Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve said:
I do not foresee "rioting in the streets" in the USA over any political acts/decisions by Trump and his cronies. You will continue to let him do as he pleases and do nothing more than moan about it on the internet. The only thing that will get enough of you off your butts is nationwide economic problems that seriously impact most personal incomes.
Click to expand...

For the record, I did not say rioting.

Have people forgotten the women's march the day after Trump was sworn in?

Trump and his base get a lot of news coverage. That doesn't mean the rest of us are sitting around doing nothing.
 
acbytesla said:
It will be made public if the house flips. That is a guarantee. Executive Privilege does not extend to the Justice Department.
Click to expand...
Giuliani and Fox News nutters have been telling Trump he has authority over the Special Council.

And given Trump just decided he can suppress information about Kavanaugh, seems like he's on a roll there believing his power to break the law is absolute.
 
Steve said:
I do not foresee "rioting in the streets" in the USA over any political acts/decisions by Trump and his cronies. You will continue to let him do as he pleases and do nothing more than moan about it on the internet. The only thing that will get enough of you off your butts is nationwide economic problems that seriously impact most personal incomes.
Click to expand...

I was being hyperbolic when I used "rioting in the streets". I will amend that to "massive demonstrations" but I do not rule out the very real possibility of violence. Anger will definitely be part of those demonstrations. I strongly believe the majority of Americans will not stand for such an attempt of Trumpian dictatorship.
 
Steve said:
I do not foresee "rioting in the streets" in the USA over any political acts/decisions by Trump and his cronies. You will continue to let him do as he pleases and do nothing more than moan about it on the internet. The only thing that will get enough of you off your butts is nationwide economic problems that seriously impact most personal incomes.
Click to expand...

Dammit, Steve. Don't sugar coat it! Give it to us straight!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Giuliani and Fox News nutters have been telling Trump he has authority over the Special Council.

And given Trump just decided he can suppress information about Kavanaugh, seems like he's on a roll there believing his power to break the law is absolute.
Click to expand...

Giuliani doesn't know CRAP. Congress not only has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT for oversight, It is their duty. The Executive branch cannot prevent it.
 
acbytesla said:
Giuliani doesn't know CRAP. Congress not only has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT for oversight, It is their duty. The Executive branch cannot prevent it.
Click to expand...

Mueller was not appointed by Congress. Technically, the occupant of the Oval Office does have authority over the DOJ, which could get rid of Mueller, though they are supposed to show good cause (which would not include because he's hurting the administration).

Richard Nixon faced the same thing during Watergate, resullting In the resignations of the Attorney General and his deputy before finding someone unethical enough to do the deed (Solicitor General Robert Bork). The dismissal was later found in court to be illegal. Republicans were so ashamed that Bork was later nominated to the Supreme Court.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
For the record, I did not say rioting.

Have people forgotten the women's march the day after Trump was sworn in?

Trump and his base get a lot of news coverage. That doesn't mean the rest of us are sitting around doing nothing.
Click to expand...

True, you did not say rioting. That was stacyhs. I got my quotes mixed up and I apologise.

The marches that have taken place since the inauguration have had minimal noticeable effect on Trump. That will likely continue.
 
acbytesla said:
Giuliani doesn't know CRAP. Congress not only has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT for oversight, It is their duty. The Executive branch cannot prevent it.
Click to expand...
And Fox anchors don't know squat either.

What do you suppose Rosenstein and/or Mueller are going to do if they get an order from Trump they don't believe he has the authority to give? Seems like Sessions and Rosenstein have taken a stand on the other side of the Wall of Trump.

November can't come too soon.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And Fox anchors don't know squat either.

What do you suppose Rosenstein and/or Mueller are going to do if they get an order from Trump they don't believe he has the authority to give? Seems like Sessions and Rosenstein have taken a stand on the other side of the Wall of Trump.

November can't come too soon.
Click to expand...

My guess is that both would ignore his order. Neither believes Trump has that authority. He would have to fire them. Same may be true about Sessions.
 
Babbylonian said:
Mueller was not appointed by Congress. Technically, the occupant of the Oval Office does have authority over the DOJ, which could get rid of Mueller, though they are supposed to show good cause (which would not include because he's hurting the administration).

