Did Trump pull a fast one on Mullet?

D

Darth Omar

Russian asset
Now we move to the final stage of "prestige" when the magic occurs. The best legal argument in defense of Mueller's position was that he reported to Rosenstein, who is a confirmed official. Now that he reports to Whitaker, you have an unconfirmed individual exercising powers like a United States attorney and being overseen by an unconfirmed acting attorney general.

In other words, by appointing Whitaker, Trump has undermined the position of his own Justice Department in court in the Andrew Miller case without directly firing Mueller. If Whitaker is left in place, and Trump has said there is "no rush" to fill the post permanently, the court could conclude that Mueller is now exercising powers reserved to confirmed "principal officers." He could be barred from exercising those powers until an attorney general is nominated and confirmed.

Making this situation all the more intriguing would be if Trump then appoints someone who Democrats would likely oppose, such as former Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.). Yet, if Democrats rejected such a nominee, they - not any direct action by Trump - would be the reason for keeping Mueller's investigation enjoined. And that would be the ultimate "prestige" to this trick.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...eller-disappear?amp&__twitter_impression=true
_________________

Jonathan Turley is a legal scholar from George Washington University.

And I had to read and re-read his piece before I could get a handle on it. If I’m understanding him right, Trump might have thrown Mullet a curveball in not elevating Rosenstein to AG. By appointing Whitaker, you have a non-confirmed ‘principle officer’ overseeing a non-confirmed prosecutor in Mullet.

The problem is, Mullet derives his authority from working under a confirmed ‘principle officer’, which was formerly Rosenstein. But by appointing Whitaker, Mullet is no longer working under a confirmed principle officer—and he won’t be until one is confirmed by the Senate.

This could get interesting.
 
Darth Omar said:
Now we move to the final stage of "prestige" when the magic occurs. The best legal argument in defense of Mueller's position was that he reported to Rosenstein, who is a confirmed official. Now that he reports to Whitaker, you have an unconfirmed individual exercising powers like a United States attorney and being overseen by an unconfirmed acting attorney general.

In other words, by appointing Whitaker, Trump has undermined the position of his own Justice Department in court in the Andrew Miller case without directly firing Mueller. If Whitaker is left in place, and Trump has said there is "no rush" to fill the post permanently, the court could conclude that Mueller is now exercising powers reserved to confirmed "principal officers." He could be barred from exercising those powers until an attorney general is nominated and confirmed.

Making this situation all the more intriguing would be if Trump then appoints someone who Democrats would likely oppose, such as former Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.). Yet, if Democrats rejected such a nominee, they - not any direct action by Trump - would be the reason for keeping Mueller's investigation enjoined. And that would be the ultimate "prestige" to this trick.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...eller-disappear?amp&__twitter_impression=true
_________________

Jonathan Turley is a legal scholar from George Washington University.

And I had to read and re-read his piece before I could get a handle on it. If I’m understanding him right, Trump might have thrown Mullet a curveball in not elevating Rosenstein to AG. By appointing Whitaker, you have a non-confirmed ‘principle officer’ overseeing a non-confirmed prosecutor in Mullet.

The problem is, Mullet derives his authority from working under a confirmed ‘principle officer’, which was formerly Rosenstein. But by appointing Whitaker, Mullet is no longer working under a confirmed principle officer—and he won’t be until one is confirmed by the Senate.

This could get interesting.
Click to expand...

lol yeah like Mueller Time didn't consider this 'curveball'.....your daddy not tapping Rosenstein for the AG slot

gawd you're a gullible twit, Mueller Time is playing 3 dimensional chess while Trump and cultists like you are play with their dicks

here's clue for ya slugger.........NY/VA Attorneys General..........the senate wouldn't convict on a House impeachment anyway, which of course Mueller Time is fully aware of
 
reagansghost said:
lol yeah like Mueller Time didn't consider this 'curveball'.....your daddy not tapping Rosenstein for the AG slot

gawd you're a gullible twit, Mueller Time is playing 3 dimensional chess while Trump and cultists like you are play with their dicks

here's clue for ya slugger.........NY/VA Attorneys General..........the senate wouldn't convict on a House impeachment anyway, which of course Mueller Time is fully aware of
Click to expand...

Speak English please lol.
 
Darth, you don't get it.

Mueller is not acting as a "principal officer," but, in fact, having been an FBI Director, ratified by the Senate, he can certainly continue acting independently of Whittaker, until the latter is confirmed.
 
Critics argue that Whitaker does not meet Federal Vacancies Reform Act requirements, but I disagree with that argument, as well as arguments that Whitaker's public commentary before joining the Justice Department now requires him to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller investigation.
However, there remains a more fundamental question, not whether Whitaker is unlawful under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, but whether that law itself is unconstitutional.

The position of the attorney general is clearly that of a principal officer requiring confirmation.
Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Whitaker will carry out the functions of the attorney general without confirmation for 210 days. He can then gain another 210 days if he, or some other nominee, fails to secure confirmation. That includes functions dealing with succession of the presidency and a host of other matters of critical importance to the nation.
Click to expand...
interesting..I wondered where the "temporary AG" idea came from.

Anyways in regard to the Mullet,Trump isn't going to touch him,even thru Whitaker.
Trump has said so over and over and we know Russian Collusion was ALWAYS BULLSHIT -
so why would he want to toss the Dems any reason for impeachment?
(not that the rabid Dems need a reason, they'll just make shit up from the Mueller witch hunt)

so it's interesting and all that, but for practical political reasons Mullet lives on as long as he wants to
 
jimmymccready said:
Darth, you don't get it.

