against a Constitutional crisis, should Mueller be fired. The thing is, do you trust the legislative branch to perform its proper duties and impeach Trump, if Mueller is fired, without good cause, either by Trump or Whitaker?

 

[j-mac]

You don't have to be successful in the obstruction to be guilty of obstruction. It is a crime of intent.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf

But Trump's comments in the Oval Office to Kislyak and his comments to Lester Holt on NBC were self-incriminating, sufficient at least to be probable cause for an investigation (hence the appointment of Mueller).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...igation/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b6c2643d9cb0

Trump's actions since May 2017 only serve to reinforce the legitimacy of an investigation of obstruction of justice, as does the fact that most Americans think Trump has committed crimes or impeachable offenses.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ority-think-mueller-will-find-trump-committed

Well, if it's as cut and dry as you seem to think, then you must be supremely frustrated that Muller is *****footing around with silly process crimes...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Perotista]

LMAO, President Von Clownstick rages about Mueller all the time. Yup "no indication"

Sure he has, but has taken no steps to indicate firing.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Sure he has, but has taken no steps to indicate firing.

He would be stupid to do so,especially since that wouldn't stop the investigation

 

[Perotista]

I agree with your constitutional analysis on the proposed law. I disagree that you see no indication Mueller could be fired. And I point to Trump's impulsivity as well as the stories that he already tried to fire him, as evidence that he could be fired.

I think the legislation is to protect against a Constitutional crisis, should Mueller be fired. The thing is, do you trust the legislative branch to perform its proper duties and impeach Trump, if Mueller is fired, without good cause, either by Trump or Whitaker?

I don't trust congress or the administrative branch, probably government in general. I especially distrust both major political parties and my dislike for both is about Mars high. I think both major parties do only what is good for their party with no thought at all whether it is good or bad for nation.

I haven't liked the way the Democrats have tried to destroy Trump since the day after the election. I also don't like Trump one bit, he has done a pretty good job of destroying himself, at least in the eyes of America as a whole. Minus the Trumpers of course.

So it boils down to what is/was Mueller's job. One to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election or one to bring down Trump? It's interesting to see how independents view all of this, taking the partisans Democrats and Republicans out of it. Go to questions 48 and 49 to take a gander how the non-partisan folks, those who for the most part aren't pro or anti Trump look at Mueller. Call them independents.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7hxorevceh/econTabReport.pdf

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Robert Mueller is handling his job as special counsel? Independents, 31% yes, 31% no.

Do you think the FBI investigation of President Trump is a witch hunt or a legitimate investigation? Independents, 38% legitimate investigation, 34% witch hunt.

Pretty evenly divided. Then take a look at how Republicans and democrats view Mueller's investigation. That you show you how partisan it has become.

 

[Perotista]

He would be stupid to do so,especially since that wouldn't stop the investigation

Exactly, Trump would be sitting himself up as another Nixon.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Exactly, Trump would be sitting himself up as another Nixon.

I think Trump is stupid enough to do it. Some reports indicate he has ordered Mueller fired before, but his staff refused. In any event,I suspect he'll serve out his term, but will be in legal jeopardy after leaving office

 

[Winston]

I don't trust congress or the administrative branch, probably government in general. I especially distrust both major political parties and my dislike for both is about Mars high. I think both major parties do only what is good for their party with no thought at all whether it is good or bad for nation.

I haven't liked the way the Democrats have tried to destroy Trump since the day after the election. I also don't like Trump one bit, he has done a pretty good job of destroying himself, at least in the eyes of America as a whole. Minus the Trumpers of course.

So it boils down to what is/was Mueller's job. One to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election or one to bring down Trump? It's interesting to see how independents view all of this, taking the partisans Democrats and Republicans out of it. Go to questions 48 and 49 to take a gander how the non-partisan folks, those who for the most part aren't pro or anti Trump look at Mueller. Call them independents.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7hxorevceh/econTabReport.pdf

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Robert Mueller is handling his job as special counsel? Independents, 31% yes, 31% no.

Do you think the FBI investigation of President Trump is a witch hunt or a legitimate investigation? Independents, 38% legitimate investigation, 34% witch hunt.

Pretty evenly divided. Then take a look at how Republicans and democrats view Mueller's investigation. That you show you how partisan it has become.

Well, I agree partisans will be partisan. And independents can go either way. Trump constantly screaming deflections and lunacy can convince some people.

