Supposedly Trump is considering firing Mueller. Democratic house member Adam Schiff responded by saying this.
Adam schiff, is according to wikipedia the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Does he have the authority to appoint Mueller if Mueller is fired by Trump (ie, Trump keeps firing acting AG directors until he finds one willing to fire Mueller for him)?
Devin Nunes is the head of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Has Nunes recused himself, making Schiff the acting head of the committee who has say on whether Mueller is rehired?
Would Mueller appointed by the house or senate have the same abilities he has under the justice department? The same budget, same hiring, subpoena and investigative abilities, etc?
What all committees in the house or senate could appoint Mueller, and which ones would be likely to do it if Trump fires him under the justice department?
The answer is there in your quote. The DoJ appoints a *special *counsel. Congress could, if it reacted the bill, appoint an independent counsel.
The catch, of course, is that Schiff says - I have no idea if he believes any of this - that Congress would pass a new version of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which created the independent counsel and expired in 1999. What powers it would have today and who would appoint one would be entirely determined by a new, as yet unwritten bill, and nothing can be said about them. Schiff as a Democrat has no power whatsoever. Not only would the Republicans have to pass such a bill in both houses, they would have to do so with veto-proof margins. Such an outcome is currently dubious, to use GQ phrasing.
Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy told the PBS Newshour Monday that Trump is looking into firing Robert Mueller as special counsel investigating Russia’s role in last year’s election, after visiting the White House earlier in the day.
Hahahaha. Fire Mueller? According to whom? Chris Ruddy? Is he considered a part of Trump’s inner circle? A confidant perhaps? Did Ruddy get this from one of those ever-so-popular unnamed sources? Or is this another one of those fake news stories I’ve heard so much about?
There are two different things here, special counsels and independent counsels (also called independent prosecutors.)
The special counsel is an office that exists per DOJ regulations within the DOJ and - though granted a degree of independence by protocol and practice, ultimately works for and reports to the Attorney General and the President.
Independent counsels have taken many forms over the years but the most recent version was via the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. That version authorized Congress to request that a federal judge appoint an independent counsel to make a report to Congress about any potential wrongdoing of the executive branch.
The important distinction here is that the IC works for Congress, not the DOJ, although the original 1978 Act did authorize the Attorney General to fire an independent counsel for cause.
The independent counsel law expired in 1999 after the Ken Starr fiasco.
Schiff is saying that Congress would reestablish an independent counsel law if the special counsel were dismissed. (To do this over the President’s veto would require a supermajority in both houses, of course.)
Schiff doesn’t get to hire an independent counsel; it would require new legislation. Nunes has recused himself, but I don’t think that makes Schiff the acting chair in the Russia investigation; I think it would go to the next most senior Republican.
If the hypothetical new independent counsel resembled the old one, he would have even more power, with a largely unlimited budget and scope to investigate whatever he wants. But such hypothetical new legislation might want to rein in the power of independent counsels and require them to be more focused in their work.
Under the old independent counsel law, either the House or Senate Judiciary Committee would request that the Attorney General apply to the Circuit Court for an independent counsel to be appointed. The law then gave the AG 30 days to conduct an initial investigation and either apply for an independent counsel or inform Congress why he didn’t.
It is a terrible story, but not fake news. It describes what actually happened-a person said…
The fact that the WP or anyone else published that musing was poor journalism, but not fake news. Fake news is in fact false, moreover it is made up specifically to attract attention and mislead. The above WP article satisfies the second criteria, but not the first.
I’m having trouble imagining an excuse to fire Mueller. Has he done any interviews since being appointed? He’s not grandstanding or politicizing the investigation.
I guess anything is possible. But firing a guy appointed a couple weeks ago isn’t going to end well.
Congress might pass a law for a independent counsel. A issue like this crosses party lines.
As of yet I’m not convinced anything short of murder in broad daylight would “cross party lines” to the point of Republicans actually doing something substantive against Trump. They haven’t yet – why would they after that?
Mea culpa. The general question asked if Mueller could be rehired. The answer to that question is “Yes”.
In my indefensible defense, I would like to add that after reading the linked article in the OP, my first question was whether Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy was actually in a position to know if Trump was actually considering firing Mueller. There is still no evidence that Trump considered firing Mueller. The news media outlets seem to have resorted to circular reporting. (One person in the media gives a personal opinion, and the other news media outlets act as if that personal opinion is true, or factual.) I can only plead that I was carried away by the complete lack of evidence for the story that raised the question in the OP, and forgot to answer the OP.
When Mueller was first appointed, nearly everyone (Republicans included) raved at what a good choice that was, citing his long outstanding record. More lately, according to many reports I’ve seen, Republicans are beginning more and more to criticize and smear Mueller. They now argue that he is too biased against Trump, vaguely citing the roster of people (who?) Mueller is hiring to conduct the investigation. They also argue that he is too close to Comey to be unbiased about him getting fired.
Trump cannot actually fire Mueller directly. He could order Rosenstein to, who could refuse and resign or get fired and then appoint someone to act in his place. I suppose Sessions could unrecuse himself and do it. It would not look good to the 60% who are not Trump supporters, but the other 40% would doubtless approve.
One idea I’ve seen kicking around is that the Senate Intelligence Committee would hire him as a committee counsel to work on their own investigation. But this seems pretty unlikely to me.