Mueller is not acting as a "principal officer," but, in fact, having been an FBI Director, ratified by the Senate, he can certainly continue acting independently of Whittaker, until the latter is confirmed.
Click to expand...

You’re apparently smarter than Turley lol.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think Mullet’s former position as FBI Director ‘carries over’ with respect to being a confirmed actor in his role as SP. I’m pretty sure he would have to go through the confirmation process again—or work underneath a confirmed actor like he was doing under Rosenstein.

Now it seems he may be left adrift. We’ll see how the judge looks at it.
 
noise said:
interesting..I wondered where the "temporary AG" idea came from.

Anyways in regard to the Mullet,Trump isn't going to touch him,even thru Whitaker.
Trump has said so over and over and we know Russian Collusion was ALWAYS BULLSHIT -
so why would he want to toss the Dems any reason for impeachment?
(not that the rabid Dems need a reason, they'll just make shit up from the Mueller witch hunt)

so it's interesting and all that, but for practical political reasons Mullet lives on as long as he wants to
Click to expand...

That’s just it though.

Trump wouldn’t need to fire Mullet—if he’s rendered impotent, until a confirmed AG is put in place over him.
 
Phantasmal said:
translation:

Doesn’t matter what Trump does, Mueller is way ahead of him with handing off cases to the SDNY and VA.
Click to expand...

He can hand off all he wants as long as he keeps the trend of irrelevancy going lol.

Like Judge Sullivan said, ‘nobody cares about Manafort’.
 
Mueller, if Darth is right, has to act under a confirmed principal.

He can't act under Whittaker until he is confirmed, so until that time, he will have to act under Rosenstein.
 
Darth Omar said:
That’s just it though.

Trump wouldn’t need to fire Mullet—if he’s rendered impotent, until a confirmed AG is put in place over him.
Click to expand...
I get the theoretical... my brain is worn out from phone calls - but I get it.

But towards what purpose? The Dems are SCREAMING "Trump is gonna fire Mueller" and there are dumb Senators as well that actually think ( posture) that's gonna happen.

It's all bullshit, just like Russian collusion -an esoteric if important discussion- but of no real political worth
 
jimmymccready said:
Mueller, if Darth is right, has to act under a confirmed principal.

He can't act under Whittaker until he is confirmed, so until that time, he will have to act under Rosenstein.
Click to expand...

Assuming the court would recognize that.

Whitaker is the defacto AG and he hasn’t recused. If you go by the book [the constitution] Mullet derives his authority from the AG. I’m starting to get the idea that’s why democrats want him to recuse.
 
noise said:
I get the theoretical... my brain is worn out from phone calls - but I get it.

But towards what purpose? The Dems are SCREAMING "Trump is gonna fire Mueller" and there are dumb Senators as well that actually think ( posture) that's gonna happen.

It's all bullshit, just like Russian collusion -an esoteric if important discussion- but of no real political worth
Click to expand...

I get the burnout too. But I don’t work weekends lol.

The purpose? At minimum, it throws a temporary wrench in the works. But as Turley pointed out, Trump could appoint a Chris Christie and force Senate democrats to confirm an AG that would reign in Mullet—just so Mullet can get his authority back. Or they can turn the appointment down—but then it drags on even longer.

Like I said, this could get interesting. We’ll see how the judge rules in the Miller case.
 
not really. In the end Mueller is going to do whatever he wants and no one is going to stop him. It would just look to bad if we were to order him to stop. the best we can do is discredit him so that half the population does not believe what he says.
 
tsuke said:
not really. In the end Mueller is going to do whatever he wants and no one is going to stop him. It would just look to bad if we were to order him to stop. the best we can do is discredit him so that half the population does not believe what he says.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Mullet is not prosecutorial dictator. His vested authority is derived from the DOJ: specifically, the AG.

A confirmed, AG.
 
Nope, Mueller is his own actor.

Everything he gets every day he gets it goes to several federal and state DAs outside of the belt line.

If there is material to indict people and continue to make Trump look ever more guilty and dirty, then that is what will happen, and the AG can't do a thing about it.
 
jimmymccready said:
Nope, Mueller is his own actor.

Everything he gets every day he gets it goes to several federal and state DAs outside of the belt line.

If there is material to indict people and continue to make Trump look ever more guilty and dirty, then that is what will happen, and the AG can't do a thing about it.
Click to expand...

Mullet derives his authority to act from somewhere—or he has no authority to act. That’s kind of the point to the OP.

Whatever it is you imagine Mullet has on Trump or anyone else is irrelevant to that fact.
 
tsuke said:
not really. In the end Mueller is going to do whatever he wants and no one is going to stop him. It would just look to bad if we were to order him to stop. the best we can do is discredit him so that half the population does not believe what he says.
Click to expand...

"the best we can do is discredit him so that half the population does not believe what he says," so does that mean if Muller definitively proves the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians it should be disregarded and discredited?
 
Whatever you are imagining, Omar, you are off kilter.

That's fine. That's what we have judges for.

However, if you believe Trump is truly innocent, you would have no trouble letting Mueller continue.
 
archives said:
"the best we can do is discredit him so that half the population does not believe what he says," so does that mean if Muller definitively proves the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians it should be disregarded and discredited?
Click to expand...

its what putin ordered comrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top