The point of my reply was more this. You had constitutional objections to the law. I understand those and they ocurr to me too. But, the legislation is to prevent a violation of Constitution itself too. If Congress fails to act if/when Trump fires Mueller. Will that not be a violation of the Constitution? So, it seems like once again in America, in 2018, we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Which violation of the Constitution would bother you more? A law exceeding Congressional authority or, the President being declared above the law?

 

[JustHanging]

Any such bill is grotesquely unconstitutional. The special prosecutor is out of an executive office and Congress has no constitutional jurisdiction to exercise any control of it, no more than the President could not order who anyone in Congress may or may not hire or fire.

It's just ultimately tantrum throwing bad loser Jeff Flake trying to stay relevant and attention whoring his last few weeks. From herein after he'll be on CNN and MSNBC for Democrats.

Guys like Flake are the ultimate back stabbing betrayers. Hundreds of Republican volunteers and thousands of Republican contributors backed him up for years. He now 100% pisses on those Republicans in every little tantrum he throws.

Exactly! He's just screwing over a significant part of the Trump base, these "very fine people":

And for what? To help his country? Traitor to the cause!

 

[Anthony60]

You don't have to be successful in the obstruction to be guilty of obstruction. It is a crime of intent.

But Trump's comments in the Oval Office to Kislyak and his comments to Lester Holt on NBC were self-incriminating, sufficient at least to be probable cause for an investigation (hence the appointment of Mueller).

Trump's actions since May 2017 only serve to reinforce the legitimacy of an investigation of obstruction of justice, as does the fact that most Americans think Trump has committed crimes or impeachable offenses.

There is no obstruction, no attempt at obstruction, and no crime. It is the within the President's power to staff the Executive branch, and change personnel at any time, with no reason and no obligation to anyone. It is not even possible for there to be a crime, he has the Constitutional power to do so, that completely supersedes any claim of obstruction.

Further, a sitting President can not be indicted. So, what would even be the point of the investigation? Mueller does not have the power to indict the President. He would have to ask the AG to do that. And, as I said, DOJ will not even try to indict a sitting President.

 

[tres borrachos]

Exactly, Trump would be sitting himself up as another Nixon.

I think he's getting pretty close to that point even without firing Mueller.

 

[Anthony60]

Exactly! He's just screwing over a significant part of the Trump base, these "very fine people":
And for what? To help his country? Traitor to the cause!

The people that were against taking down the statues? Like me? Like others here? This is just more of the left's misinformation campaign, actually screwing over their people. So, Trump refers to people like me as "very fine people" that are against pulling down all these statues. He is explicitly referring to people that are not white supremacists.

The left tries to twist it and say he was calling white supremacists very fine people instead, a complete lie. They are counting on low information types to just swallow down what they are shooting out, never, ever question anything, and then run with the lie.

Those people self identify as stooges, idiots, and low information types when they propagate the lie.

 

[Perotista]

I think Trump is stupid enough to do it. Some reports indicate he has ordered Mueller fired before, but his staff refused. In any event,I suspect he'll serve out his term, but will be in legal jeopardy after leaving office

If Trump were to fire Mueller, instead of having an almost equal split between those who view Mueller's investigation as legit or a witch hunt, firing Mueller would swing most Americans outside of the Trumpers into viewing Trump as guilty. Of what, it wouldn't matter.

Trump, the GOP would probably be facing another 40 seat loss of seats in the house and possible 10 more in the senate if Trump fired Mueller. I'm talking around 290 seats in the house for the Democrats ala like the 1974 election gave them after Watergate. Trump firing Mueller would be political suicide for Republicans in the House and senate. Independents would flock to the Democrats in 2020. They don't like Trump now and they would dislike him a whole bunch more if he fired Mueller. That to them would show Trump was guilty. Whether Trump was or wasn't, becomes irrelevant. The appearance, the perspective of guilt would be there in spades.

 

[Perotista]

Well, I agree partisans will be partisan. And independents can go either way. Trump constantly screaming deflections and lunacy can convince some people.

The point of my reply was more this. You had constitutional objections to the law. I understand those and they ocurr to me too. But, the legislation is to prevent a violation of Constitution itself too. If Congress fails to act if/when Trump fires Mueller. Will that not be a violation of the Constitution? So, it seems like once again in America, in 2018, we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Which violation of the Constitution would bother you more? A law exceeding Congressional authority or, the President being declared above the law?

I don't worry or fret about things I have no control over or can't help in some way. Trump firing Mueller is one of them. I would have problems with both. The president isn't above the law, in most cases he has to be impeached first or removed from office. You're assuming if Trump fired Mueller the GOP senate wouldn't convict him, depending on what charges the Democratic controlled house drew up.

