jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (26 posts)

What If Trump Even Tried to Fire Special Prosecutor Mueller?

  1. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 3 weeks ago

    President Trump can't fire Mueller directly.  Instead he needs to get the person, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed him (or his replacement) to fire him.  If he refuses, Trump can fire him and keep appointing people until he finds one who will.  (Nixon did this)

    While hiring and firing by the president are well within his power to do, is using a legal power for an illegal purpose a high crime or misdemeanor which is punishable by impeachment?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      You would have to define the legal power being used, the action being taken and the illegal purpose before determining if a crime was committed, let alone whether it is in impeachable offense. 

      But in general I highly doubt that the "high crimes or misdemeanor" will ever be used to impeach a sitting president.  It just doesn't meet the level of criminal activity we require today - if it were to happen it would be with a hugely partisan and one sided congress.

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Article II states:  "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

        If lying to a grand jury, as Bill Clinton did, constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" for the Republicans to impeach him, then obstructing the investigation into your presidency certainly must be since Obstruction of Justice is normally a felony in any jurisdiction.  Felonies, by definition, are high crimes, an impeachable offense. 

        The only question at hand is whether Trump causing the removal of Mueller without good cause constitutes obstruction of justice (one of the many things he is being investigated for).

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          I have missed your participation MyEsoteric, good to see you back.

          I posted a response to Wilderness concerning just what High Crimes and Misdemeanors was intended to include. It was an invitation to think about a perspective, rather than a definition argument. I think you might have a perspective on it. I hope you take a look.

          https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/143 … ost2920747

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Been working on my book, GA, and listing in another hub the 1600 lies, etc that Trump has made in the last 300 days.

            Your link goes to another part of this forum (to which I will respond tonight).  Was that intended?

            1. GA Anderson profile image82
              GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Yep, it was just a quick link to post to Wilderness that I mentioned.

              GA

      2. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Wilderness, I have a thought for you to try on. And what a coincidence of timing that you should make your comment now - just after I finished an interesting read that I am still digesting.

        Now, don't take this as a challenge or rebuttal to your comment about "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but instead as chance to trade views and perhaps refine an opinion.

        I recently came across a reading that discussed the point that, according to Alexander Hamilton and Madison conversations, the phrasing "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was intentionally used - in lieu of more specific legal descriptions, to be both vague enough and forceful enough to accommodate purely political crimes also, a la Nixon examples.

        The point was that although modern interpretations of the phrase may include defined legal crimes like obstruction of justice, etc., the historical record of the intent of the phrasing also allows the phrase to include non-indictable crimes that amounted to political crimes against the structure of our government and its Constitutional functions.

        So, the point is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors was never intended to be just indictable crimes. Thus giving the House recourse against political actions whose seriousness threatened our nation's foundation - yet were not of an indictable crime's legal nature.

        Now that I think about it, that determination was from a recent read; The Wars of Watergate by Stanley Kutler. The House Judiciary and the Impeachment Committee did the research to see if they could impeach Nixon in the absence of an indictable crime, (remember his Grand Jury status as an unindicted co-conspirator?). Their research said they could.

        What are your thoughts?

        By the way, it is an excellent read. The most detailed Watergate account I have read - even better detail descriptions and supporting background than Woodward and Bernstein's. And, I have an extra hardcover copy I would be glad to give you if the topic interests you. But bear in mind, as interesting as it is, it is not a light read. It demands a 'quiet corner' and your full attention. Let me know by email if you want it.

        GA

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Well put, GA.  In reading "Original Meaning", I found the same thought process you so aptly described about impeachment.

          1. GA Anderson profile image82
            GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Speaking of Original Meaning, it is a great read that very much matches my interests. I am about half way through it. And if you remember, it was a comment of yours that prompted me to get a copy. I am glad I did. Thanks.

            GA

            1. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Well thank you, I am glad you are liking it.  Quite a few surprises and confirmation of many other previously held beliefs.

  2. ahorseback profile image80
    ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago

    Although Mueller isn't proving himself neutral  , Trump would be foolish and  even conservatives would be surprised to see him fire Mueller .     What's interesting is seeing the movements on the Clinton side of the potential Investigations , The   Podesta brothers are breaking up their lobbying firm ,    Hilary is being  quiet , Bill hasn't said word one . No one on the left in politics is speaking very loud.

    it seems below the intelligence and observatory ability of the average forum dweller here to understand the nuances of reactionary politics , the stuff behind the scenes ,   There are a few people shaking in their boots in Washington .  The silent ones may be  the guiltiest .

    Mueller's next indictments ; Should fairly include the most corrupt side of politics ever to have shown  it's ugly face in America ......The Clinton International Mafia.

    1. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      How is Mueller not proving himself neutral?  I have seen zero evidence or even credible innuendo that he is biased.  Except for hard core Trump supporters among the GOP, nobody in Congress thinks this former, Republican appointed head of the FBI isn't perfect for the job.

      Actually, I don't think it is the Podesta "brothers", it is simply the one brother, not John.  Also, I don't think the lobbying firm is breaking up although he has stepped down, and probably for good reason.  Hilary has hardly been quiet and neither has the left.

      This red herring about a lawyer for the Clinton campaign and the DNC picking up the ball the Republican's put in play by funding oppo research on Trump is plain misdirection.  Of course the Ds started paying the tab to Fusion GPS to dig up dirt, he would be remiss in his duties if he hadn't.  The fact that Fusion GPS hired a British company to find the dirt is neither here nor there.

      Since Mueller is only tasked to track down all activities relating to Russian on our election or collusion with any campaign (which means that could include the Clinton campaign), that would be the limit of his scope, even though it is still very broad.

      My guess is, when the dust settles, they will charge Trump with obstruction of justice and money laundering in connection with his business dealing with the Russian oligarchs (of which Putin is one).  The latter will, I bet, be filed by both the New York AG and the FBI.

      The so-called Clinton International Mafia is a figment of hard-right conspiracy theorists.

      The thing you should really be focusing on that is Clinton related is the Uranium 1 activities.  That one, I think, has legs.  Not necessarily with Clinton herself but with the whole process; something doesn't seem right given the little bit I have read about it.  That one is worthy of a Congressional investigation whether the Ds or the Rs control Congress.  There may be nothing there, but it needs looking at.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image96
        Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Does it make any difference the uranium can't be exported by the Russians? It's in the agreement, you know. Or perhaps you think this doesn't make a difference?

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Hey Randy, I know, I know,  oooh, oooh, call on me!

          No, it doesn't make a difference.

          GA

          1. Randy Godwin profile image96
            Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Why not, GA? We have more than one country owning rights to manufacturing products in the US.

            1. GA Anderson profile image82
              GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              I think it is the 'How it was done" and the 'who was involved', (meaning government), that makes it different. But that is just a perspective, not a declaration of fact.

              GA

              1. Randy Godwin profile image96
                Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Gee GA, I called on you for that vague answer? But you did have your hand up....

      2. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        I should offer a thanks MyEsoteric. It's reassuring to see another perspective on this issue that is similar to mine. I am beginning to worry about getting slotted into a partisan 'for or against' position.

        GA ;-)

  3. ahorseback profile image80
    ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago

    The Uranium One issue points far more towards  the selling off of America's national resources by the Clinton    house  for profit , personal , political or otherwise. Especially knowing the Clinton Foundation grey area's .  "Scratch my back , I did yours "    .      Same with the Chinese Missile technologies allegations .   

    Foundations / politics , you know ,  who can trust them ? Does anyone here really believe the political trading hasn't been a pattern of the Clinton's wealth gains ? From Tyson Chicken to Haitian relief funds , from Russian Uranium to Chinese missiles ,  from Whitewater .......... all the rest .

    Ahh , how quickly liberals forget written history in politics . An entire  history of shady Clinton allegations  vs. the hate inspired Trump allegations of this moment in time ?

    Breitbart say's it best , liberals suffer "The History of Now"

    1. Randy Godwin profile image96
      Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      And Trump is an honest and squeaky-clean role model for our children with no foundation problems of his own.. Wait a minute, he does and has. lol

      1. ahorseback profile image80
        ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yet you deny a 40 year history of allegations AND judge convict and punish Trump in one year ? I already know well where liberal allegiances lay .About where your "History of Now " ends .   

        My advice to liberals ,Learn to think for yourself .

        1. Randy Godwin profile image96
          Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          My advice to Conservatives, learn to think, period. tongue

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            They do. And they perceive Reality. What is Reality? Ask a Conservative.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image96
              Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              lol Kate, that's a good one! smile

          2. ahorseback profile image80
            ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Conservatives think .....and liberals follow .
            Fact.

    2. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I seem to recall a Special Counsel investigated all of those Clinton "facts" and came up with ... Nothing.  I seem to remember the only thing of consequence was Bill lying to a grand jury about a personal indiscretion.  The rest is part of the Dark Money inspired Vast Right-wing Conspiracy Theorists.

      On the other hand, at a minimum we have Trump lying, falsifying, misdirecting, and misleading at least 5 times a day since he became, it now seems with the help of Russia, President.

 
working