Willing To Violate The Constitution To Protect Mueller, Even For Misconduct / Crimes?

[easyt65]

Mueller continues to face PERJURY TRAP rebellions as more information regarding his potentially criminal prosecutorial misconduct, falsely claiming his victims are / having violated their plea deal agreements because they refuse to give him what he wants, which, according to Corsi and others, is for them to lie and make false accusations about the President, is reported.

Democrats, in the meantime, continue to scramble to pass legislation that 'protects Mueller' and his witch hunt from being fired / terminated.

Gee, that sounds so justifiable, like such an easy 'call' to make - 'Protect Mueller'. Yeah, not so much when you find out the details, what that exactly means.

While telling you they are attempting to 'Protect Mueller', what the Democrats / snowflakes are NOT telling people is the WAY they are trying to do that....

To 'protect Mueller' the Democrats are attempting to strip both the US AG and the President of their Constitutional powers.

THE US AG:
"Currently, the US attorney general can remove the special counsel “for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of departmental policies.”

THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO STRIP THE US AG OF THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY and would instead establish some oversight with a three-judge panel (made up of two District of Columbia district court judges and one US Court of Appeals judge) that would have the power to overturn the US AG's decision to fire Mueller, even in the case of prosecutorial misconduct or violations of laws / regs / rules.

Such a ruling against a US AG would still most assuredly end up before the USSC, no matter what the legislation designed to protect Mueller says.

IS CONGRESS ATTEMPTING TO USURP RHE EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S AUTHORITY AND DICTATE TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHO CAN WORK FOR / IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH IS WHAT DEMOCRATS / SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL ARE TRYING TO PULL OFF, EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?

"The conservative argument is that Congress can’t infringe on the executive authority; that constitutionally, the president maintains the power to control who serves in the executive branch."

"At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutionality of the two special counsel bills in September, which included testimony from legal scholars and experts, John Duffy of the University of Virginia School of Law said the “transfer of removal authority from the Executive to the Judicial Branch is almost certainly unconstitutional”

A Senate committee just approved a bill to protect Robert Mueller

.

 

[easyt65]

"The conservative constitutional concerns go back to the 1988 Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson, a 7-1 decision that upheld the Independent Counsel Act — a statute passed in the wake of Nixon’s firing of the Watergate special prosecutor that created an investigator role completely independent of the executive branch. Justice Antonin Scalia was the single dissent on the case, arguing that the independent counsel was a clear disruption of the separation of powers"

"Scalia said that a “governmental investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function.” Despite the Court’s decision upholding the role of an independent counsel, Congress allowed the act to expire in 1999. In its place, there’s the special counsel, the role Mueller holds, which is largely the same on the merits but is not separate from the administration"

"“The special counsel is the creation of the attorney general or his designated subordinate; as such, the argument could be that any limitations intrude upon executive authority,”

 

[easyt65]

"when it comes to actually acting, for Republicans, Trump firing Mueller is the only red line."

The entire argument - about the PRESIDENT firing Mueller is pretty much moot as Trump said he has no intention of doing so.

He does not have to - the evidence of crimes perpetrated by Democrats, to include the witch hunters, continues to mount, the PERJURY TRAP REBELLION is torpedoing what is left of Mueller's prosecutorial misconduct-laden investigation, and the appointment of Whitaker means the DOJ in finally LED by a non-member if the witch hunt who will not ignore the evidence of democrat/ conspirator crimes the way Mueller and Rosenstein have....which is why the Democrats are desperate to get this Un-Constitutional 'Protect Mueller' legislation passed, stripping Whitaker from being able to fire Mueller, even for proven prosecutorial misconduct / crimes.

 

[BlackFlag]

Frankly I don’t see why we don’t just do away with the Senate and let Trump do whatever he wants

 

[Intolerant]

Evil bastards.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Trump can fire Mueller. It's not like he has produced anything worth a fuck within 2 years. So yeah, he is in firing territory.

 

[mamooth]

Excellent. The Trumpflakes wouldn't be weeping about Mueller if they weren't terrified of him revealing their corruption.

The funny thing is how they think that crying will convince us to go easy on them. Quite the opposite. Whenever we see Trumpflakes cry, that tells us to keep doing what we're doing.

 

[Lesh]

Mueller continues to face PERJURY TRAP rebellions as more information regarding his potentially criminal prosecutorial misconduct, falsely claiming his victims are / having violated their plea deal agreements because they refuse to give him what he wants, which, according to Corsi and others, is for them to lie and make false accusations about the President, is reported.

Democrats, in the meantime, continue to scramble to pass legislation that 'protects Mueller' and his witch hunt from being fired / terminated.

Gee, that sounds so justifiable, like such an easy 'call' to make - 'Protect Mueller'. Yeah, not so much when you find out the details, what that exactly means.

While telling you they are attempting to 'Protect Mueller', what the Democrats / snowflakes are NOT telling people is the WAY they are trying to do that....

To 'protect Mueller' the Democrats are attempting to strip both the US AG and the President of their Constitutional powers.

THE US AG:
"Currently, the US attorney general can remove the special counsel “for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of departmental policies.”

THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO STRIP THE US AG OF THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY and would instead establish some oversight with a three-judge panel (made up of two District of Columbia district court judges and one US Court of Appeals judge) that would have the power to overturn the US AG's decision to fire Mueller, even in the case of prosecutorial misconduct or violations of laws / regs / rules.

Such a ruling against a US AG would still most assuredly end up before the USSC, no matter what the legislation designed to protect Mueller says.

IS CONGRESS ATTEMPTING TO USURP RHE EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S AUTHORITY AND DICTATE TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHO CAN WORK FOR / IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH IS WHAT DEMOCRATS / SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL ARE TRYING TO PULL OFF, EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?

"The conservative argument is that Congress can’t infringe on the executive authority; that constitutionally, the president maintains the power to control who serves in the executive branch."

"At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutionality of the two special counsel bills in September, which included testimony from legal scholars and experts, John Duffy of the University of Virginia School of Law said the “transfer of removal authority from the Executive to the Judicial Branch is almost certainly unconstitutional”

A Senate committee just approved a bill to protect Robert Mueller

.

Currently we have an AG who is only "acting"...because of a vacancy TRUMP created.

The Acting AG rule was designed to temporarily replace an AG who quit or died.. We have only had a few because typically the President nominates someone who goes in front of the Senate for confirmation.

I wonder why Trump hasn't nominated Whitaker? He has a Republican Senate. There is no filibuster.

Could it be that Whitaker is SO unqualified and SO much of a toady that even REPUBLICANS will not confirm him?

You bet

 

[Lesh]

The last time an acting attorney general served without Senate confirmation was in 1866, when Assistant Attorney General J. Hubley Ashton served for six days after the resignation of Attorney General James Speed, according to the report.

Even in THAT case...the replacement was the Assistant Attorney General.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Trump is the victim of Obama's abuse of power.
Obama illegally used the FBI to spy upon Trump.
Obama illegally used the DOJ to start a fraudulent investigation.
Democrats = Banana Republic Cretins

 

[nat4900]

The last time an acting attorney general served without Senate confirmation was in 1866, when Assistant Attorney General J. Hubley Ashton served for six days after the resignation of Attorney General James Speed, according to the report.

Even in THAT case...the replacement was the Assistant Attorney General.

The ass kisser republicans in the Senate DO NOT WANT for Whitaker to ever show up for a confirmation.......The scandal-ridden and biased Whitaker would not stand a chance in hell to be confirmed.

Whitaker's ONLY job right now is to report to the oval office what Mueller may be up to.....NOTHING ELSE.

 

[Oddball]

Mueller continues to face PERJURY TRAP rebellions as more information regarding his potentially criminal prosecutorial misconduct, falsely claiming his victims are / having violated their plea deal agreements because they refuse to give him what he wants, which, according to Corsi and others, is for them to lie and make false accusations about the President, is reported.

Democrats, in the meantime, continue to scramble to pass legislation that 'protects Mueller' and his witch hunt from being fired / terminated.

Gee, that sounds so justifiable, like such an easy 'call' to make - 'Protect Mueller'. Yeah, not so much when you find out the details, what that exactly means.

While telling you they are attempting to 'Protect Mueller', what the Democrats / snowflakes are NOT telling people is the WAY they are trying to do that....

To 'protect Mueller' the Democrats are attempting to strip both the US AG and the President of their Constitutional powers.

THE US AG:
"Currently, the US attorney general can remove the special counsel “for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of departmental policies.”

THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO STRIP THE US AG OF THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY and would instead establish some oversight with a three-judge panel (made up of two District of Columbia district court judges and one US Court of Appeals judge) that would have the power to overturn the US AG's decision to fire Mueller, even in the case of prosecutorial misconduct or violations of laws / regs / rules.

Such a ruling against a US AG would still most assuredly end up before the USSC, no matter what the legislation designed to protect Mueller says.

IS CONGRESS ATTEMPTING TO USURP RHE EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S AUTHORITY AND DICTATE TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHO CAN WORK FOR / IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH IS WHAT DEMOCRATS / SUPPORTERS OF THIS BILL ARE TRYING TO PULL OFF, EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?

"The conservative argument is that Congress can’t infringe on the executive authority; that constitutionally, the president maintains the power to control who serves in the executive branch."

"At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutionality of the two special counsel bills in September, which included testimony from legal scholars and experts, John Duffy of the University of Virginia School of Law said the “transfer of removal authority from the Executive to the Judicial Branch is almost certainly unconstitutional”

A Senate committee just approved a bill to protect Robert Mueller

.

Commiecrats don't GAF about the Constitution.

 

[easyt65]

Excellent. The Trumpflakes wouldn't be weeping about Mueller if they weren't terrified of him revealing their corruption.

The funny thing is how they think that crying will convince us to go easy on them. Quite the opposite. Whenever we see Trumpflakes cry, that tells us to keep doing what we're doing.

The only corruption and crime Mueller has exposed is that if Democrats, his co-Conspirators, his team, and himself.

 

[easyt65]

If Democrats are so in favor of investigations why do they fear Whitaker / one by Whitaker so much?

Mueller's witch hunt has been as open, forthcoming, and ethically transparent as Obama's promised 'Most Transparent Administration Evuh' that set a new Presidential Administration record for criminal non-compliance with the FOIA.

 

[easyt65]

Could it be that Whitaker is SO unqualified and SO much of a toady that even REPUBLICANS will not confirm him

No....

 

[mamooth]

If Democrats are so in favor of investigations why do they fear Whitaker / one by Whitaker so much?

Huh? Whitaker is trying to stop the investigations.

Have you been drinking?

And have you already forgotten about Trump's campaign manager Manafort pleading guilty? It's been all over the news recently, how he violated that plea deal. Now he's looking at real hard time.

 

[easyt65]

Democrats wanting to strip the President of his authority to make decisions regarding who works in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH ('Separation If Powers') is like the President claiming the authority to dictate who will be the Speaker of the House to the in-coming Democrats.

 

[Lesh]

Democrats wanting to strip the President of his authority to make decisions regarding who works in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH ('Separation If Powers') is like the President claiming the authority to dictate who will be the Speaker of the House to the in-coming Democrats.

Do you not understand that the Constitution REQUIRES that the Senate confirm the AG?

 

[easyt65]

Democrats wanting to strip the President of his authority to make decisions regarding who works in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH ('Separation If Powers') is like the President claiming the authority to dictate who will be the Speaker of the House to the in-coming Democrats.

Do you not understand that the Constitution REQUIRES that the Senate confirm the AG?

Confirm, not PICK...

 

[Lesh]

Democrats wanting to strip the President of his authority to make decisions regarding who works in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH ('Separation If Powers') is like the President claiming the authority to dictate who will be the Speaker of the House to the in-coming Democrats.

Do you not understand that the Constitution REQUIRES that the Senate confirm the AG?

Confirm, not PICK...

OK...and where is the Senate trying to "pick" anyone?

They confirm who they think is qualified.

They have not even been asked to CONSIDER Whitaker...because he is wholly unqualified