But I think if Trump fired Mueller, self preservation might set in with a few of those GOP senators as it did to about half of the Republican senators during watergate. I'll cross that bridge when it happens.

 

[Perotista]

I think he's getting pretty close to that point even without firing Mueller.

LOL, yeah, one could state Trump is digging his own grave.

 

[Anthony60]

Exactly, Trump would be sitting himself up as another Nixon.

Very much not like Nixon. Nixon created his own problem. He tried to cover up a two bit break in that he knew nothing about. He could have acknowledged it happened, if anyone even bothered to ask, and moved on.

Nothing like that has happened with Trump, completely different.

If Mueller stays and the House moves ahead with impeachment, it would be the best thing that Republicans could hope for. It would die in the Senate, the left would get attacked for abusing their power, and two years hence they will lose the House.
Maxine Waters and others have said that they will do it. Let's see if the leadership is as dumb as them.

 

[Winston]

I don't worry or fret about things I have no control over or can't help in some way. Trump firing Mueller is one of them. I would have problems with both. The president isn't above the law, in most cases he has to be impeached first or removed from office. You're assuming if Trump fired Mueller the GOP senate wouldn't convict him, depending on what charges the Democratic controlled house drew up.

But I think if Trump fired Mueller, self preservation might set in with a few of those GOP senators as it did to about half of the Republican senators during watergate. I'll cross that bridge when it happens.

Perotista, there is probably no issue more important to me than the Mueller investigation, right now. That would change if the Congress took up any issue I cared about, but, they seem determined to serve special interests and neglect the people, no matter who is running the country.

 

[upsideguy]

There is no obstruction, no attempt at obstruction, and no crime. It is the within the President's power to staff the Executive branch, and change personnel at any time, with no reason and no obligation to anyone. It is not even possible for there to be a crime, he has the Constitutional power to do so, that completely supersedes any claim of obstruction.

Further, a sitting President can not be indicted. So, what would even be the point of the investigation? Mueller does not have the power to indict the President. He would have to ask the AG to do that. And, as I said, DOJ will not even try to indict a sitting President.

There is probable cause for an investigation. We will soon see if there is foundations of an actual crime.

This is not ultimately about an indictment of Trump, but indictments of those around Trump AND an impeachment. Likely Trump is so weakened by this that he is "sentenced" to being a one termer, his power neutered and he is disgraced in American history.

Frankly, I think you are flailing in your denial of Trump's attempts to thwart this investigation. Its pretty obvious to most intelligent people he is doing every thing he can to impede, discredit and thwart Mueller's efforts. At this point your position on this is looking increasingly that of someone with their head in the sand.

Well, if it's as cut and dry as you seem to think, then you must be supremely frustrated that Muller is *****footing around with silly process crimes...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I merely arguing probable cause for an investigation. That said, I believe Mueller will get to the truth. I also understand forensic accounting and thus respect the fact that Trump's ties are extremely complex that will take time. Trump's ties to Russia are also quite numerous, so that will take time.

For the most part, however, when this is said and done, IMHO, its Trump's financial ties to Russia and Saudi Arabia will be his downfall. I/O/W - Emoluments.

 

[Perotista]

Very much not like Nixon. Nixon created his own problem. He tried to cover up a two bit break in that he knew nothing about. He could have acknowledged it happened, if anyone even bothered to ask, and moved on.

Nothing like that has happened with Trump, completely different.

If Mueller stays and the House moves ahead with impeachment, it would be the best thing that Republicans could hope for. It would die in the Senate, the left would get attacked for abusing their power, and two years hence they will lose the House.
Maxine Waters and others have said that they will do it. Let's see if the leadership is as dumb as them.

Likability by America as a whole can determine how a president survives or sinks like Nixon. Nixon seen his approval rating drop from 63% when Watergate became an issue in 1973 down to 22% when he resigned. Nixon wasn't likable, he didn't survive and self preservation took over for the Republicans in congress. The democrats climbed up to 295 house seats and 60 senate seats.

Reagan with Iran-contra, his likability also helped him survive that without impeachment. Actually when the hearings began Reagan was at 47% approval, when they ended in August Ronnie had improved to 49% approval and then rise for the remainder of his term to 63%. Reagan was just too likable to be impeached, the people also didn't want him impeached.

Bill Clinton was much like Reagan. When his trial in the senate started Bill was at 62% approval, in February when he was acquitted, he had risen to 64%. His likability helped him survive and like Reagan, Bill actually saw his popularity increase by a couple of points.

