Wouldn't get the votes, I'd wager. Also, I take him at his word that he's done with the swamp.ntxVOL said:
Why not Trey Gowdy?
And what political flack is he going to take besides a bunch of crying? They cry all day every day anyway. When Mueller is fired for cause they'll get over it when they eventually realize there is nothing they can do about it. It you're worried about bad press that's laughable, it's bad 24/7Cepe said:RoscoePColtrane said:They just fire him on the spot. He was illegally appointed by definition. No crime was committed to justify it, and even Rosenstein said it himself he saw nothing criminal and appointed one anyway.Cepe said:
Even if sessions is replaced can the new person reign in Mueller? Is it as simple as rescinding the authorization letters or res coping with a new directive or has the train already left the station?
That is the most expedient way for sure but does that work politically? I think Trump would be hammered by the public no matter how justified he makes it.
It seems to date trump has stayed away from that solution because most of the electorate doesn't understand what's going on.
RoscoePColtrane said:
Problem with Henry Gibson is he's "no hat"
aggiehawg said:Wouldn't get the votes, I'd wager. Also, I take him at his word that he's done with the swamp.ntxVOL said:
Why not Trey Gowdy?
Horowitz is an interesting question and I don't see a need for a possible recusal, of course I haven't read his report yet, either.
Again, I don't think he'd get the votes, though.
What it would come down to is asking Schumer for a list. Go from there. As distasteful as that is.
Judge Ellis is the wild card here. If he is as fired up as it appears he is, at the next hearing he can insist that Mueller and not his lackeys appear in his court, even Rosenstein for that matter. Some judges do not appreciate it when the junior flunkies are dispatched to take the beating and possible contempt charges. (If that is where there this headed, that is.)RoscoePColtrane said:And what political flack is he going to take besides a bunch of crying? They cry all day every day anyway. When Mueller is fired for cause they'll get over it when they eventually realize there is nothing they can do about it. It you're worried about bad press that's laughable, it's bad 24/7Cepe said:RoscoePColtrane said:They just fire him on the spot. He was illegally appointed by definition. No crime was committed to justify it, and even Rosenstein said it himself he saw nothing criminal and appointed one anyway.Cepe said:
Even if sessions is replaced can the new person reign in Mueller? Is it as simple as rescinding the authorization letters or res coping with a new directive or has the train already left the station?
That is the most expedient way for sure but does that work politically? I think Trump would be hammered by the public no matter how justified he makes it.
It seems to date trump has stayed away from that solution because most of the electorate doesn't understand what's going on.
YeahI found this really entertaining, I think he's letting them know if they go that route, they can expect a different game from there on out. Especially if the reveal doesn't show all the drama of loss of life, foreign catastrophic fallout, and doom and gloom. If it turns out that they invoke CIPA and it just them hiding their shenanigans again as it has every time so far, their gooses are cooked with this judge it they aren't already.aggiehawg said:Judge Ellis is the wild card here. If he is as fired up as it appears he is, at the next hearing he can insist that Mueller and not his lackeys appear in his court, even Rosenstein for that matter. Some judges do not appreciate it when the junior flunkies are dispatched to take the beating and possible contempt charges. (If that is where there is headed, that it.)RoscoePColtrane said:And what political flack is he going to take besides a bunch of crying? They cry all day every day anyway. When Mueller is fired for cause they'll get over it when they eventually realize there is nothing they can do about it. It you're worried about bad press that's laughable, it's bad 24/7Cepe said:RoscoePColtrane said:They just fire him on the spot. He was illegally appointed by definition. No crime was committed to justify it, and even Rosenstein said it himself he saw nothing criminal and appointed one anyway.Cepe said:
Even if sessions is replaced can the new person reign in Mueller? Is it as simple as rescinding the authorization letters or res coping with a new directive or has the train already left the station?
That is the most expedient way for sure but does that work politically? I think Trump would be hammered by the public no matter how justified he makes it.
It seems to date trump has stayed away from that solution because most of the electorate doesn't understand what's going on.
Ellis did throw Mueller a life-line, CIPA. Those procedures would not be in open court, instead ex parte in camera communications and the use of the SCIF in the courthouse. Doesn't mean Ellis couldn't sanction Mueller or Rosenstein, however, if he finds they have been less than candid in his court.
Quote:
I must tell you that I'm exercising uncharacteristic restraint on my part not to require you to tell me about those things, but I think I have an adequate record now. You're going to let me know in two weeks the rest of this letter. I'm going to be interested if CIPA really is invoked. That creates a whole new regime for the treatment of discovery and so forth, as you all well know.
RoscoePColtrane said:And what political flack is he going to take besides a bunch of crying? They cry all day every day anyway. When Mueller is fired for cause they'll get over it when they eventually realize there is nothing they can do about it. It you're worried about bad press that's laughable, it's bad 24/7Cepe said:RoscoePColtrane said:They just fire him on the spot. He was illegally appointed by definition. No crime was committed to justify it, and even Rosenstein said it himself he saw nothing criminal and appointed one anyway.Cepe said:
Even if sessions is replaced can the new person reign in Mueller? Is it as simple as rescinding the authorization letters or res coping with a new directive or has the train already left the station?
That is the most expedient way for sure but does that work politically? I think Trump would be hammered by the public no matter how justified he makes it.
It seems to date trump has stayed away from that solution because most of the electorate doesn't understand what's going on.
Well, it is a legal nuance that borders on pettifoggery. A fact that didn't escape Judge Ellis.RoscoePColtrane said:
It's just amazing reading that transcript that Dreeben was reduced to arguing "Yeah, we violated the regulations governing special counsels but those regs are not enforceable in court."
Or worse, FISA abuse. The nexus in time between Mueller's appointment, the renewal of the Page Title I FISA warrant signed by Rosenstein, the reveal of the Strzok/Page texts by Horowitz, the Manafort raid and the secret August 2, 2017 memo paints a pretty damning picture.Quote:
Especially if the reveal doesn't show all the drama of loss of life, foreign catastrophic fallout, and doom and gloom. If it turns out that they invoke CIPA and it just them hiding their shenanigans again as it has every time so far, their gooses are cooked with this judge it they aren't already.
Yes.Safe at Home said:
Is the document that judge Ellis said he wants to see pretty much the same one that Rosenstein has refused to turn over to Nunez and Gowdy?
Takes out all the wiggle room, they don't comply and they are toast, of course they likely know when they do comply they are toast anyway. Give them enough rope they always hang themselves.Tailgate88 said:
Why did he give them two weeks to produce it? Why not a few days?
If only Mueller and Rosenstein has seen the document, what keeps them from forging a new one? As you can see, I don't trust anybody.aggiehawg said:Yes.Safe at Home said:
Is the document that judge Ellis said he wants to see pretty much the same one that Rosenstein has refused to turn over to Nunez and Gowdy?
The judge said he was "exercising uncharacteristic restraint" in not demanding they show it to him right then and there.Tailgate88 said:
Why did he give them two weeks to produce it? Why not a few days?
Microsoft word formatting and a light bulb. They would have to match exactly to the copy the Judge already has.Rockdoc said:If only Mueller and Rosenstein has seen the document, what keeps them from forging a new one? As you can see, I don't trust anybody.aggiehawg said:Yes.Safe at Home said:
Is the document that judge Ellis said he wants to see pretty much the same one that Rosenstein has refused to turn over to Nunez and Gowdy?
Ugh, it is always amazing to me how draconian our own government tech is.aggiehawg said:Microsoft word formatting and a light bulb. They would have to match exactly to the copy the Judge already has.Rockdoc said:If only Mueller and Rosenstein has seen the document, what keeps them from forging a new one? As you can see, I don't trust anybody.aggiehawg said:Yes.Safe at Home said:
Is the document that judge Ellis said he wants to see pretty much the same one that Rosenstein has refused to turn over to Nunez and Gowdy?
so what do you think will happen if Mueller/Rosenstein can convince a 3 letter agency to object, CIPA orders go into effect, the judge goes into the SCIF at the courthouse, and sees a memo that is redacted specifically to prevent political humiliation and not because there is anything amounting to real counterintelligence?aggiehawg said:The judge said he was "exercising uncharacteristic restraint" in not demanding they show it to him right then and there.Tailgate88 said:
Why did he give them two weeks to produce it? Why not a few days?
However, he did concede that some intelligence agency may have an objection, so the two weeks gives them a chance to object and tell the court the reasons for that objection. At that point, CIPA is invoked and that regime begins to control discovery. Judge goes into the SCIF downstairs from his court room and views the memo. (That could take several weeks.)
Also, it gives the judge time to assess whether he wants to demand that Mueller and/or Rosenstein attend that hearing, instead of Mueller's underlings. Then he gets to ask about the ten million budget, the Michael Cohen decision, why Mueller glommed onto the old EDVA Manafort case, etc. Don't get excited as those questions would not likely be in open court with a transcript.
Judge goes ballistic and dismisses the Manafort indictment en masse? Sanctions Mueller, Dreeben and Weissman?Quote:
so what do you think will happen if Mueller/Rosenstein can convince a 3 letter agency to object, CIPA orders go into effect, the judge goes into the SCIF at the courthouse, and sees a memo that is redacted specifically to prevent political humiliation and not because there is anything amounting to real counterintelligence?
Quote:
As I explained here back in August, Rosenstein almost certainly did not appoint Mueller pursuant to section 600.4 or pursuant to the Special Counsel regulations at all. In his appointment order, Rosenstein did not say that he was appointing Mueller pursuant to, or "under," the regulations. Nor did he cite the provision of the regulations, Section 600.1, that governs the appointment of a Special Counsel from outside the Department. Instead, he wrote that he was acting "by virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice." (In particular, section 515 provides that "any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct.")
That is to say, Rosenstein relied only upon statutory, not regulatory, authorities in making his appointment of Mueller - the same authorities that gave the Attorney General the authority "to appoint subordinate officers" from outside DOJ (namely, Special Counsels Cox and Jaworski) "to assist him in the discharge of his duties" involving the Watergate investigations and prosecutions. U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 694. [Clarification: To be sure, in 1973 the Attorney General did so by promulgating a "regulation" in the Federal Register specifically concerning the Watergate investigation, whereas Rosenstein acted by promulgating a letter. That difference in form is of no moment, however (except perhaps insofar as it effects what the AG would have to do to rescind the previous appointment): The important point is that each of the three actionsthe 1973 creation of the Watergate-related Special Counsel, the 1999 general, "framework" DOJ Special Counsel regs, and the 2017 creation of the Russia/Trump Campaign Special Counselwere directly authorized by the same set of statutes, especially section 515.]
Ooops!Quote:
As I wrote back in August, Rosenstein likely did soi.e., made the appointment outside the aegis of the DOJ regulationsbecause Section 600.1 appears to provide for appointment of a Special Counsel only for a criminal investigation, whereas the Russia investigation is principally, or at least in part, a counterintelligence investigation, and the Special Counsel regulations do not speak to hiring outside counsel to supervise such an investigation.*
Yeah, I saw that and my interpretation ... Rosenstein cleverly chose the statutory over regulatory appointment because 600.1 doesn't give SC enough cover for both criminal and counterintelligence - thus giving Mueller broader authority.aggiehawg said:
You missed the money shot:Ooops!Quote:
As I wrote back in August, Rosenstein likely did soi.e., made the appointment outside the aegis of the DOJ regulationsbecause Section 600.1 appears to provide for appointment of a Special Counsel only for a criminal investigation, whereas the Russia investigation is principally, or at least in part, a counterintelligence investigation, and the Special Counsel regulations do not speak to hiring outside counsel to supervise such an investigation.*
This is above my brain's pay grade - is the statutory v regulatory appointment similar to Obamacare's "this is not a tax" that becomes "what I meant to say was, this is a tax therefore legal" and he'll skate by allowing this to be classified as counterintelligence?benchmark said:Yeah, I saw that and my interpretation ... Rosenstein cleverly chose the statutory over regulatory appointment because 600.1 doesn't give SC enough cover for both criminal and counterintelligence - thus giving Mueller broader authority.aggiehawg said:
You missed the money shot:Ooops!Quote:
As I wrote back in August, Rosenstein likely did soi.e., made the appointment outside the aegis of the DOJ regulationsbecause Section 600.1 appears to provide for appointment of a Special Counsel only for a criminal investigation, whereas the Russia investigation is principally, or at least in part, a counterintelligence investigation, and the Special Counsel regulations do not speak to hiring outside counsel to supervise such an investigation.*
Too clever by half, in my view. That was subterfuge and one that Ellis is beginning to unpack, IOW call it a lie.benchmark said:Yeah, I saw that and my interpretation ... Rosenstein cleverly chose the statutory over regulatory appointment because 600.1 doesn't give SC enough cover for both criminal and counterintelligence - thus giving Mueller broader authority.aggiehawg said:
You missed the money shot:Ooops!Quote:
As I wrote back in August, Rosenstein likely did soi.e., made the appointment outside the aegis of the DOJ regulationsbecause Section 600.1 appears to provide for appointment of a Special Counsel only for a criminal investigation, whereas the Russia investigation is principally, or at least in part, a counterintelligence investigation, and the Special Counsel regulations do not speak to hiring outside counsel to supervise such an investigation.*
aggiehawg said:
This Mueller investigation is going to end up at SCOTUS at some point. Too many consequential Constitutional issues. When can the government use counter-intel sources and methods, side-step Article III search warrant protections, in bringing criminal charges against American citizens?
And just like the procedures on searches involving attorney-client privileges, where a taint team is separate from the prosecutors was their a firewall in the Mueller investigation between the counter-intel people and the prosecutors?
From Dreeben's remarks in court on Friday it is abundantly clear that no such firewall exists within the Mueller team.
Ever heard the term "abused the spirit of the law, if not the letter"?? That's what is happening here.Quote:
This is above my brain's pay grade - is the statutory v regulatory appointment similar to Obamacare's "this is not a tax" that becomes "what I meant to say was, this is a tax therefore legal" and he'll skate by allowing this to be classified as counterintelligence?
Deceitful to be sure but it's clearly inferred in the first sentence of Mueller's appointment order. Rosenstein did a complete end-around on Special Counsel appointment regulation 600.1. Surprising no one has challenged this except Manafort's attorneys. SCOTUS worthy?aggiehawg said:
Too clever by half, in my view. That was subterfuge and one that Ellis is beginning to unpack, IOW call it a lie.
Rosenstein may truly be in serious legal jeopardy here. Prosecutorial misconduct.
ntxVOL said:
Why not Trey Gowdy?
It may very well be, if Ellis tosses Manafort's indictment out and Mueller tries to appeal.benchmark said:Deceitful to be sure but it's clearly inferred in the first sentence of Mueller's appointment order. Rosenstein did a complete end-around on Special Counsel appointment regulation 600.1. Surprising no one has challenged this except Manafort's attorneys. SCOTUS worthy?aggiehawg said:
Too clever by half, in my view. That was subterfuge and one that Ellis is beginning to unpack, IOW call it a lie.
Rosenstein may truly be in serious legal jeopardy here. Prosecutorial misconduct.
