Firing Sessions/Rosenstein to get Mueller won't work. Here's why, which NOBODY is saying on TV!

[tableturner]

The reason is DOJ Conflicts Rule, 28 CFR 45, which basically says that any appointee with a political or personal relationship with Trump must recuse.

Therefore, a previously confirmed cabinet officer, if installed in place of either Sessions or Rosenstein, would be required to recuse. The same could be said about almost ANY person Trump may appoint....almost all of the possibilities publicly mentioned, and many others not publicly mentioned, have a political or personal relationship with Trump.

The problem is that I hear discussion after discussion on all news channels, and nobody ever mentions this rule. It's like it does not exist. We need to spread the word!

It's very clear, and at the link below, well regarded lawyer Elizabeth de la Vega explains it.

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F100210457448

[gopiscrap]

1. Good

[VMA131Marine]

2. This all assumes that Trump follows the law and his appointee follows DOJ rules

If Trump determines to get rid of Mueller we have to assume that won't be the case. And he will get away with it if Congress doesn't rein him in.

[NewsCenter28]

4. No not accurate

All Trump's stooge has to do is refuse to recuse himself, even though the DOJ regulations insist that he/she must, and that will be that. Case closed. There's no penalty or mandatory requirement that one must recuse. It is purely voluntary in that the regulations say that he/she must but what do they say about one who simply says "Fuck the regulations. I'm not recusing"? The only reason one recuses is for fear of the political firestorm. Donald loves chaos and political firestorms. Ergo, no reason to recuse.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. And this is why Democrats are trying to force a legislative solution

similar to what was in place in the past (i.e., for the "Independent Counsel" ) that had been allowed to expire.

[leftieNanner]

6. And again this morning

Mitch McTurtle insisted that there is absolutely no need to protect Mueller legislatively.

"Trump wouldn't dare fire the Special Counsel."

... hold my beer ...

[Eyeball_Kid]

27. This is the second statement that came from McConnell about firing Mueller.

If you follow anything about Mitch, you can now imagine that Trumpy DOES fire Mueller, somehow, and then you can imagine how McConnell will react, given the above statement. It implies action if Trumpy fired Mueller.

GOPers are starting to get fired up in anticipation of Constitutional chaos. Trumpy would love to react and vent, but he also knows that he can't.

[tableturner]

9. Yes, an appointee could do that, but.....

That would certainly cause a constitutional crisis, and that action would be challenged in the courts, possibly including Mueller, himself. Regardless of the challenging parties, while that would be going through the process of being settled, Mueller and crew would soldier on.

Also, Mueller and Rosenstein have known from the beginning that there was a high likelihood of either or both being fired, so you can be sure that they are ready with some time bombs set to explode if firings were to occur. I think they and the judges assigned to the cases have been coordinating a response to the possible crisis.

I believe that there are major sealed indictments existing. I think they are being held until all charges are ready, because Mueller, Rosenstein, et al, have logically determined that any major indictments of people close to the president would result in Mueller and/or Rosenstein being fired. Their hope was that any possible firings would wait until their jobs would be substantially finished.

However, if they are fired, that would become moot, because an early firing they knew could happen, would have happened. The result? I believe major indictments and supporting documents would then be unsealed, something that would totally change the scenario. With the explosive indictments having happened after the explosive firings, the combination of the two would render Trump's efforts to block the investigation impotent.

In a counter intuitive way, if the firings were to happen, it may end up being a good thing, in that the end of Trump might be hastened.

[NewsCenter28]

12. Yeah sometimes I get down and think that the courts can't intervene

But your excellent post reminds me that the courts are yet another layer preventing Trump's stooges from ending the Mueller investigation. Mueller really can't be stopped, as much as Trump wants it to be so.

[orangecrush]

14. Hmmm....

[YessirAtsaFact]

32. The judges on these courts have lifetime appointments.

Congressional repugnant goons are cowardly because of Trump's base. If they stand up to Trump Steve Bannon or someone like him would find an opponent for them in the primaries.

They face elections in the fall.

Federal judges don't have to worry about that.

[Juliusseizure]

25. I haven't heard that being a likely scenario

I read of the possibility on twitter, but I don't see Mueller sitting on sealed indictments with plans to suddenly unseal them if fired as a political or legal strategy to assure a replacement or future indictments. That's not playing by the book and enters the political sphere.

[YessirAtsaFact]

28. Mueller was the FBI director from 2001-2013

He's not a political novice.