Trump, he is very much disliked by America as a whole. That is outside of the Trumpers. Trump is now sitting at 38% approval, 35% for independents which just finished voting Democratic by a 54-42 margin for Democratic congressional candidates. Trump isn't liked at all. He has no likability to carry him through an impeachment process. He has lost quite a lot of independents who once supported him. Trump turns off by his unpresidential behavior, his uncouth and obnoxious personality, his distasteful character most Americans.

Sure, Nixon at 22% when he resigned is much lower than Trump's 38%. But his 38% shows there is little good will towards him if one isn't a Trumper. I don't think Trump is popular enough to cause what you stated to happened. I think self preservation would take over for quite a lot of republicans in congress. But that is just an opinion of mine. Likability saved Reagan and Trump, dislike doomed Nixon and perhaps if it comes to that, it could also doom Trump.

 

[Perotista]

Perotista, there is probably no issue more important to me than the Mueller investigation, right now. That would change if the Congress took up any issue I cared about, but, they seem determined to serve special interests and neglect the people, no matter who is running the country.

I've pretty much ignored Muller's investigation. Too much hyper partisan propaganda coming out of both sides in this case. What happens, happens. If Trump fires Mueller, then I'll probably join those calling for his impeachment. Guilt by actions is perceived in that case. Guilty of what, it probably doesn't matter. If he doesn't, I'll wait for Mueller's final report and go from there.

Both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, special interests, lobbyist, mega money donors, etc. That is where they get their tens of millions of dollars from. One doesn't bite the hand that feeds you. With both major parties, the people got lost a long time ago. It's is all about money, money that can help them either remain in power or gain power. The American people are just pawns in this game. A necessary evil. Pawns to be worked by all those moneyed folks I mentioned above and by the political parties.

 

[Anthony60]

There is probable cause for an investigation. We will soon see if there is foundations of an actual crime.

This is not ultimately about an indictment of Trump, but indictments of those around Trump AND an impeachment. Likely Trump is so weakened by this that he is "sentenced" to being a one termer, his power neutered and he is disgraced in American history.

So far, nothing at all that would hurt him in running for a second term. There's not even enough for Special Counsel. No reason at all.

Frankly, I think you are flailing in your denial of Trump's attempts to thwart this investigation. Its pretty obvious to most intelligent people he is doing every thing he can to impede, discredit and thwart Mueller's efforts. At this point your position on this is looking increasingly that of someone with their head in the sand.

More intelligent people see that he's done nothing wrong, there's no basis for an investigation, and the real scandal is the prior administration using the power of government to try and help their candidate to get elected.

I merely arguing probable cause for an investigation. That said, I believe Mueller will get to the truth. I also understand forensic accounting and thus respect the fact that Trump's ties are extremely complex that will take time. Trump's ties to Russia are also quite numerous, so that will take time.

For the most part, however, when this is said and done, IMHO, its Trump's financial ties to Russia and Saudi Arabia will be his downfall. I/O/W - Emoluments.

Emoluments is nothing. He's not on the payroll of another country against U.S. interests. There is absolutely nothing wrong with global business activities. That's not what emoluments covers.

 

[HumblePi]

Any such bill is grotesquely unconstitutional. The special prosecutor is out of an executive office and Congress has no constitutional jurisdiction to exercise any control of it, no more than the President could not order who anyone in Congress may or may not hire or fire.

It's just ultimately tantrum throwing bad loser Jeff Flake trying to stay relevant and attention whoring his last few weeks. From herein after he'll be on CNN and MSNBC for Democrats.

Guys like Flake are the ultimate back stabbing betrayers. Hundreds of Republican volunteers and thousands of Republican contributors backed him up for years. He now 100% pisses on those Republicans in every little tantrum he throws.

Are you aware that if this bill was unconstitutional that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would be saying that? He hasn't. What he has said is that there is no need for such a protection since he's comfortable that Trump will not interfere with the Mueller investigation. Would Mitch McConnell want to bet on that? No, he would not. Mitch McConnell is bought, and it would be a good bet that his bosses are those in China since it is China that has made Mitch McConnell and his wife Elaine Chao very wealthy. McConnell’s and Chao’s political maneuverings to make tens of millions of dollars were made possible by their numerous ties with the communist Chinese government and its business dealings.

So no, the bill to protect the investigation is certainly not unconstitutional just because Trump sycophant Congressman Mike Lee says so. Mike Lee said if such a bill were passed it would “fundamentally (undermine) the principle of separation of powers" and create a "de facto fourth branch of government." This is not true at all, not even close. This is precisely why we have a Congress in the first place, to place checks and balances on the executive branch of government.