Ed Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday

[BobTheCoward]

Nevertheless, it was so transparent that Nixon was subverting the law, that the AG refused his order and so did the Deputy AG.

For purposes of the DoJ, in the dispute between the president and those two, the president's judgement carries the day.

 

[acbytesla]

For purposes of the DoJ, in the dispute between the president and those two, the president's judgement carries the day.

Yet it only did for 11 days for Nixon.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nevertheless, it was so transparent that Nixon was subverting the law by firing Archibald Cox, that the AG refused his order and so did the Deputy AG. And 11 days later a new Special Counsel was appointed.

Worryingly we are in different times.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yet it only did for 11 days for Nixon.

People were able to exert political pressure to change his position. Also something completely his prerogative. At no point did another branch carry out an executive act for him.

 

[acbytesla]

Worryingly we are in different times.

Me too. I HAVE zero doubt that Trump has broken the law many many times given that he doesn't think the rules apply to him and almost takes pride in that fact. I want him to go down more for that fact then any other.

 

[acbytesla]

People were able to exert political pressure to change his position. Also something completely his prerogative. At no point did another branch carry out an executive act for him.

You keep referring to prosecuting the law as an executive act. It isn't.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You keep referring to prosecuting the law as an executive act. It isn't.

For the federal law enforcement, it is. Neither the judiciary not the legislature are often empowered to force an attorney to prosecute a case. And the attorney, under the executive branch, serves at the pleasure of the president.

Saying law enforcement (take care clause) is an act of the executive is standard stuff.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/991783285155155968

To those asking why Mueller sought a 2-month delay for Flynn's sentencing: either (1) he still wants Flynn as an active source, and worries Flynn could be less pliable, cooperative and available post-sentencing, or (2) facts will be revealed at sentencing he doesn't want out yet.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/991783731533963264

2/ While there's also a (3)—prosecutors are so busy on other parts of the Trump-Russia investigation, they haven't had time to adequately prepare for Flynn's sentencing—I think it's more likely we've just been told to expect at least one new (big) indictment in the next 2 months.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/991817375703068672

Michael Caputo, just interviewed by Bob Mueller’s team, told me: “It’s clear they are still really focused on Russia collusion. ... They know more about the Trump campaign than anyone who ever worked there.” He didn’t want to discuss specifics

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/991873750109904896

Michael Caputo: “The special counsel is spearfishing. They know what they are aiming at and are deadly accurate.”

 

[Minoosh]

For the federal law enforcement, it is. Neither the judiciary not the legislature are often empowered to force an attorney to prosecute a case. And the attorney, under the executive branch, serves at the pleasure of the president.

Saying law enforcement (take care clause) is an act of the executive is standard stuff.

I wonder if any state attorneys general are doing their own investigations into whatever Trump and his family might have been doing. I'm thinking of the potential for serious racketeering. He does have quite a bit of de facto and de juris power to interfere with federal investigations, and unlike Nixon he has a Republican Congress and a loyal popular base of devoted fans. IMO Nixon had the legal authority to fire the special counsel etc., but he could not pull it off politically. So I am not seeing a lot of parallels with the Trump situation.

 

[a_unique_person]

Side note - the asthma meds discussion is a derail. It was intended as an anecdote illustrating a broader point, not but doesn't seem to have stayed there.

It illustrated the point well. The "Big Pharma" benefited a few and ignored the greater good of those suffering with a chronic medical condition by eploiting a technicality to boost profits.

 

[Stacko]

Sarah Sanders was asked if James Comey was fired because he wouldn’t tell Trump he wasn’t a target of the investigation. She said, "I am not going to comment on ongoing litigation.” @PeterAlexander's response: "Is that litigation?"​

 

[rwguinn]

For the federal law enforcement, it is. Neither the judiciary not the legislature are often empowered to force an attorney to prosecute a case. And the attorney, under the executive branch, serves at the pleasure of the president.

Saying law enforcement (take care clause) is an act of the executive is standard stuff.

the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws as enacted by the legislative branch and defined by the judicial branch.

A Governor is charged with enforcing the laws of the state. Does this mean a Governor cannot, by definition, break the law? Ask Illinois.
A policeman is charged with enforcing the law? Does this mean he cannot break the law? Some think so, but the data shows differently

 

[BobTheCoward]

the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws as enacted by the legislative branch and defined by the judicial branch.

A Governor is charged with enforcing the laws of the state. Does this mean a Governor cannot, by definition, break the law? Ask Illinois.
A policeman is charged with enforcing the law? Does this mean he cannot break the law? Some think so, but the data shows differently

I can't answer for what other governments do. You might as well ask me about the legal system of Mali.

As for the federal government, what counts as breaking the law and worth charging is his sole discretion. If he fires everyone that disagrees with him, no one has the power to reverse that decision

As for if he can break the law, of course he can. Referees make the wrong ruling all the time, but their decisions often can't be reversed, either.

 

[acbytesla]

For the federal law enforcement, it is. Neither the judiciary not the legislature are often empowered to force an attorney to prosecute a case. And the attorney, under the executive branch, serves at the pleasure of the president.

Saying law enforcement (take care clause) is an act of the executive is standard stuff.

Totally false.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Totally false.

That means you believe the legislature and the judiciary are often empowered to force an attorney to prosecute a case.

 

[Fudbucker]

Feds tapped Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's phones
At least one phone call between a phone line associated with Cohen and the White House was intercepted, a source said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...d-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-s-phones-n871011

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Feds tapped Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's phones
At least one phone call between a phone line associated with Cohen and the White House was intercepted, a source said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...d-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-s-phones-n871011

given that these calls happened before the raid, we can safely assume that they didn't alleviate the Fed's suspicions.

 

[acbytesla]

That means you believe the legislature and the judiciary are often empowered to force an attorney to prosecute a case.

No, it doesn't. The President has no right to direct or terminate the functions of the US Attorney. He may hire and fire them. That is all. But he may not tell them what to do.