Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sideroxylon said:
Are many of you joining the afternoon protests agsinst the firing of Sessions?
Click to expand...

It's kind of a hard thing to get one's head around, Sessions should never have been AG and his appointment is a joke, but it's also obvious with his firing and the appointment of a pro-Trump, anti-Muller stodge, that this is a pretext to try to obstruct and close down the investigation before the Dems take control of the house in Jan next year.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump should become a PR manager: he can make everyone look sympathetic by firing them, even people like Sessions or Comey.
Click to expand...

Again, I don’t think people have found sympathy for Sessions. What I am seeing is concern for Trump removing an AG who he hated for doing the right thing and recusing himself from the investigation into the president’s campaign. He is removing the distance between himself and the investigation into himself, family and associates. It is the removal of the buffer that Sessions was that is the cause for concern.
 
My reading leads me to believe that Trump can just shut Mueller down now, if he so chooses.

Do I have that totally wrong?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Actually, he can't directly, but he could instruct his Acting AG to do so.
Click to expand...

I don't think he could do that legally. But he could totally do that.

Of course, Whitaker has already said that if he were in charge he wouldn't shut it down but would instead just cut all its funding so that Mueller couldn't actually do anything. Perhaps that's what Trump's oft-repeated canard over the last few months that the investigation is "very expensive" has been leading up to.
 
Trump's gotten pretty good at doing things he can't do.

Yet again he's invoked Trump Principe... "I can do anything I want if nobody stops me."

And a flustered "But... but you can't do that!" from the Left isn't stopping him.
 
The Big Dog said:
me?

Pretty funny actually, cannot believe that Mueller did not move to wrap it up quicker.

Can you imagine that Trump was under control leading up to the midterms?
Click to expand...

Yes, hilarious, because criminal justice is supposed to be based on feelings, not facts, and take the time one feels is right, instead of what due diligence requires. I mean, c'mon, we need to get back to frontier justice and let the noose loose on the land!
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I don't think he could do that legally. But he could totally do that.

Of course, Whitaker has already said that if he were in charge he wouldn't shut it down but would instead just cut all its funding so that Mueller couldn't actually do anything. Perhaps that's what Trump's oft-repeated canard over the last few months that the investigation is "very expensive" has been leading up to.
Click to expand...

If somebody started a crowdfunding effort to keep Mueller's investigation going, I would absolutely contribute. I suspect that in the first few hours, such an effort would collect more than Mueller has spent to date.
 
Ladewig said:
I was shaken by the concept itself. When the moderator felt the need to ask that question I realized that we live in frightening times.

ETA: I am also worried about his response. Saying “I’m a New Testement guy” does not indicate whether or not he would reject a Leviticus guy who wanted to run a courtroom with a Biblical sense of justice. “Bailiff, pluck out that man’s eye and then get a minister in here so that this rapist can marry his victim.”
Click to expand...
It would indicate that he would say God is the only judge and Jesus tells us to forgive those that sin against us. So one of his judges would be saying "it was a terrible thing you did but I shall as Jesus commands forgive you, have a nice day, trail ended let him go".
 
Belz... said:
How would you propose stopping him?
Click to expand...
There isn't a legal means. It appears that the USA checks and balances was partly based on the premise that good, honorable people who wanted the best for the country would be elected to high office.

It didn't take into an account a person as dishonorable, vindictive and without shame and principles as Trump would be elected
 
Darat said:
There isn't a legal means. It appears that the USA checks and balances was partly based on the premise that good, honorable people who wanted the best for the country would be elected to high office.

It didn't take into an account a person as dishonorable, vindictive and without shame and principles as Trump would be elected
Click to expand...
Agreed. So much of our government seems to have been based on gentlemen's agreements that fall apart when someone like Trump just ignores them. It's sort of why he keeps surprising people by surviving all the scandals that would tank a normal politician. He just brazens his way through when anyone with a shred of decency would have resigned, and nobody expected that.
 
Darat said:
There isn't a legal means. It appears that the USA checks and balances was partly based on the premise that good, honorable people who wanted the best for the country would be elected to high office.

It didn't take into an account a person as dishonorable, vindictive and without shame and principles as Trump would be elected
Click to expand...

Actually, it did. It just assumed that the majority in Congress would not be as “dishonorable, vindictive and without shame and principles as Trump”, and that they would uphold their duty to the Constitution, rather than wiping their collective rear with it as the GOP has done.
 
Darat said:
It didn't take into an account a person as dishonorable, vindictive and without shame and principles as Trump would be elected
Click to expand...

Or that those whose job it is to provide said checks and balances would enable him instead.

That's the difference between Trump and Nixon - with Nixon the checks and balances were working and both parties were working to root out malfeasance.
 
wareyin said:
Agreed. So much of our government seems to have been based on gentlemen's agreements that fall apart when someone like Trump just ignores them. It's sort of why he keeps surprising people by surviving all the scandals that would tank a normal politician. He just brazens his way through when anyone with a shred of decency would have resigned, and nobody expected that.
Click to expand...


It isn't just Trump ignoring them though, is it. It's those people who hold the power of checks and balances over the President. I don't think that those people are doing their jobs because they are so beholden to their paymasters.
 
No system, no government, no Constitution can ever be expected to account for either a populace or a legislature that just don't give a crap.

Like I said earlier nobody thought to put a check and balance in against the government just not bothering to use their checks and balances nor would there have been a way for them to put any possible to check to implement it if they could.

"We just sort of expect the populace to elect at least halfway competent people who at least pretend to care" is the implied, unwritten, pre-Preamble to the Constitution.

In a Democracy an at least somewhat engaged, informed, and at least trying to do the good as best they can populace is the ultimate check and balance and the ultimate 4th Branch.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom