Go to Villagebet.com.au for free horse racing tips - Click here now |
|
The Trump Presidency |
Post Reply | Page <1 207208209210211 1094> |
Author | |||
Redemption
Champion Joined: 09 Apr 2017 Location: Melbourne Status: Offline Points: 5387 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
ABBOTT IS BACK EVERYONE
BIGTIME WELCOME TO THE NEW PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA AGAIN |
|||
maccamax
Champion Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Status: Offline Points: 41473 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
WHALE :- If they gave you one like Melanie , it would be like giving an ice cream to a Pig. |
|||
Shammy Davis
Champion Joined: 14 Dec 2012 Status: Offline Points: 8569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/07/22/politics/five-poll-numbers-democrats-uneasy/index.html |
|||
Dr E
Champion Joined: 05 Feb 2013 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 28563 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Awful prognosis for this condition too maccamax - they reckon he has 12 -18 months at best, and at that rate 6-9 months before he qualifies to be a Democrats Senator ...
|
|||
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
|
|||
Shammy Davis
Champion Joined: 14 Dec 2012 Status: Offline Points: 8569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
Passing Through
Champion Joined: 09 Jan 2013 Location: At home Status: Offline Points: 79533 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Thank goodness he has health insurance.
|
|||
|
|||
Passing Through
Champion Joined: 09 Jan 2013 Location: At home Status: Offline Points: 79533 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Excellent piece in Lawfare yesterday outlining the options and challenges from Mueller's viewpoint.
How White House Threats Condition Mueller’s RealityWhat does the world look like today if you’re Robert Mueller? You’ve got a huge, sprawling, immeasurably complicated job, and the President of the United States has just put you on notice of what you already have long suspected: You may not have much time. A pair of stories published last night by the New York Times and Washington Postannounced that the White House is looking to “undercut” Mueller’s investigation and is “scouring” for information on potential conflicts of interest on the part of Mueller’s team. The stories describe a systematic effort to comb through the backgrounds of Mueller and his office in the hope of finding material damaging enough to merit firing Mueller, requesting the recusal of members of his team, or at the very least discrediting the independent investigation in the eyes of the public. The White House is also examining the possible scope of the president’s pardon power and pushing the argument that the special counsel investigation should be sharply limited to exclude Trump’s finances. The attacks on Mueller and his office have been going on for a while now, but this new wave of hostility from the White House appears to have been instigated by concerns that Mueller’s probe will widen to include Trump’s business transactions—or that it already has. These reports follow Trump’s own sharp criticism of Mueller in his extensive interviewwith the Times on Wednesday, along with his attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for appointing Mueller following Sessions’ recusal. After expressing his belief that “a special counsel should never have been appointed in this case,” Trump suggests that Mueller’s having met with the White House to discuss coming on as FBI Director following Comey’s dismissal constitutes a conflict of interest. He also hints darkly at other, unnamed improprieties on Mueller’s part: “There were many other conflicts that I haven’t said, but I will at some point.” And he seems to call into question the integrity of Mueller’s staff as well, presumably in reference to the fact that some of them have donated to Democrats: “[T]here are so many conflicts that everybody has.” The White House has also tried to discredit Mueller as a close friend of Comey, which Trump himself described as “very bothersome.” Beyond attacking the integrity of the investigators, Trump’s aides are also seeking to cramp the scope of the investigation itself. While the new head of Trump’s personal legal team, John Dowd, has denied any discussion of the pardon power within the White House, the Post writes that both the president and his lawyers have inquired about Trump’s ability to pardon aides, family members, and himself. Likewise, the White House is doing its best to telegraph its intent to police the boundaries of the special counsel’s activities. When asked by the Times how he would react to Mueller’s investigating the Trump family finances “unrelated to Russia,” the president declared that such a step would be “a violation.” And Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the next day that, “The president’s making clear that the special counsel should not move outside the scope of the investigation.” In an interview with the Post, Trump’s private counsel Jay Sekulow declared, “The scope is going to have to stay within [Mueller’s] mandate. If there’s drifting, we’re going to object.” Sekulow pointed to the president’s past real estate dealings as an example of material off limits to the special counsel. It all adds up to a systematic push-back on the independence and integrity of the special counsel investigation. As one “Republican in touch with the administration” quoted in the Post suggests, the White House may well be “laying the groundwork to fire” Mueller. So now put yourself in Mueller’s shoes. You are both a highly-experienced investigator (you’ve run the FBI for 12 years) and a highly-experienced prosecutor (you’ve headed the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, served as a U.S. Attorney, and prosecuted murder cases as perhaps the most overqualified assistant U.S. attorney in American history). You have staffed your investigation with a group of lawyers of remarkable depth and range of experience. You have on your staff Russian language capability. You have truly remarkable appellate capacity. And you have first class expertise in money laundering, campaign finance, organized crime, and other relevant areas. But it all may not matter, because the President may decide either to issue a bunch of preemptive pardons or to try to either fire you or rein in your jurisdiction. And the talent you have collected is under attack. How do you play it? Here are six broad areas to which Mueller may be giving some thought as he considers how to do his job under these highly unusual conditions. To be clear, the following is not based not on any communication with Mueller or his staff but on our own assessment of the law, the problems Mueller faces, and the incentives the White House’s activities create for someone in his position. We assume in everything that follows that there are serious matters under investigation. If, by contrast, L’Affaire Russe is all nonsense, the situation is far easier: Mueller can wrap up the investigation and go back to his law firm.
It is only if wholly new matters arise that require “additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in [this] original jurisdiction” that, according to the regulations that govern his service, Mueller must “consult with the [acting] Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within [his] jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.” The regulations elsewhere specify that the special counsel is not “subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the [Justice] Department,” and while Rosenstein can “request that [Mueller] provide an explanation of any investigative or prosecutorial step” and rescind it if it is patently “inappropriate or unwarranted” under department policy, he must affirmatively seek that explanation; Mueller does not have to go to him for permission. Moreover, Rosenstein is obliged to give “great weight” to Mueller’s views—and notify Congress should he decide to countermand Mueller’s proposed course of action. In other words, as long as Mueller can reasonably conclude that the new matters in question either arose or are arising out of his original investigation, he doesn’t need anyone’s okay to look into them. And at least under the current rules, the burden is entirely on Rosenstein to come to him, ask for an explanation, and then object to the expansion. By contrast, if Mueller wants to look at something that cannot be said to have arisen out of the existing investigation, the burden is on him to seek out the authority. Given Rosenstein’s own precarious posture with respect to Trump, and his less than honorable behavior towards James Comey, making sure all expansions fall into that first category will likely be the attractive alternative for Mueller. This observation has two implications: The first is that we should expect Mueller to be cautious about new investigative opportunities that walk in with no relationship to the earlier mandate. Don’t anticipate Mueller latching onto Monica Lewinsky-type matters that may find their way to his door. Rather, look for him to be disciplined and take on such matters only if Rosenstein refers them to him. The second implication is that Mueller will likely interpret broadly the phrase in Rosenstein’s appointment letter “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” Trump seems to be furious that Mueller might look at his business transactions. But of course Mueller will. If you’re trying to understand “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with” Trump’s campaign, looking at the business ties between those individuals and Russian interests is a no-brainer; it would be malpractice not to do so. If along the way, Mueller finds evidence of criminal activity unrelated to that those links or coordination, he will surely interpret that evidence as constituting a “matter that arose . . . directly from the investigation” and thus will not feel the need to consult with Rosenstein before taking on such a matter. Mueller may well consult with the acting attorney general anyway in the general course of keeping Rosenstein informed and assured that the investigation is proceeding appropriately, but given his mandate and the language of the regulations, he’s very likely to regard that consultation as a courtesy, not as an obligation.
A prosecutor investigating the President of the United States, who’s threatening in two ways to nuke the investigation, might not feel the luxury of working up from the bottom of the pyramid. Such an approach takes time, after all. The bottom of the pyramid involves a lot of people whom the president, unlike a crime boss, can pardon. Notwithstanding the fact that pardoned individuals can be compelled to testify, a broad pardon eliminates much of the prosecutor’s leverage in obtaining the truth—leverage that relies on the criminal jeopardy of the underlings. And quite uniquely among criminal investigative subjects in the federal system, the President can also fire his own prosecutor, meaning that time may not be an available commodity. In an environment in which Trump is openly toying with both of these steps, the prosecutor may be tempted to invert the pyramid and focus on presidential conduct first. To be clear, Mueller might well not do this. He might decide that his job requires him to act exactly as he normally would and leave the consequences of his removal or any pardons to the political process. But there is another approach, too: a focus first on the conduct of Trump himself, particularly with respect to obstruction of justice. That is, Mueller could—for now, anyway—deemphasize or relegate to the background the components of the investigation that rely most on underlings whom Trump might pardon. Or he could conclude relatively quick (and that means generous) plea deals with those underlings, securing their cooperation along the way. This could insulate the investigation, to some degree anyway, against the possibility of pardons.
Note that this point is also a choice. Again, Mueller might well decide that his job is to carry out the investigation exactly as he would under all other circumstances, accepting that the investigation may never be completed. But he also might decide to bifurcate things, creating a fast track and a longer-term track. In other words, a reasonable prosecutor would run this investigation very differently if he knew he only had three months than he would if he knew he had three years. Mueller might well choose to operate on both assumptions simultaneously.
The Justice Department regulations governing Mueller’s appointment and investigation do not specifically detail what should be done regarding information related to possible impeachment. This is clearly by design. It marks an obvious departure from the previous Independent Counsel statute, which Congress allowed to expire in 1999. That statute, widely reviled by the time of its demise for permitting runaway investigations—even Kenneth Starr, the prosecutor who headed the Clinton investigation, testified in favor of its expiration—included a provision, 28 U.S.C. § 595(c), that explicitly granted independent counsel the authority to directly advise the House of "any substantial and credible information . . . that may constitute grounds for an impeachment." Starr's expansive understanding of the type of report that this provision authorized him to provide to Congress was the subject of great contention in the run-up to Clinton’s impeachment. His interpretation prompted a battle between Starr's office and the White House, which expressed the view that any report filed by independent counsel under § 595(c) should stick to the facts and stay away from recommendations, and that it would be inappropriate and at odds with “fundamental fairness” for the document to "purport[] to summarize or analyze evidence.” Starr firmly disagreed with this "narrow formulation," arguing in a letter to President Clinton’s attorney that the language of the statute did not limit him to providing Congress with factual evidence alone. Starr made good on his defense of an elaborate and argumentative impeachment report. The baroque document he eventually produced was entirely unlike the report prepared by Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski, which has never been made public but is known to have been highly restrained—containing “no accusatory conclusions[,] . . . no recommendations, advice or statements that infringe on the prerogatives of other branches of government . . .[and] no moral or social judgments.” The fact that the current special counsel regulations make no mention of impeachment referral authority in part reflects the historical consensus that Starr went too far. The existing regulation reporting requirements are written in such a way as to confine the special counsel to his or her mandate. Specifically, the regulations require the special counsel to report to the attorney general for purposes of determining budgeting needs and in the case of “Urgent Reports,” and to provide the attorney general at the conclusion of the investigation “a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.” (As a matter of normal Justice Department practice, "Urgent Reports" are brief updates that must be submitted to the attorney general and deputy attorney general to notify them of "(1) major developments developments in significant investigations and litigation, (2) law enforcement emergencies, and (3) events affecting the Department that are likely to generate national media or Congressional attention.”) It is then the Attorney General’s obligation to notify both the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees of the investigation’s close and to provide an explanation of any instances where he has concluded that the special counsel’s proposed action should not be pursued. In short, to the extent any information about the president’s conduct with bearing on impeachment arises out of the special counsel’s investigation, identifying it as such lies with Congress. But for Mueller, the absence of any reporting provision for impeachment material creates a strange lacuna that now requires a strategic judgment. What if he amasses evidence that Congress needs to know about pursuant to its impeachment authorities yet the President pardons the people through whose prosecutions that information would normally emerge? What if there’s no basis for anyone’s prosecution but there is damning evidence of an abuse of power? What happens if he develops evidence that would support an impeachment but his office is suddenly shut down? One possibility is for Mueller to take the view that the absence of authorization for such a referral does not preclude it. That is, he can do exactly what Jaworski did: dump information in Congress’s lap without telling Congress how to analyze it. But Mueller may also take the view that he can’t do that, or that he has to go through Rosenstein to make any kind of referral to Congress. In any event, the sword of Damocles Trump dangling over his head—both in the form of potential pardons and in the form of removal threats—could make Mueller think hard about how he wants to handle a possible impeachment referral, and to do that thinking much earlier than he would otherwise. After all, if something’s got to be done and one doesn’t know whether one will be there tomorrow to do it, the temptation is to do it today.
That said, Trump might revoke the regulation itself and in so doing obliterate Mueller’s whole office. So one way or another, a president who really wants to get rid of Mueller could probably do so. In any event, Mueller has to operate on the assumption that Trump could get it done. And that means he’s probably given some thought to how he would handle a removal. What does that consist of? There’s actually not that much Mueller can do about it. The protection against removal is ultimately a political one, not a regulatory or legal one, and that means Mueller can’t do much more than to try to condition the politics so as to make the constraints on the president as binding as possible. That means having the sort of relationships with the relevant committees in Congress such that any firing would be considered politically unacceptable. Here Mueller’s reputation is key, but liaison with Congress—without, of course, discussing the substance of the investigation—is probably going to be important as well. It’s crucial not merely that Congress be unwilling to tolerate a disruption of the investigation, but that Trump knows that it is unwilling to do so. Finally, being prepared for a removal probably requires contingency planning for what happens if Trump pulls the trigger. One would assume, for example, that Mueller and his staff have documented everything they’ve done, that they are creating work product that Congress could demand in the event the office ceased to exist, and that there is some mechanism—if only the calling of Mueller to testify—by which Congress could learn what it needs to know. If you’re Robert Mueller today, you’re probably thinking about how to make sure that even if you are fired, critical information finds its way to where it needs to go. http://www.lawfareblog.com/how-white-house-threats-condition-muellers-reality |
|||
|
|||
Tlazolteotl
Champion Joined: 02 Oct 2012 Location: Elephant Butte Status: Offline Points: 31303 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
So the investigated can sack the investigator whenever they want and pardon themselves if they forget to - screwy. Did Al Capone write the US Constitution or was it Robert Mugabe?
|
|||
Passing Through
Champion Joined: 09 Jan 2013 Location: At home Status: Offline Points: 79533 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The ultimate check and balance is the electorate. Republicans paid dearly for Nixon with 48 seats and then punted his replacement Gerald Ford after he pardoned Nixon. What is being investigated here now though is a universe away from the breakin coverup Nixon went down for. These charges are potentially treason and the penalties it can bring
The midterms next year will determine the fate of many enablers if the public judges Trump harshly A swing will bring on articles of impeachment in the HOR. Senate will be much more difficult needing about 19 Republicans to flip or lose their seats to get to two thirds
|
|||
|
|||
Redemption
Champion Joined: 09 Apr 2017 Location: Melbourne Status: Offline Points: 5387 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The shocking truth about scumbag President Macron
|
|||
Passing Through
Champion Joined: 09 Jan 2013 Location: At home Status: Offline Points: 79533 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Bad day for autocracy in Poland overnight.
|
|||
|
|||
Tlazolteotl
Champion Joined: 02 Oct 2012 Location: Elephant Butte Status: Offline Points: 31303 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Jeez you can find a crackpot- anti-vaxxer nut alert. Don't tell me- you're one too.
|
|||
maccamax
Champion Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Status: Offline Points: 41473 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
That poor man in France .
He would have to wake every morning in envy of Donald Trump. Reminds me of many years ago when my Dad caught me in bed with Granma. . He went raving Mad. Wouldn't listen to the fact I was only doing the same to his Mum , that he did to mine . |
|||
Dr E
Champion Joined: 05 Feb 2013 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 28563 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I can't imagine what you are on about, I just hope you weren't doing what Obama did to the US economy maccamax ...
|
|||
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
|
|||
Dr E
Champion Joined: 05 Feb 2013 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 28563 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Great to see that Kushner has divulged all of the facts - he has never colluded with Russia and he doesn't know anyone who has - thank god!
Surely the media and the other sufferers of derangement can finally move on!
|
|||
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
|
|||
maccamax
Champion Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Status: Offline Points: 41473 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Priceless to see a sense of humour . In one word . What did Obama do to the US economy Doc. |
|||
rusty nails
Champion Joined: 20 Mar 2013 Location: Sydney Status: Offline Points: 11302 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Did Obama cause the GFC? There you go,I always thought it was a result of Wall st goings on..... |
|||
max manewer
Champion Joined: 31 Jan 2010 Status: Offline Points: 32947 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Ahem ! |
|||
Dr E
Champion Joined: 05 Feb 2013 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 28563 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Let's just say, when you claim to be administering resuscitation, it's inefficient to bend the patient over and approach from the rear!
|
|||
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
|
|||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Dr E
Champion Joined: 05 Feb 2013 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 28563 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
|
|||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Yuk. Won't try that again from the phone. PT, can you put up that graph.
|
|||
Whale
Champion Joined: 01 Jun 2009 Location: St Kilda Beach Status: Offline Points: 38719 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Thanks Whale. Obama inherited a basket case, and handed over something much better.
|
|||
Passing Through
Champion Joined: 09 Jan 2013 Location: At home Status: Offline Points: 79533 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Poor Donald has totally lost it.
|
|||
|
|||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Looks like Sessions is the next one out the door.
|
|||
Passing Through
Champion Joined: 09 Jan 2013 Location: At home Status: Offline Points: 79533 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
He might hold on He holds a position people like him only dream of and he has an opportunity to push all his horrid agenda through and might insist on being fired.
Tillerson and Mattis are both ready to walk
|
|||
|
|||
cabosanlucas
Champion Joined: 15 Jun 2013 Status: Offline Points: 7363 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
so its confirmation the CIA were covertly backing rebel forces against assad. these rebels are good guys of course...they just happen to be terrorist organisations every other day.
|
|||
Redemption
Champion Joined: 09 Apr 2017 Location: Melbourne Status: Offline Points: 5387 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Trump warns Boy Scouts about Fake News
|
|||
Redemption
Champion Joined: 09 Apr 2017 Location: Melbourne Status: Offline Points: 5387 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Americans hate Trump??
Bahahahahahaha. This is the most popular American President in history. |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 207208209210211 1094> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |