• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller argues Whitaker appointment has no impact in ongoing subpoena fight

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The appointment of acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker two weeks ago should have no effect on an ongoing court challenge that questions the constitutionality of special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment, the Justice Department argued in a new court filing Monday.

The question before the court, originally filed by Andrew Miller, is whether or not Mueller was properly appointed. This is the exact same argument Nixon used in 1974, which SCOTUS immediately shot down. The administration is expanding this case to ask whether or not subpoenas and indictments issued under Mueller are invalid, due to a change of the Attorney General. Their claim is that subpoenas and indictments are now invalid because neither Sessions nor Rosenstein are part of the Justice Department any more, and subpoenas and indictments are only valid if Whittaker signs off on them. Mueller has fired back, again using the Nixon decision, as well as US Code.

"Similarly, by regulation, the Special Counsel has and continues to “exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.6; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695 (1974) (“So long as [a] regulation is extant it has the force of law.”)."

Read Mueller's complete brief here
.

It has started. This administration is now attempting to shut down the investigation, and guess what? It won't work. More than 3 dozen sealed indictments are already on the DC docket, and Trump has no power whatsoever to make them go away, which is why he is attempting this desperation move, which will fail spectacularly in very short order. The clock of justice is ticking down, and when it reaches zero, there is going to be hell to pay.

https://kbzk.com/cnn-us-politics/20...ment-has-no-impact-in-ongoing-subpoena-fight/
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,580
Reaction score
64,062
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The question before the court, originally filed by Andrew Miller, is whether or not Mueller was properly appointed. This is the exact same argument Nixon used in 1974, which SCOTUS immediately shot down. The administration is expanding this case to ask whether or not subpoenas and indictments issued under Mueller are invalid, due to a change of the Attorney General. Their claim is that subpoenas and indictments are now invalid because neither Sessions nor Rosenstein are part of the Justice Department any more, and subpoenas and indictments are only valid if Whittaker signs off on them. Mueller has fired back, again using the Nixon decision, as well as US Code.

"Similarly, by regulation, the Special Counsel has and continues to “exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.6; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695 (1974) (“So long as [a] regulation is extant it has the force of law.”)."

Read Mueller's complete brief here
.

It has started. This administration is now attempting to shut down the investigation, and guess what? It won't work. More than 3 dozen sealed indictments are already on the DC docket, and Trump has no power whatsoever to make them go away, which is why he is attempting this desperation move, which will fail spectacularly in very short order. The clock of justice is ticking down, and when it reaches zero, there is going to be hell to pay.

https://kbzk.com/cnn-us-politics/20...ment-has-no-impact-in-ongoing-subpoena-fight/

I'm not clear on how this prevents Whitaker from denying Mueller any requests to sign off on subpoenas and indictments.

So Mueller walks into Whitaker's office and says, "Here's an indictment for X, please sign and approve it." Whitaker says, "No." When then?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm not clear on how this prevents Whitaker from denying Mueller any requests to sign off on subpoenas and indictments.

So Mueller walks into Whitaker's office and says, "Here's an indictment for X, please sign and approve it." Whitaker says, "No." When then?

Whitaker has no power to stop indictments that have already been filed, and there are more than 3 dozen sealed indictments on the DC court docket, 17 of which have been filed since August.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The question before the court, originally filed by Andrew Miller, is whether or not Mueller was properly appointed. This is the exact same argument Nixon used in 1974, which SCOTUS immediately shot down. The administration is expanding this case to ask whether or not subpoenas and indictments issued under Mueller are invalid, due to a change of the Attorney General. Their claim is that subpoenas and indictments are now invalid because neither Sessions nor Rosenstein are part of the Justice Department any more, and subpoenas and indictments are only valid if Whittaker signs off on them. Mueller has fired back, again using the Nixon decision, as well as US Code.

"Similarly, by regulation, the Special Counsel has and continues to “exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.6; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695 (1974) (“So long as [a] regulation is extant it has the force of law.”)."

Read Mueller's complete brief here
.

It has started. This administration is now attempting to shut down the investigation, and guess what? It won't work. More than 3 dozen sealed indictments are already on the DC docket, and Trump has no power whatsoever to make them go away, which is why he is attempting this desperation move, which will fail spectacularly in very short order. The clock of justice is ticking down, and when it reaches zero, there is going to be hell to pay.

https://kbzk.com/cnn-us-politics/20...ment-has-no-impact-in-ongoing-subpoena-fight/
Ok, at this point, you should be able to tell us who you believe is about to be indicted, and for what....Or, is this just more bash bait for entertainment ?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,580
Reaction score
64,062
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Whitaker has no power to stop indictments that have already been filed, and there are more than 3 dozen sealed indictments on the DC court docket, 17 of which have been filed since August.