Richard Nixon faced the same thing during Watergate, resullting In the resignations of the Attorney General and his deputy before finding someone unethical enough to do the deed (Solicitor General Robert Bork). The dismissal was later found in court to be illegal. Republicans were so ashamed that Bork was later nominated to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


11 days after Nixon had Bork fire Cox, he appointed Leon Jaworski to become Special Counsel and Jaworski And Jaworski immediately subpoenaed the tapes

And Bork was NOT confirmed.
 
acbytesla said:
11 days after Nixon had Bork fire Cox, he appointed Leon Jaworski to become Special Counsel and Jaworski And Jaworski immediately subpoenaed the tapes

And Bork was NOT confirmed.
Click to expand...
I know. My general point was just that the executive branch is, in theory, in charge of whether or not a special counsel keeps the job, and that if Bork had strong ethics he would have joined the resignation club. Oh, and that his nomination for the SC was bat **** crazy.
 
I don't think there will be marches comparable to the women's marches after Trump's inauguration if he suppressed Mueller's report, for a few reasons:

1) It's something slightly more esoteric. "Didn't release a report" doesn't have the visceral impact of "grab 'em by the pussy", and every day citizens are much less likely to have a MeToo story about someone not releasing a report.

2) There was direct, incontrovertible evidence Trump said what he said about grabbing women, whereas the suppression of Mueller's report would be the suppression of evidence itself. Some who would march on evidence will not march on a lack of evidence.

3) It's been over a year now, and there has already been a severe numbing effect re all things Trump. If the kerfuffle over the size of his inauguration crowd were to happen now, do you think it would be as big news as it was at the time? Given that just the other day he explained away empty seats at a rally by saying that maybe those people had gone to the toilet and that was barely reported, I don't think it would.

4) It's been over a year, there have been plenty of protests, and nothing has changed. If anything, Trump has become worse over time. There will be plenty who have an attitude of "why should I bother? It's pointless".

5) There actually is less point in protesting than there once was. It's not going to affect Trump, the GOP, or policy in any way; everything is reported on already so it's not going to draw attention to anything; and anti-Trump protests hardly get reported on any more, so it's not going to draw attention to the fact that people are upset.

I think Trump protests have peaked, save him doing something like actually getting into a nuclear war with North Korea.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I don't think there will be marches comparable to the women's marches after Trump's inauguration if he suppressed Mueller's report, for a few reasons:

1) It's something slightly more esoteric. "Didn't release a report" doesn't have the visceral impact of "grab 'em by the pussy", and every day citizens are much less likely to have a MeToo story about someone not releasing a report.

2) There was direct, incontrovertible evidence Trump said what he said about grabbing women, whereas the suppression of Mueller's report would be the suppression of evidence itself. Some who would march on evidence will not march on a lack of evidence.

3) It's been over a year now, and there has already been a severe numbing effect re all things Trump. If the kerfuffle over the size of his inauguration crowd were to happen now, do you think it would be as big news as it was at the time? Given that just the other day he explained away empty seats at a rally by saying that maybe those people had gone to the toilet and that was barely reported, I don't think it would.

4) It's been over a year, there have been plenty of protests, and nothing has changed. If anything, Trump has become worse over time. There will be plenty who have an attitude of "why should I bother? It's pointless".

5) There actually is less point in protesting than there once was. It's not going to affect Trump, the GOP, or policy in any way; everything is reported on already so it's not going to draw attention to anything; and anti-Trump protests hardly get reported on any more, so it's not going to draw attention to the fact that people are upset.

I think Trump protests have peaked, save him doing something like actually getting into a nuclear war with North Korea.
Click to expand...

Let's just hope we don't have the opportunity to find out.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Vox's Today Explained podcast has a portrait of Mueller, the man, his career and personality.
"America's worst defense attorney":
https://www.vox.com/pages/podcasts
Click to expand...
Quoted for all who haven't listened to that podcast yet. Quite enlightning!

The main point I take away from this: Mueller is highly unlikely, because of his military officer background and personal precedent, to take the investigation beyond its defined scope and on to a fishing expedition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom