Well, the DAG is Senate-confirmable. And firing Rosenstein would be more controversial in the Senate (I think) than firing Sessions.
That doesn’t make any sense to me. If Rosenstein gets hit by a truck today, then Mueller has a job for life?
With a source like “Some Guy on TV says” it isn’t very difficult to imagine that this isn’t 100% accurate.
On the contrary, I’d be delighted for people to see my posts. I believe I made my point sufficiently that an impartial reader will come away understanding that Evil Economist was factually wrong about Trump’s approval rating and stubbornly clung to his incorrect position in the face of clear evidence and explanation to the contrary.
I was less thrilled with ganthet taking the link out of my post when he quoted it.
You guys were arguing about whether Trumps approval rating was horrible or horrible, so I guess we decided it is indeed horrible
Congrats? :rolleyes:
There’s a non-zero chance elucidator was watching a rerun of Veep and also that he misunderstood what Kevin Dunn was talking about.
Attention everyone: Today is the 28th. Trump has not had an approval rating of 36% since the 24th, which is in the past. Therefore anyone who says Trump has an approval rating of 36% is a poopy head.
As proof of Trump’s current approval rating, I direct you to a site that averages approval ratings starting from 7/8, which is OK because the 8th is not the 24th, duh. I will not be taking questions.
Good day.
I think this is all a sham, just political theatre. Trump blusters and threatens Sessions, who pushes back hard. It grabs headlines, distracts, everyone lines up behind Sessions. Then, when the time comes Sessions all but clears Trump. Too late for the pundits to back away. Everybody gets what they want, everybody looks strong and tough, win, win.
The part I’m not following is “Then, when the time comes Sessions all but clears Trump.” How is Sessions going to do that when Meuller is leading the investigation and Sessions recused himself?
Find some technicality, mess up some evidence, throw doubt on some certainty, that sort of thing. I just think he’ll find a way, to throw a monkey wrench in the works that will, in the end, sink the whole investigation or it’s actionability, in some irreparable way.
Just my opinion, is all.
Pretty simple really. If I don’t remember who it was that said it, I’ll just tell you so. Hence, “Some guy on TV”. Makes sense to me, that there would be a mechanism installed so that this sort of Nixonian bullshit was out of bounds.
OK, here. Guy’s name is Tim Weiner, wrote books about FBI and CIA. Click 'Expert: ‘Nothing can stop Bobby Mueller’ go to about 4min 20 mark and he explains it. According to him. Your correspondent assumes no further responsibility, but you could probably look it up.
Without bothering to watch Rachel Maddow, I’m just going to assume Weiner was talking about the old no longer existing post of Independent Counsel rather than Mueller’s actual position of Special Counsel/prosecuter.
Thanks. I appreciate you doing the legwork to track down the cite. I watched it. I don’t believe the expert was trying to convey what you claimed, specifically these two sentences:
As near as I can type, the transcript goes like this:
This seems like a pretty direct acknowledgement that the hypothetical new Deputy AG does have the power to fire Mueller. And he didn’t say anything about Congress doing it, at least, AFAICT.
I saw that interview, and my impression was that Mr. Weiner was being a bit overgenerous in his assessment. At the moment, Rosenstein is the only one who can fire Mueller, since Sessions has recused, and, under current federal regulations, only for cause.
Money quote:
"Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation, the decision to appoint a special counsel fell to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. In his order making the appointment, Rosenstein cited federal regulations issued by the attorney general in 1999, 28 C.F.R. § 600.4-600.10. The rules were drafted in the wake of the Kenneth Starr investigation of President Bill Clinton.
According to those regulations, a special counsel “may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General” (or in this case, the acting attorney general). And Rosenstein can’t just do it on a whim, either. According to the regulation, special counsel can only be removed “for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.”
OK. Does the Acting AG have all the powers of the AG? Or are some powers reserved for an AG that Congress has confirmed?
I agree completely. There may be some rumblings around the edges to the effect that Sessions’ work is responsible for much of such approval as Trump is getting, but Trump will shrug off such heretical ideas.
Still, if Sessions were to be removed and no equally-hardline replacement installed, some of Trump’s fans might begin to notice that a lot of what they like about Trump actually wasn’t Trump.
My point in making this thread is that Trump actually isn’t doing all that much that the base likes (other than the Supreme Court nomination, which of course Trump gets credit for despite having very little to do with it). What Trump is doing–swanning around foreign nations and holding hands with foreign leaders, making nasty remarks about women newscasters, and playing a lot of golf—is never what Trump voters cite as their reason for continuing to support him.
It’s what Sessions is doing (and others, as alluded to below) that the Trump voters actually like.
Trump himself is sort of…just there, being hateful and greedy. Redundant, in a way.
Sure. ICE is the enforcer, but the prosecutor in each deportation case is a federal attorney, and Sessions is their boss. Sessions has called for prosecutions in cases apparently not prioritized in the Obama era: of those who harbor the undocumented, of those who seek marriages ruled fraudulent in order to gain legal immigration status, and felony charges for multiple entries by an immigrant. Sessions, too, has the power to increase the number of immigration judges, so as to speed up deportations:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/jeff-sessions-immigration-crackdown-237109
So though you are quite correct that I should have mentioned Homeland Security head John Kelly, it’s still reasonable to attribute a lot of what Trump fans like about “what Trump is doing” to Sessions. (Also, Kelly is far less of a hard-liner than is Sessions; he apparently seems to feel that immigrants are human beings, as compared with Sessions’ infamous characterization of them as “filth”. [same link.])
Sherrerd,
As a Trump voter, I believe your central premise is largely correct. I voted for Trump, but it had far more to do with the people I thought we’d get on SCOTUS and in his Cabinet as a result, and not so much to do with some personal excitement about Trump being in the White House.
So for the sake of an interesting hypothetical: if Mike Pence promised to keep the same Cabinet, would you fully support impeachment* proceedings being begun for Trump?
*(As I’ve said before, I don’t believe Trump will actually be impeached–I think he’d resign, first.)
No, because I haven’t seen evidence yet that has convinced me that Trump has done something impeachment-worthy.
ETA: I like Pence more, I would prefer Pence were the President instead of Trump, but Trump won the election, and I don’t believe impeachment should be used to throw out Presidents simply because I dislike them, or favor someone else.
I share that view. However, I think it unlikely that Trump has done nothing impeachment-worthy.
Just the sharing of the Israeli-spy information with the Russian Ambassador and Foreign Minister, during the May 10 Oval Office meeting, seems likely to me to be an impeachable offense. And I believe that before this is over, we will learn of other national security information that Trump has improperly shared with the Russians. (To say nothing of financial dealings by Trump that may be found to have violated US laws.)
Huh. I kind of assumed that was kind of always how it was - except for maybe the misconduct stuff. I mean otherwise, wouldn’t Nixon just have personally fired HIS special prosecutor rather than ordering his AG then his Deputy AG to do it?