The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Richard Day's picture

    CAN TRUMP REALLY FIRE MUELLER?

    By Richard Day on Mon, 06/12/2017 - 10:57pm |

    Richard M. Nixon, ca. 1935 - 1982 - NARA - 530679.jpg

    Director Robert S. Mueller- III.jpg

    I have been confronted by this idea that Trump might fire the independent counsel appointed by the DOJ #2; meaning Mueller?

    I do not feel the protocols are there. That is I feel that the media is skipping a step so to speak.

    So I am very confused which is my normal situation. hahhahaha

    I think that at this point only Attorney General Sessions would be able to fire Mueller?

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-confidant-says-president-may-1497315503-htmlstory.html

    Sessions can obviously fire Mueller; I am sure.

    But Trump may not?

    Here is another site:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/will-trump-fire-mueller-russia-investigation-james-comey-2017-6

    ​No, Trump (as far as I can tell) might direct the Attorney General to fire Mueller.

    But Trump cannot fire Mueller on his own.

    Please, I am asking a question here.

    Please tell me that I am wrong.

    But Sessions and only Sessions might come to some conclusion that Mueller shall be fired?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Muelle

    I recall the Saturday Night Massacre

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

    So I do not get this idea concerning Trump firing Mueller?

    I am confused which is why i post this mess.

    Sessions might surely fire this esteemed member of the elite.

    Session's second in command might remove Mueller.

    BUT TRUMP CANNOT TOUCH THE SUBJECT.

    HAHAHAH

    The Courts (I am sure) would rule that Trump never appointed Mueller.

    The DOJ did?

    So, the thing of it is, would Sessions really obey such an illegal order? I should be worried about many wondrous philosophical quandaries. hahhahah

    ​BUT I THINK I AM CORRECT ON THE PROTOCOLS INVOLVED.

    Serve it up Trump.

    Even Sessions aint gonna love your call

     

    This has nothin to do with nothin but I need some solace somewhere:

     

     

     

     

     

    Comments

    Lawrence O'Donnell provides a good discussion on this topic.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-dMb2bvTRI


    by Richard Day on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 7:20am

    Only Rosenstein can fire him. 

    "The attorney general is the one who has to fire him," said CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on "Anderson Cooper 360." "(Attorney General) Jeff Sessions is recused here, so it would be up to (Deputy Attorney General) Rod Rosenstein, who was the person who just appointed Bob Mueller a couple of weeks ago."

    So Trump would have to fire Rosenstein, so that someone else is Mueller's hierarchical superior. Not sure who takes on that position in the absence of Rosenstein. 


    by Obey on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 8:21am

    The line of authority is now hilarious when you think of it.

    Let us posit that Rosenstein is 'ordered' or directed to fire Mueller.

    (I think it is difficult, even in the face of recusal, for Sessions not to be so directed)

    What is hilarious, as in the case of Bork, is that the Solicitor General would be next in line to be tapped by the Prez and directed to fire Mueller.

    But as O'Donnell points out, there is no Solicitor General at this point in time.

    hahahahahha

    This is due to the fact that the WH has not nominated anyone for that position.

    As I understand it an acting Solicitor General does not have the power to fire a Special Counsel.

    THIS IS ALL VERY STRANGE.


    by Richard Day on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 8:36am

    I keep missing steps with regard to protocols.

    hahahahah

    NIXON

    The Saturday Night Massacre involved the following steps:

    Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson to fire Cox, the Special Counsel.

    Elliot said: Fuck you.

    Nixon fired Elliot.

    So then Nixon ordered Will Ruckelshaus (the second in command at the DOJ) to fire Cox.

    William said: FUCK YOU.

    Ruckelshaus was fired.

    Finally, according to Federal Regulations, Nixon called upon Robert Bork, the Solicitor General to fire Cox.

    You all recall what a gem Robert Bork was and is. hahahahah

    Bork said:

    OF COURSE I WILL, I LOVE YOU MR. PRESIDENT!

    And Cox was fired.

    Now we have an Attorney General in the form of Jeff Sessions who somehow 'recused' himself from Russian inquiries.

    And his subordinate (who was duly confirmed by the Senate) appointed Mueller.

    Well Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mueller.

    Now, if Sessions is directed by the POTUS to fired Mueller and Sessions resigns, well...

    Trump must direct or order Rosenstein to fire Mueller.

    And Rosenstein has already testified that he would not fire Mueller.

    So Trump could fire Rosenstein.

    And then, supposedly, Trump would be left with a Solicitor General who would be directed...

    We we have no Solicitor General at this time.

    hhahahahahah

    Hence the hilarity.

    hhahhahahahaha

    So what if Trump decided to fire Mueller on his own?

    Well Mueller could simply file some petition for a writ directly to the Supreme Court.

    Fuck lower courts. hahahah

    ​So the Supreme Court could order the Prez to cease and desist.

    So what is a president to do?

    This all is a comedy of errors.

    If the Supreme Court so ruled, Mueller would just keep on keepin on.

    WHAT THE HELL WAS THE ORIGINAL QUESTION AGAIN?

     

     

     


    by Richard Day on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 11:29am

    Your comments here with Obey are very thought provoking: that the normal line of succession is such a mess that he couldn't follow Nixon's lead if he wanted to, hah, shows what danger we have with this president, does it not?  It's like: what impeachment was invented for!

    Forget that it's Russia, just the fact of all these foreign "entanglements" with all his people involved one way or another, the nepotism, too. To the founders, it would have looked like there was a coup already, nothing is working the way it should....there's no there there, there's still not a fully operating government there. (A reminder: no U.S. attorney replacements yet!) He blames Dem obstruction, of course, to distract from that they have hardly nominated anyone yet....