Is that true? How do you know that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious how you know that.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,580
Reaction score
64,062
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok, at this point, you should be able to tell us who you believe is about to be indicted, and for what....Or, is this just more bash bait for entertainment ?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Why would you ask that? The thread discussion is about the AG's powers with regards to Mueller's investigation, not who is about to be indicted.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Is that true? How do you know that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious how you know that.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695 (1974)

The ruling is part of Mueller's brief.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,708
Reaction score
53,072
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ok, at this point, you should be able to tell us who you believe is about to be indicted, and for what....Or, is this just more bash bait for entertainment ?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

So you do not know what a "sealed indictment" is? Hint: it is sealed, meaning it is not known publicly who it is for.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is that true? How do you know that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious how you know that.

The Grand Jury issues a True Bill of Indictment, not the Justice Department. Once those true bills are filled in court, only a court can dismiss the charges in the indictment. The US Attorney can file a motion to dismiss, but only a judge can grant the motion and dismiss the charges, not Whitaker or anyone else in the DOJ.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
78,459
Reaction score
32,418
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The question before the court, originally filed by Andrew Miller, is whether or not Mueller was properly appointed. This is the exact same argument Nixon used in 1974, which SCOTUS immediately shot down. The administration is expanding this case to ask whether or not subpoenas and indictments issued under Mueller are invalid, due to a change of the Attorney General. Their claim is that subpoenas and indictments are now invalid because neither Sessions nor Rosenstein are part of the Justice Department any more, and subpoenas and indictments are only valid if Whittaker signs off on them. Mueller has fired back, again using the Nixon decision, as well as US Code.

"Similarly, by regulation, the Special Counsel has and continues to “exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.6; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695 (1974) (“So long as [a] regulation is extant it has the force of law.”)."

Read Mueller's complete brief here
.

It has started. This administration is now attempting to shut down the investigation, and guess what? It won't work. More than 3 dozen sealed indictments are already on the DC docket, and Trump has no power whatsoever to make them go away, which is why he is attempting this desperation move, which will fail spectacularly in very short order. The clock of justice is ticking down, and when it reaches zero, there is going to be hell to pay.

https://kbzk.com/cnn-us-politics/20...ment-has-no-impact-in-ongoing-subpoena-fight/

From what I understand, this statement from Mueller's team is intended to head off a defense strategy that might be used by Miller's defense team. I don't see it as having anything to do with Whitaker or anyone else in the Trump administration attempting to shut down the investigation.

Heck, I haven't seen ANYTHING that indicates that Whitaker is going to shut down the investigation.

Now, for sure, Whitaker MIGHT be doing things...but we don't know about them.
 

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm confused about this thread. In the article, both the defendant & the prosecutors are stating that the change in the AG office has no bearing on the case. The only reason they even spoke on the topic is because the appellate judges asked if the change modified either of their positions, and it doesn't.

In Miller’s own response to the Whitaker question, also just filed, his legal defense team agrees that nothing in his case changes with Sessions’ departure and Whitaker’s appointment.

Seriously, this is an article effectively "Nothing has changed".
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The question before the court, originally filed by Andrew Miller, is whether or not Mueller was properly appointed. This is the exact same argument Nixon used in 1974, which SCOTUS immediately shot down. The administration is expanding this case to ask whether or not subpoenas and indictments issued under Mueller are invalid, due to a change of the Attorney General. Their claim is that subpoenas and indictments are now invalid because neither Sessions nor Rosenstein are part of the Justice Department any more, and subpoenas and indictments are only valid if Whittaker signs off on them. Mueller has fired back, again using the Nixon decision, as well as US Code.

"Similarly, by regulation, the Special Counsel has and continues to “exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.6; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695 (1974) (“So long as [a] regulation is extant it has the force of law.”)."

Read Mueller's complete brief here
.

It has started. This administration is now attempting to shut down the investigation, and guess what? It won't work. More than 3 dozen sealed indictments are already on the DC docket, and Trump has no power whatsoever to make them go away, which is why he is attempting this desperation move, which will fail spectacularly in very short order. The clock of justice is ticking down, and when it reaches zero, there is going to be hell to pay.

https://kbzk.com/cnn-us-politics/20...ment-has-no-impact-in-ongoing-subpoena-fight/

No the media keeps throwing it out there for ratings. They have been saying Trump is going to fire Mueller from the beginning. Eventually people are going to believe it.

The proof is that Trump has not fired Mueller. He has the authority to do so, and US v Nixon had to do with the authority of the Special Fisherman to subpoena the tape recordings and other documents. AFAIK, Trump has not even claimed executive privilege.

The "question before the court" was heard in an appeals court, not SCOTUS.

BTW, SCOTUS has not ruled, and IMO should rule once and for all if a Special Investigator by any other name should allowed to search for a crime when there in no underlying crime stated against Trump. Mueller's charter was to investigate Manaforte's colluding with the Russians to influence the investigation. Mueller has allowed the media to turn Trump into a target when he is not. This on it's face is enough for SCOTUS to end it simply as an assault on our political process, because the effect is as designed: To hinder and demoralize, thus inhibiting the elected administration from having the good will necessary to move bipartisan legislation.