Also firing him would bring the wrath of 80% of FBI/CIA/NSA lifers on the administration's head.

[tableturner]

29. How is that not playing by the book?

Keeping indictments sealed in order to time their release is, as we have seen already, a normal scenario. The idea of doing that because of a fear that they will be fired immediately after issuing early indictments of those close to Trump, and not doing so immediately because they would want to get more work done before a possible firing, is a very justifiable and accepted strategy. There is nothing illegal or unethical about it, either.

[Juliusseizure]

39. Maybe just a miscommunication

I'm not saying keeping indictments sealed for timing purposes is improper and not by the book. I may have misinterpreted the intent as you described it.

[leftieNanner]

44. I like your thinking

I'm sure that Rosenstein and Mueller have prepared for the very real possibility that idiot face will fire them. Documents have been copied and placed in multiple locations. Their teams will continue their work.

Mueller and Rosenstein have probably mapped this thing out with great precision.

[SonofDonald]

3. Gotta love it! N/T

[elocs]

7. Sessions recused himself in favor of Rosenstein, and only Rosenstein can fir Mueller.

Also, Rosenstein has the power to end Mueller's investigation:
[link:https://www.justsecurity.org/43023/explainer-special-counsel-investigation/|

A potentially important note: Rosenstein has the power to discontinue the investigation when it comes up for annual review. The regulation states: The special counsel must report to Attorney General annually and submit a budget request, at which point “[t]he Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.”

Mueller’s power is not unchecked or fully independent. Although he is not subject to day-to-day supervision, Rosenstein can request an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step. Rosenstein has the power to block that step if he believes it is “so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.” In that event, Rosenstein would have to notify Congress. Rosenstein has assured a Senate committee that Mueller will have the “full independence he needs to conduct that investigation.” Mueller also has to comply with DOJ’s rules and policies. An important note here as well: Mueller is required by the regulations to notify Rosenstein in advance of any “significant event” in the investigation. If the event is anticipated, he is required give at least three days notice (within 24 hours is generally expected for unanticipated events or emergencies).

Since Sessions is Rosenstein's immediate boss, could the AG fire him with a new deputy AG choosing to end the investigation? Trump could then fire Sessions and be rid of all of the current thorns in his side. Trump has got away with doing many things people have said he wouldn't get away with and he might be happy to see this all go to court and then let a conservative Supreme Court decide it all.

Anyways, there is so much unbridled enthusiasm here about Trump's inevitable downfall but I will believe it when I see it. I'd rather be skeptical and pleasantly surprised in the end.
But if Trump goes before his term is up we will get a President Pence who in Ford-like fashion pardon him of all crimes committed or just accused and those tens of millions of Trump supporters are going nowhere, but will just wait for the Left to become complacent and not be vigilant, or just to splinter and tear themselves to pieces in factions.

[tableturner]

10. Here's my answer to your question....

Your question:

"Since Sessions is Rosenstein's immediate boss, could the AG fire him with a new deputy AG choosing to end the investigation?"

My answer:

If the new deputy AG had a political or personal relationship, the rules say no, so we are now back to the original argument.

[elocs]

18. The trouble is that I have not heard 1 expert on tv bring up that rule

and ultimately it's up to the courts to determine the meaning of rules and how they apply and Trump has the top court pretty much in his pocket.

[Juliusseizure]

34. Because the reg is clear

Trump would love to have sociopath Pruitt do it, but the regs are clear about the conflict of interest, and any regulation would inevitably contain such bars because conflicts of interest are universal legal violation of ethics for lawyers, and this is the justice department. So I can't imagine a reg governing lawyer conduct without it.

[elocs]

43. Well, then I should be hearing this screamed from the rooftops on tv but I'm not.

Why is that if it is all so simple and straightforward?

[Juliusseizure]

48. Its not news if its not newsworthy

And its not newsworthy if its not likely to happen.

Other things not screamed from the rooftop include:

- Trump sending a prostitute to Mueller with a hidden microphone in hopes of seducing him, then blackmailing him with the tape. Its not likely to happen.

- Trump coordinates with Putin to have Mueller killed. Its not likely to happen.

- Trump tries bribing Mueller with a million dollars if he'll end it. Not likely to happen.

[elocs]

49. There's a cop-out answer if I ever read one.

Bullshit. If this were realistically possible, then somebody, anybody outside of DU would have said it.

