Forum Thread

Will Trump Fire Jeff Sessions?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 46 - 59 of 59 Prev 1 2 3 4
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    wwjd:

    You are exactly right.

    By chance, I picked up a copy of "The dangerous case of Donald Trump", by Bandy Lee at the local library about a week ago.

    The book is a compilation of the opinions of 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts, all of whom agree that Trump is completely crazy, and EXTREMELY dangerous. Tony Schwartz (the actual writer of "The Art of the Deal" spent about a year with Trump, and he also added his comments to this book.

    Never forget that he launched 50 missiles at Syria on a whim, and also authorized "the mother of all bombs" in Afghanistan. He also has access to the nuclear codes, and once said "if we've got 'em, why can't we use 'en?"

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The man who wrote the special counsel rules in 1999 explains why Matthew Whitaker CANNOT supervise the Mueller investigation:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/12/rules-are-clear-whitaker-cant-supervise-muellers-investigation/?utm_term=.045fa9750a70

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes the writer is correct, however I've not seen any move from anyone to back this up or enforce what was published by the Wash. Post. Any normal person would think the same way. I'm afraid it will take lots of time to remove this guy, let alone that he causes lots of damage in the meantime. What a stupid country with stupid leaders.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    that guy in AZ Wrote:

    The man who wrote the special counsel rules in 1999 explains why Matthew Whitaker CANNOT supervise the Mueller investigation:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/12/rules-are-clear-whitaker-cant-supervise-muellers-investigation/?utm_term=.045fa9750a70

    From the linked article:

    "Trump could secretly order Whitaker to do his bidding"

    The problem with billionaires is they don't have to ask any body to do anything. People will act on their own initiative to carry out what they perceive to be the desires of billionaires on the hope they will be recognized by the billionaire. Implied consent ???

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    that guy in AZ Wrote:

    The man who wrote the special counsel rules in 1999 explains why Matthew Whitaker CANNOT supervise the Mueller investigation:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/12/rules-are-clear-whitaker-cant-supervise-muellers-investigation/?utm_term=.045fa9750a70

    Arizona- That's a good article and thanks for sharing it. While some pundits are pointing towards a "Constitutional crisis", at least one former prosecutor said we are in "unchartered waters". In other words there are fixes possible to rein in the transgressions of the president, and those fixes primarily lie with Congress, more specifically the Senate. Congress needs to pass a veto proof law that shields Mueller and his team from potential interference by Trump and Whitaker. I cannot see either the Republican controlled House or the Senate acting this year. Mitch McConnell has blocked prior attempts.

    So it may very well be that it is left to the media and Democratic politicians to keep Whitaker under the microscope and call foul if he interferes in any way. Certainly both must have sources to leak what Whitaker is doing...maybe Rosenstein can keep us informed.

    Mueller himself could just threaten Whitaker with obstruction of justice and let the public know what he is up to. That may be Mueller's last prerogative, knowing how he likes to keep his investigation quiet.

    Trump is desperate now. Whitaker may be his last attempt to avoid any public disclosure of Mueller's findings. The truth, however, will come out...hopefully sooner than later as Whitaker can do damage in the meantime.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt:

    This morning, San Francisco's city attorney said that his office may take court action is the DOJ does not provide legal justification for Whitaker's appointment. Since the city currently has four cases proceeding in court that name Sessions as a defendant, they definitely have legal standing to file a suit. One of those cases led to an injunction blocking a Trump executive order over sanctuary cities.

    In addition to that, sources told Reuters last week that Senate Democrats were considering suing Trump on the grounds that, in naming Whitaker, the president ignored a statutory line of succession at the Justice Department and deprived senators of their constitutional "advice and consent" role on some presidential appointments.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2018-11-12/city-of-san-francisco-threatens-court-action-over-trumps-acting-attorney-general

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    On the Lawrence O'Donnell show last night, one of Lawrence's expert guests pointed out that in all litigation being argued in federal courts, the title of the litigation has the attorney general's name in it...e.g. Sessions versus xxxxx. The name "Sessions" has now been removed from those legal proceedings, and the official titles are now "Whitaker vs xxxxx". If it can be shown that Whitaker was not a legally qualified attorney general, all those cases being tried in federal court with Whitaker's name on it could be thrown out. Challenges are indeed already underway. Criminals can go free on that technicality including any being charged by Mueller.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    As of yesterday, Whitaker has been talking with ethics officials about possible recusal from the Mueller probe.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/12/whitaker-recusal-mueller-investigation-985257

    Trump's reaction, of course, will be very predictable:

    See the source image

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Whitaker was brought on by Trump with one purpose -- to control or stop the Mueller investigation. I don't see Whitaker recusing himself. If he does that he is useless to Trump who will then have to find someone else. The Justice Department was supposedly going to give a ruling on Whitaker's future status today, but that didn't happen. The department is between a rock and a hard place.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt, looking at all of this, then it shows again that all the "rules" and "laws" in this country are useless, because nothing is solid "black" and "white" without "loopholes" ; all of this is caused by having a "zillion" lawyers who all want to keep making money. What a country; all of this is an self inflicted wound.

    Over in Europe you have to search to find a "lawyer". I guess this whole country can't sustain itself without "lawyers" and "churches".

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Tucson, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This morning, Trump announced his choice to be the next Attorney General. Although William Barr IS a better choice than Matthew Whitaker, there ARE some areas of concern about his nomination:

    1) he supports a strong vision of executive powers

    2) he thinks Mueller has hired too many prosecutors who have donated to Democratic campaigns

    3) he is more concerned about Hillary Clinton's uranium deal than about Russian interference in our election process

    4) he developed a reputation as a proponent of a sweeping theory of the president’s constitutional authority to act without congressional permission or in defiance of statutes (which is why the Bush administration approved "enhanced interrogation methods)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/us/politics/john-kelly-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

    If you are wondering why the Uranium One deal is considered to be a problem by the conservatives, the link below goes into more detail:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895

    In the final analysis, though, it really IS fake news, since 8 other government agencies, other than than the State Department, approved the sale of the company to the Russians.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    He also nominated an replacement for Haley at the UN; it happens to be an ex-FOX News woman, who knows nothing of the UN, let alone the world. Another disaster appointment. This country and its present leader will never learn.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It's going to take years for a new administration to repair the damage done by this manchild.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    It is hard to understand why William Barr would take this position at age 68. Barr is certainly qualified for the job based on education and experience; however, his political views appear to be "Trumplike" and that's why Trump has selected him.

    To add to Arizona's list above, from Wikipedia:

    As Deputy Attorney General, Barr successfully pushed for the withdrawal of a proposed Department of Health and Human Services rule that would have allowed people with HIV/AIDS into the United States.

    He also advocated the use of GITMO to prevent Haitian refugees and HIV infected peoples from claiming asylum in the United States.

    Barr took hardline positions on immigration as Attorney General in the Bush Administration.

    In 1991, Barr stated that he believed the framers of the Constitution did not originally intend to create a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade was thus wrongly decided; and that abortion should be a "legitimate issue for state legislators."

    In a 1995 scholarly article for the The Catholic Lawyer, Barr states that American government is "predicated precisely" on the Judeo-Christian system.

    Barr grapples with the challenge of representing Catholicism "in an increasingly militant, secular age." Amongst other things Barr states the need to "restructure education and take advantage of existing tax deductions for charitable institutions to promote Catholic education."

    Barr donated $55,000 to Jeb Bush during the 2016 United States presidential election.

    Barr believed that then-Republican candidate Donald J. Trump's calls for investigating Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for President, were appropriate.

    Further on Arizona's list, in the same Times piece, Barr added that an investigation into the Uranium One controversy was more warranted than looking into whether Trump conspired with Russia: "To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility."

    In February 2017, Barr argued Trump was justified in firing Acting Attorney General Sally Yates over her refusal to defend Executive Order 13769.