    I really was impressed with the D.C./Maryland suit, on an emotional, patriotic level and presenting the big picture like we should all be seeing  it. Those two guys see wassup, they see the big picture.  There is major dysfunction in the presidency.  The case itself is piddling, but the stakes are huge. Got yuge foreign entanglements? Divest and don't hire anyone having anything to do with them in any way shape or form or just don't bother to run for president!!  Should be just that simple, isn't that what the founders intended?


    by artappraiser on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 3:35pm

    Trump could pardon himself of any transgressions, emoluments,  Russian meddling.

    My understanding is he would have to resign or be impeached. By Republicans. When "the Base" finally has had enough of him.

    If Trump keeps firing DOJ people until he finds one to fire Mueller:

    Goldsmith takes heart that if this “crazy scenario” ever happened, “Congress would rise up quickly to stop the President” and noted: “If I am naive in thinking this, then we are indeed in trouble.”

    This gets to the heart of the matter. The protection against lawless behavior in a democracy, in the end, isn’t the institutional framework set forth in our Constitution, but the will of public officials to make that system work.... if he tries to sack the special counsel, he will be making a bet that the country is too weak and disoriented (divided is more like it) to stand together behind its constitutional structure of law


    by NCD on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 5:15pm

    but the will of public officials to make that system work...

    That's it, that's what the MD & DC attorneys general argued in announcing their suit, straight out saying Congress is not doing its job to make the system work.

    Just for the hell of it, I looked up the Congressional oaths

    Senators & House of Rep. have identical Oath of Office 

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 5:28pm

    Senator, are you impugning the unimpeachable honor of Speaker Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnel?


    by NCD on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 7:44pm

    Trump will fire Mueller, it's just a matter of time, authoritarian impulses and arithmetic increasing probability. 

    And the GOP will back him up, they already are claiming Mueller is a partisan.


    by NCD on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 1:41pm

    Don't disagree that your first sentence could be correct. But I would argue on the second, that it's only one specific wing of the GOP that are doing the Mueller is a partisan thing. After reading all those news articles on it last night, seemed very much to me a trial balloon being thrown out there by the old Gingrich insurgent gang, a lot of people not in office, so totally free to agitate.

    And it wasn't entirely clear to me that the White House was part of that sub plot-- maybe something more like this: Trump is doing rambling thoughts with friend on a personal phone call where he feels free to brainstorm, says something like "so frustrating, sometimes I think I should just go whole hog massacre" and the friend calls the gang and they get together to offer the possibility up for him, to find out what might be the worst case result. I.E., to see if most GOP would support or not.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 5:39pm

    I thought Ryan's statement this morning was interesting (in that I wasn't expecting it).   He said he respects Mueller as a competent and fair professional.  He is confident that trump and all associates will be vindicated by his investigation.  I really liked it because it makes Newt G look like the scumbag that he is.  Also, the trump propaganda team is shouting that 3 of Mueller's hires donated to Hillary.  So they want him to fire them and hire people who voted for trump.  Well, THAT would make sense.

    The fact that Mueller has many GOP creeds should reassure any sane person that he will insist on facts, and a non-partisan investigation.  But I guess that is actually the problem...facts...the GOP just HATES them!

    Fairness?  It's for suckers!


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 6:19pm

    Hey C'Ville, I was just going to add the Ryan comments to my reply to NCD, and I find you're already on it. There are defiintiely factions in the GOP as bad as the Dems, if people aren't seeing how Trump has caused that, I think they are missing the real big picture of the mess.

    With Ryan, we also should all keep in mind that he's high up on the Presidential replacement list!! So what he says is as important to parse as any other of the major players. Certainly the Gingrich club is not in the center of things. They have their own agenda(s) and one should be wary of what those might be (if you can figure em out).

    Anyhew, as long as I went to find it, here's Ryan:

    WITH VIDEO with caption The notion that President Donald Trump might dismiss Robert Mueller earned a frosty reception from Paul Ryan. @ Politico · 7 hours ago

    And if anyone's thinking: is she thinking Ryan is cynically thinking: gee, ya know, I wouldn't mind becoming president if this gets worse, not to mention with a reputation as respectful of rule of law and boy scouts like Mueller....well, yes I am thinking that....


    by artappraiser on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 6:52pm

    Ryan can already imagine his own wine cellar full of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru.

    Pardon me, have I impugned the infamous Republicans honor?


    by NCD on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 7:55pm

    White House leakers to NYTimes are claiming credit for stopping him from doing so:

    Trump Stews. Staff Steps In. Mueller Is Safe for Now.

    By GLENN THRUSH, MAGGIE HABERMAN and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS 11:05 PM ET

    Criticisms of Robert S. Mueller III led the president to question his impartiality, but the White House said he wouldn’t be fired


    by artappraiser on Wed, 06/14/2017 - 1:09am

    Let's just say that trump is aware that there is evidence of his financial ties and debts to Russia.  Let's just say that he knows that this (and more) information about trump's money-laundering for Russia are also bound to come out. 

    Never mind all of his 'satellites' also go down (including his son-in-law).  He doesn't care about any of that.  And he doesn't care about collusion either.  That can always be covered up if everyone stays loyal to him  -- ?

    The fact is, he knows if the facts come out, he will go down, and he will lose everything. So what do you think he will do?  I think he will go for broke.


    by CVille Dem on Fri, 06/16/2017 - 6:40pm