[tableturner]

50. You BOTH are wrong!

1. It IS newsworthy, but somehow, it has gotten lost in the ongoing maelstrom.

2. It IS possible, and not only does Elizabeth de la Vega say it, but Politico does too:


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/16/jeff-sessions-replace-with-scott-pruitt-donald-trump-217646

"Second, Trump’s unleashing this tsunami of litigation might be for naught. There is a reasonable case that even if Pruitt were validly appointed, he, like Sessions, would have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. All DOJ lawyers are bound by regulation to step aside from criminal investigations if they have a 'political relationship' with someone who has a substantial interest in that investigation.

Pruitt’s political relationship with the president is deep and close. He has acted as the president’s political accomplice for more than a year now. It would lead any decent lawyer to recuse himself from the Mueller probe. Just this January, Pruitt made his political allegiance to the president plain: 'After meeting him, and now having the honor of working for him, it is abundantly clear that President Trump is the most consequential leader of our time,' Pruitt said. 'No one has done more to advance the rule of law than President Trump. The president has liberated our country from the political class and given America back to the people.'

Of course, Pruitt has demonstrated that he has little concern about conflicts of interest or their appearance. He is already under fire for a series of ethical blunders at the EPA. Nevertheless, as they did with Sessions, the ethicists at the DOJ might insist.

Some might contend this argument goes too far. Wouldn’t any interim attorney general the president appointed be conflicted out of overseeing Mueller? Of course not. We would not object if the president had reached out to someone independent and of stature who had not sworn the kind of loyalty oath Trump prefers. But that is not Pruitt."

[Juliusseizure]

56. Pruitt's corruption is also a huge liability

All that's true, but it's also impossible to justify temporarily appointing a corrupt cabinet secretary who should be fired for the highest office in the DOJ.

[Juliusseizure]

55. The hyperbolic blowhard

calls bullshit while pulling a strawman and agreeing that screaming from the rooftops is rhetorical nonsense.

If it's not likely to happen, that would suggest its not realistically possible.

[lame54]

8. Trump would fire Rosenstein and replace him with Cohen...

That's how much Trump cares about your quaint rules

[FakeNoose]

11. Yes I think Cheeto has already been told that

He wanted Rudy Giuliani to come on board as his Attorney General, and Giuliani told him that he would have to recuse himself. Probably the same thing happened with Chris Christie. Cheeto only wants people who will pass the loyalty test, and that means only his "good buddies" can even be considered. But then, they'd have to recuse and he's up the creek without a paddle.

[erronis]

19. And the interesting thing is that either/both of those individuals (Christie/Giuliani)

would send djt down the river - either metaphorically or literally.

Honor among thieves, and all that.

However, I would almost rather have the clown djt ranting in 1600 than those other two.

[leftieNanner]

45. Leaving the creepy leering Pence

slobbering on the sidelines.

I'm not so sure about ol' Rudy being willing to send djt down the river. He's certainly implicated in this mess.

Christie has to be thanking his lucky stars that The Donald didn't bring him into the White House.

It's awful what passes for sane and normal these days.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

13. Bet Trump's not so excited he's considered a "subject" of the investigation anymore.

I can't think of anyone Donnie Two Scoops could appoint that didn't have some kind of prior personal or political relationship with him. Maybe Melania -- I don't think she's having anything to do with him since Stormy Daniels started talking. I'm sure she'd like to see justice done.

[onecent]

15. Republican senator sounds the alarm, demands Senate Judiciary Committee move on bill to protect

Muller. This was posted about 10:35 this morning. Just get this done and no one has to

WONDER IF MUELLER IS GOING TO BE FIRED?????????

[MiniMe]

16. You think tRump will pay attention to the rules?

[tableturner]

17. See post #9 above....

[Honeycombe8]

20. Who would stop that? The Republicans in Congress? nt

[tableturner]

21. See post #9 above....

[Honeycombe8]

22. Post #9 doesn't address my question. nt

[tableturner]

23. It answers what eventually could happen if a Trump crony were to fire Rosenstein or Mueller.

If they do not go along with the recusal rule then court challenges would happen and the investigation would continue until final rulings, which would take a while. Not only might there be indictments unsealed under this scenario, but while the court case is ongoing, Mueller and crew could issue new indictments, knowing their days were numbered one way or the other.

[Honeycombe8]

40. Well, that's just an opinion. My point ws: The Repubs won't act on firing Rosenstein.nt

[emulatorloo]

51. Your opinion is just an opinion as well

Even Grassley is making it known that Trump will be in deep shit if he fires Mueller. Could just be a bunch of noise, but we will see.

See also this thread for rumblings behind the scene.

Reality dawning on this shameless republican enabler waxing eloquent about his president's tyranny
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210478180

The congressman went on to explain that if key members of the House Judiciary Committee are facing primary battles for their seats, they’ll stick with Trump because they are so fearful of the deplorable base. If they get through the primaries, there is a chance they could get on board with impeachment because Trump is dragging the entire party down.

"Judiciary is stacked with a bunch of people who can win re-election so long as they don't piss off Trump voters in the primary. But if we get to summer and most of the primaries are over, they just might pull the trigger if the President fires Mueller. The sh*t will hit the fan if that happens and I'd vote to impeach him myself. Most of us would, I think. Hell, all the Democrats would and you only need a majority in the House. If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherf**ker. Take him out with us and let Mike [Pence] take over. At least then we could sleep well at night," he said before going off on a tangent about how the situations with Russia and China scare him. Then, "You know having Mike as President would really piss off all the right people, too. They think they hate Trump. Mike is competent," at which point he sighs and

[Gothmog]

42. Congressional republicans are spineless idiots

[C Moon]

24. And since when has GOPuTinRump followed rules?

[Azathoth]

26. Once you're at the point of firing cabinet officials to obstruct justice, regulations about recusal

are meaningless.

[nmgaucho]

30. They just stated on MSNBC that...

since it s a "rule" and not a law, Trump can rescind it and fire Mueller.

[Juliusseizure]

37. Not that easy

It may be illegal for Trump to do. Nixon tried to avoid the regs by invoking executive privilege and the Supreme Ct. held he was bound by the existing regs.

So Trump would be relying on his general constitutional powers and it would go to court.

[DeminPennswoods]

31. They probably could repeal the regulation in the CFR

that covers the special counsel. Doing so could allow Trump to remove Mueller directly. The CFR is rules and regulations by/for the US Gov't, but the rules can always be changed by any administration. CFR is not the US Code (actual laws that require Congress to pass legislation to change the law).

I think this would take time and effort though as they'd probably have to propose the rule change, then allow a public comment period.

[tableturner]

33. Yes, but during the delay, Mueller and crew would finish the job.

That's what it is all about....finishing one way or another.

[DeminPennswoods]

36. Not only that, but Schneiderman and other state AGs

are likely to pick up the ball and run with it.

Probably the easiest move is to replace Sessions with someone more pliable who won't fire Mueller, but will limit the scope of what he's investigating. But, I don't think Sessions will go easily or quietly. US Atty Genl has been his dream job because in it Sessions can set back voting rights, criminal justice reform and would reinstate slavery if he could, I'm sure.

[mucifer]

35. Norman Goldman discussed it on his radio show today. He is a lawyer.

normangoldman.com

[NCTraveler]

38. Trump might disagree. Nt

[Gothmog]

41. From a purely legal and ethical standpoint, you are correct

Pruitt does not believe in ethics and will ignore these rules. Trump has exposed a flaw in our system of government in that a great deal of our system is dependent of people not being total scum buckets. If trump fires session, the person who replaces sessions will not care about ethics

[tableturner]

46. It will go to court, and the court WILL care!

[Gothmog]

47. Who has standing?

This is a political question. I doubt that the courts will get involved

[tableturner]

52. Mueller can....see below.....

Mueller would definitely have standing, and maybe others too. A suit could be filed referencing the Administrative Procedure Act. See this article from The Hill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/365564-ex-federal-prosecutor-mueller-would-sue-if-trump-tries-to-fire-him

The courts WOULD get involved.

[Gothmog]

53. The article states that Mueller could sue

I think that any such lawsuit will be problematic and that the courts could duck such a lawsuit under the political question doctrine.

[tableturner]

54. It's not a political question.....

It's a question of executive powers vs. properly instituted procedural rules.

Regardless, a suit would give Rosenstein and Mueller time to act and prepare for Mueller's possible removal from the position. For instance, he and Rosenstein could move the cases to individual US Attorney jurisdictions while courts decide about the rules. There are other ways for them to protect the investigation.

THAT is what's important.

[mercuryblues]

57. Wouldn't the easiest way to keep trump

from hiring someone who will fire Sessions or Rosenstein be to keep the senate in session? It may not stop him from firing them, but with the senate in session he can't name a recess appointment.

[blaze]

58. k/r nt