In simple English, **** or get off the pot. Your time is up dickwad. If you can't bust Trump by now, you never will.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
11,448
Reaction score
7,526
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
From what I understand, this statement from Mueller's team is intended to head off a defense strategy that might be used by Miller's defense team. I don't see it as having anything to do with Whitaker or anyone else in the Trump administration attempting to shut down the investigation.

Heck, I haven't seen ANYTHING that indicates that Whitaker is going to shut down the investigation.

Now, for sure, Whitaker MIGHT be doing things...but we don't know about them.
I...I...

Umm...I think I agree with what you said here. But that cannot possibly be right.

The only thing which I would quibble with (and I have to, because you and I agreeing completely just doesn't seem right) is that Whitaker has made statements in the past to suggest he would shut down the investigation if given the chance. So I would argue you've seen things which indicate Whitaker might work to shut down the investigation, but, as you said, we don't know about them yet.
 

MrMike

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2018
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
1,249
Location
Everywhere (Travel 80%)
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
So you do not know what a "sealed indictment" is? Hint: it is sealed, meaning it is not known publicly who it is for.

Hmmm...

"Sealed" in Progressiville means CNN and WAPO publish it via an "anonymous source" right? :lamo
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
78,459
Reaction score
32,418
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I...I...

Umm...I think I agree with what you said here. But that cannot possibly be right.

The only thing which I would quibble with (and I have to, because you and I agreeing completely just doesn't seem right) is that Whitaker has made statements in the past to suggest he would shut down the investigation if given the chance. So I would argue you've seen things which indicate Whitaker might work to shut down the investigation, but, as you said, we don't know about them yet.

Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,379
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Generally, "sealed indictments" means the prosecutor deliberately prevented the grand jury from giving the accused any right to offer any defense and to deny the grand jury members any possible means to explore the accusation. Sealed indictments are done when the prosecutor's goal is to obtain indictments in a manner to assure no evidence to the contrary is even allowed. But then Mueller has always been exorbitantly corrupt and a true believer in the perfect police state.

Mueller's practice is simple: Do anything possible to get targeted people imprisoned - guilty or innocent - and then apply all pressure to convince the person the risks are too great to plead not-guilty - assuring no matter what he has destroyed the person's reputation and cost the person massive sums of money in legal defense. Obtaining sealed indictments against political figures certain to not run is just more of Mueller's Gestapo police state tactics and for that alone he should be fired.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why would you ask that? The thread discussion is about the AG's powers with regards to Mueller's investigation, not who is about to be indicted.
The OP, brought up indictments...As though just the threat of those is supposed to make us all go "Oh, ok, well, what you say must be true then..." So, yes it is about who Dana thinks is about to be indicted...get it?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So you do not know what a "sealed indictment" is? Hint: it is sealed, meaning it is not known publicly who it is for.
Clearly you, or Dana has an opinion about who's on the chopping block? Or is it just bs?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,708
Reaction score
53,072
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Clearly you, or Dana has an opinion about who's on the chopping block? Or is it just bs?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Clearly, I will find out when the information becomes public. Why is this complicated for you?
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
84,580
Reaction score
64,062
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The OP, brought up indictments...As though just the threat of those is supposed to make us all go "Oh, ok, well, what you say must be true then..." So, yes it is about who Dana thinks is about to be indicted...get it?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Nobody but Mueller and his team knows who's going to be indicted next.
 

joko104

Banned
Suspended
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,379
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nobody but Mueller and his team knows who's going to be indicted next.

Just like Jews didn't know who the SS was coming for next.
 

Atomic Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
15,594
Reaction score
5,752
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm not clear on how this prevents Whitaker from denying Mueller any requests to sign off on subpoenas and indictments.

So Mueller walks into Whitaker's office and says, "Here's an indictment for X, please sign and approve it." Whitaker says, "No." When then?

I believe if Whitaker were to do so that it would automatically trigger a report about the action to Congress.
 

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,555
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The question before the court, originally filed by Andrew Miller, is whether or not Mueller was properly appointed. This is the exact same argument Nixon used in 1974, which SCOTUS immediately shot down. The administration is expanding this case to ask whether or not subpoenas and indictments issued under Mueller are invalid, due to a change of the Attorney General. Their claim is that subpoenas and indictments are now invalid because neither Sessions nor Rosenstein are part of the Justice Department any more, and subpoenas and indictments are only valid if Whittaker signs off on them. Mueller has fired back, again using the Nixon decision, as well as US Code.

"Similarly, by regulation, the Special Counsel has and continues to “exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.6; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695 (1974) (“So long as [a] regulation is extant it has the force of law.”)."

Read Mueller's complete brief here
.

It has started. This administration is now attempting to shut down the investigation, and guess what? It won't work. More than 3 dozen sealed indictments are already on the DC docket, and Trump has no power whatsoever to make them go away, which is why he is attempting this desperation move, which will fail spectacularly in very short order. The clock of justice is ticking down, and when it reaches zero, there is going to be hell to pay.

https://kbzk.com/cnn-us-politics/20...ment-has-no-impact-in-ongoing-subpoena-fight/

Further proof whitaker is a plant and is either too stupid to realize it or already made a deal with mueller. Or Mueller/Rosenstein put him there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom