The rules are clear: Whitaker can’t supervise

[ExpandMyMind]

Quote

I had the privilege of drafting the special counsel rules 20 years ago, when I was at the Justice Department. Recall the setting: The independent counsel statute was expiring in June 1999, and there was a robust debate about what should take its place. After the multitude of investigations of the Clinton administration, many in Washington clamored for renewal of the supercharged independent prosecutor in the act. Others, seeing what they believed were abuses by then-independent counsel Ken Starr (and prior independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, who oversaw the earlier Iran-contra investigation of the Reagan administration more than a decade before Starr), believed that something more accountable and less independent had to be created instead.

WP

[Space Commander Travis]

This isn't another complaint about the new Doctor Who is it? 

[RoofGardener]

hmm... slightly misleading title. 

It SHOULD read... "The Rules Are Clear.. Whitaker CAN supervise... ". It's just that the people drafting those rules didn't anticipate this situation. 

[+and-then]

By the standards the Left want to invoke, Mueller could not have been appointed by Rosenstein.  He would have needed Senate confirmation for THAT specific appointment because of the expanded authority which came with it.  That case is being heard now, I think.

[ExpandMyMind]

14 minutes ago, and then said:

By the standards the Left want to invoke, Mueller could not have been appointed by Rosenstein.  He would have needed Senate confirmation for THAT specific appointment because of the expanded authority which came with it.  That case is being heard now, I think.

Do you mean Mueller or Rosenstein would need Senate confirmation? Rosenstein was approved by the Senate if you meant him. And there is no need for Mueller to be confirmed. The reason for the Senate confirmations has nothing to do with 'expanded authority', whatever you think that is. They are vetted and decided on before the Senate because they, as principal officers, report directly to the President and have only he or she as a superior. Mueller does not report to the President, he has a boss who does so, therfore no Senate approval is needed.

Edited November 12, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[spartan max2]

57 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

This isn't another complaint about the new Doctor Who is it? 

Good sir do not get me started  lol

[ExpandMyMind]

51 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

hmm... slightly misleading title. 

It SHOULD read... "The Rules Are Clear.. Whitaker CAN supervise... ". It's just that the people drafting those rules didn't anticipate this situation. 

Maybe you didn't read full article? The Constitution seems to be pretty clear on the subject. Here is another article.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

27 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Do you mean Mueller or Rosenstein would need Senate confirmation? Rosenstein was approved by the Senate if you meant him. And there is no need for Mueller to be confirmed. The reason for the Senate confirmations has nothing to do with 'expanded authority', whatever you think that is. They are vetted and decided on before the Senate because they, as principal officers, report directly to the President and have only he or she as a superior. Mueller does not report to the President, he has a boss who does so, therfore no Senate approval is needed.

Here's more on that matter:

Mueller's role as special counsel for the Russia investigation is not considered a "principal role," which according to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, would require Senate confirmation to occupy. However, the attorney general is considered a principal role, and therefore needs Senate confirmation.

https://www.axios.com/trump-whitaker-mueller-senate-confirmation-doj-a5734863-9426-47bb-9501-c93d53b76333.html

The legal and constitutional issues raised by Whitaker's appointment (such as whether a temporary appointment is considered a principle role) are covered in the following article:

https://www.axios.com/trump-acting-attorney-general-whitaker-legal-challenges-a9199197-9817-42b4-8df2-95f92cabc861.html

[Kittens Are Jerks]

Interesting opinion piece (and warning) by Adam Schiff:

The president and Whitaker should heed this warning: The new Democratic majority will protect the special counsel and the integrity of the Justice Department. Should Whitaker fail to recuse himself — all indications are that he plans not to — and seek to obstruct the investigation, serve as a back channel to the president or his legal team or interfere in the investigations in any way, he will be called to answer. His actions will be exposed.

It is no mystery why the president chose Whitaker, an obscure and ill-qualified official never confirmed by the Senate, which many legal experts believe makes the appointment itself unconstitutional. Trump chose him to protect himself, his family and his close associates from the special counsel’s investigation and other investigations within the Justice Department.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/adam-schiff-matthew-whitaker-were-watching-you/2018/11/12/996bcdf2-e696-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html

[+Hammerclaw]

So, Mueller has no Constitutional status nor is subject to the expired Special Counsel Act and is merely an employee of the Justice Department? Great point. 

[aztek]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

So, Mueller has no Constitutional status nor is subject to the expired Special Counsel Act and is merely an employee of the Justice Department? Great point. 

he is a white knight for liberals, they think he'll get trump fired, and once it happens every problem will go away, lol.  never mind that his circus failed miserably. and has absolutely 0 effect on trump presidency, but they still hope lmao.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

he is a white knight for liberals, they think he'll get trump fired, and once it happens every problem will go away, lol.  never mind that his circus failed miserably. and has absolutely 0 effect on trump presidency, but they still hope lmao.

If he is fired, projecting forward, first the cries of outrage, finger-pointing, a series of investigations and hearings they're already planning in any event. Then, they launch impeachment proceedings, doomed to fail in a spectacular and humiliating defeat, then stand for reelection in 2020. It just gets better and better.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

So, Mueller has no Constitutional status nor is subject to the expired Special Counsel Act and is merely an employee of the Justice Department? Great point. 

You seem to have a particularly difficult time with understanding words. 

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, ExpandMyMind said:

You seem to have a particularly difficult time with understanding words. 

You seem to have trouble with the gist of yours quoted back to you. Mueller has no special status save for what the Justice Department chooses to allow him. He was hired from the private sector and no matter how significant some see his work, has no legal protection from being fired.

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You seem to have trouble with the gist of yours quoted back to you. Mueller has no special status save for what the Justice Department chooses to allow him. He was hired from the private sector and no matter how significant some see his work, has no legal protection from being fired.

 

The whole point of this thread is that the new pseudo AG doesn't have authority over the investigation, so doesn't have the authority to end it.

Regardless, he won't be fired.

Edited November 12, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, ExpandMyMind said:

He won't be fired.

Considering the House Majority's plans, he has nothing to lose. They couldn't possibly hate him more. 

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Considering the House Majority's plans, he has nothing to lose. They couldn't possibly hate him more. 

No, but he would lose the support of a considerable number or Republicans. Which is why he hasn't already ended the investigation.

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, ExpandMyMind said:

No, but he would lose the support of a considerable number or Republicans. Which is why he hasn't already ended the investigation.

That was before the election. Provoking an open war and a futile impeachment attempt would play right into his hands. A do nothing Congress wasting taxpayers time and money indulging in their vendetta, crashing and burning in the end would be grist for the campaign mill. Trump isn't exactly known for avoiding controversy and most of his detractors in the House were defeated.

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

No, but he would lose the support of a considerable number or Republicans. Which is why he hasn't already ended the investigation.

Why would Trump bother?  Mueller is impotent because all he can do is dredge up more innuendo.  If there had been any proof it would have been brought forward prior to the election.  You cannot rationally believe that the Dems are sitting on such information when they could actually have a chance of removing him, can you?  Let the fools bring the circus to town and show everyone the full crazy version for two years.  They won't hamper his support, only grow it.

[ExpandMyMind]

14 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

That was before the election. Provoking an open war and a futile impeachment attempt would play right into his hands. A do nothing Congress wasting taxpayers time and money indulging in their vendetta, crashing and burning in the end would be grist for the campaign mill. Trump isn't exactly known for avoiding controversy and most of his detractors in the House were defeated.

How would it play into his hands?

Edit - Oh, for reelection? I don't think you're quite grasping just how badly Republicans performed recently. A projected 38 House seats lost - the most gained for Dems since Watergate - and while Dems had unfavourable elections in the Senate and performed pretty close to the projections, in said Senate Dems had 15 million more votes than Republicans. 15. Million. That's an incredible rebuke of the Trump Presidency.

This is before looking at more local elections.

Good luck to him in the next election.

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by ExpandMyMind

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

How would it play into his hands?

He'll be running for re-election this time around. What better feather in his cap to motivate his base than a humiliating defeat of his enemies!

[ExpandMyMind]

18 minutes ago, and then said:

Why would Trump bother?  Mueller is impotent because all he can do is dredge up more innuendo.  If there had been any proof it would have been brought forward prior to the election.  You cannot rationally believe that the Dems are sitting on such information when they could actually have a chance of removing him, can you?  Let the fools bring the circus to town and show everyone the full crazy version for two years.  They won't hamper his support, only grow it.

It's an investigation and Dems aren't privy to the details. How would they have anything? They can't even do anything in the House until January.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

He'll be running for re-election this time around. What better feather in his cap to motivate his base than a humiliating defeat of his enemies!

Yeah, I edited my comment.

[+Hammerclaw]

22 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

How would it play into his hands?

Edit - Oh, for reelection? I don't think you're quite grasping just how badly Republicans performed recently. A projected 38 House seats lost - the most gained for Dems since Watergate - and while Dems had unfavourable elections in the Senate and performed pretty close to the projections, in said Senate Dems had 15 million more votes than Republicans. 15. Million. That's an incredible rebuke of the Trump Presidency.

This is before looking at more local elections.

Good luck to him in the next election.

 

Blue States with large populations don't carry as much weight in Presidential Elections. The Electoral College was created to afford parity to the States in Presidential Contests. It's hard for foreigners, who often think of America's fifty divisions as provinces, to grasp the significance to the American people of our concept of "The State". We are very serious about our quasi-independence. It's enshrined in the Constitution and American perception of self. A national plebiscite would result in the vast majority of States being dominated by the populations of only a few. Except for recent sour grapes, this would be abhorrent to the majority of State populations.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[ExpandMyMind]

9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Blue States with large populations don't carry as much weight in Presidential Elections. The Electoral College was created to afford parity to the States in Presidential Contests. It's hard for foreigners, who often think of America's fifty divisions as provinces, to grasp the significance to the American people of our concept of "The State". We are very serious about our quasi-independence. It's enshrined in the Constitution and American perception of self. A national plebiscite would result in the vast majority of States being dominated by the populations of only a few. Except for recent sour grapes, this would be abhorrent to the majority of State populations.

I know this but 10 Dems were up for reelection in States that Trump won, and most kept their seats. 

15 million votes is a massive protest of Trump, no matter how you try to spin it.