Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Senate bill protecting Mueller?

Does anyone actually believe that the President would sign a bill that took away the executive branch's power to put an end to the same special counsel that the executive branch created?


So the authors of this bill would effectively require almost a hundred Republicans in the House and eighteen Republicans in the Senate to come up with the two thirds majority it would take to override a Presidential veto.

Seriously, does anyone really think these things through?

32 comments:

Commonsense said...

It was as braindead as Schiff's bill to curb the president's pardon power.

C.H. Truth said...

Yes...

Our esteemed Senators feel that they have the authority to override the constitution.

Myballs said...

Cue wp arguing in favor of it until we all get tired of it. Again.

wphamilton said...

In favor of what? It shouldn't be all THAT hard to anticipate me correctly, given how much I've posted here recently, but you folks have missed an awful lot lately.

The Senate doesn't need to protect Mueller because it would hurt Trump more to fire him than let it run its course. He might not even veto it, just to prove he's not worried. Who really knows what might arise from his random opposition defiance disorder, could go either way.

But if the Senate wants to anyway, badly enough, they could override the veto. I don't really see the problem, and wasn't planning on weighing in ... until someone committed "speak his name, and he doth appear"

Anonymous said...

When will the Leftist show us that Love Trump's Hate?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

No he won't fire either one of them. Rosenstein would have to go first.

He is less likely to sign the legislation if it came to his desk than to deny his his affair with Stormy Daniels. He has not denied that it took place.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

If you believe Fake News Trump is getting extremely angry and shouting at the television. And that Sean Hannity has become his defacto chief of staff.

Anonymous said...

Little CASissy did you file that lawsuit yet?

Anonymous said...

Little CASissy did you file that lawsuit yet?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Kput'z are you still living on your inheritance?

Commonsense said...

If you believe Fake News Trump is getting extremely angry and shouting at the television.

Yeah, but you gotta believe. Obviously you're fool enough to believe.

Anonymous said...

Blogger C.H. Truth said...
Yes...

Our esteemed Senators feel that they have the authority to override the constitution.



we should all be troubled by this. for these dimwits on capitol hill to be this unaware of the unconstitutionality of this idea is breathtaking.

this isn't just stupid. this is alky stupid.

? said...

Is he vying for "Most Clownish Looking President" title?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Never have alky. So, the answer is No.

I answered yours, time to get your balls from your ex-wife and answer.

Little CASissy did you file that lawsuit yet?

Anonymous said...

Alky, you have spawn, clearly you have so little you will pass on nothing but low gutter genes.

wphamilton said...

DC district court judge agrees with me

"Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, ...
Investigators shouldn't have to "start with the conclusion" that crimes were committed, she added. Instead, prosecutors could follow the question of whether Manafort had links to Russians. That work, even if it didn't connect directly to Manafort's time on the campaign, would be essential to any criminal investigation" Mueller team says it has not gone rogue

In other words, it doesn't matter if he wasn't specifically directed to investigate a crime already known to have been committed by Manafort. It is a criminal investigation regardless, and within the scope of the Special Investigation.

And parenthetically, that report notes that the Deputy Attorney General hashed out the various directions of the criminal investigation last May, when Mueller was appointed. Which makes it abundantly clear that in Rosenstein's determination a criminal investigation was warranted. Once and for all, satisfying that requirement of the statute governing Mueller's appointment.

Anonymous said...



thanks for confirming it to be what we've been saying all along, wp -

a fishing expedition.

Commonsense said...

Rosenstein's determination a criminal investigation was warranted.

If a criminal investigation is warranted doesn't that predispose a crime exist?

I mean with Whitewater you had securities and loan fraud, with Watergate you had a third-rate burglary.

What crime is being investigated here?

Commonsense said...

I do find her opinion that "Investigators shouldn't have to "start with the conclusion" that crimes were committed" to be chilling and a backdoor to soviet style abuse and persecution of people the government doesn't like.

wphamilton said...

If a criminal investigation is warranted doesn't that predispose a crime exist?

No, it presupposes only a good suspicion that a crime has been committed. The suspicion should be based on concrete evidence.

Some times an investigation winds up with nothing; no crime was committed. You may not necessarily know that there really was a crime until you look into it. One currently topical example would be the crime of tax evasion. It LOOKS like tax evasion to the investigator, enough to look into, but he doesn't KNOW that it was until the IRS completes its examination. Once he has that information he can determine that a crime has, or has not, been committed. It can go either way, but regardless you have a criminal investigation - a legitimate one - without sure knowledge of any crime.

That's just law enforcement, and you can't really get around it. It's not a danger to your civil rights, nor a scary authoritarian tactic, but just the way that law enforcement works.

Anonymous said...




What crime is being investigated here?


that doesn't matter.

what matters here is that an 0linsky appointed judge said this "investigation" can continue with no point, no purpose, no end, unlimited budget, and for the sole reason that the resistance insists upon it.

this is the democrats getting their "do-over."

their teetering drunk who cannot master a small flight of stairs candidate was supposed to win, dammit!

it was promised! the fix was in! nate silver said it was a lock!

so here we are.

Anonymous said...

Some times an investigation winds up with nothing; no crime was committed.


and sometimes there really is a pot o' gold at the end of that rainbow, wp.

seriously - are you still trolling or are you really starting to believe your own bullshit?

Commonsense said...

No, it presupposes only a good suspicion that a crime has been committed. The suspicion should be based on concrete evidence.

You answer no but your explanation said yes.

But in this case it was an investigation into the firing of James Comey by a president exercising his prerogative.

And the amorphous conspiracy theory pushed by Trump's political opponents.

Neither was "good suspicion based on concrete evidence".

It was a temper tantrum over a lost election.

This era will go down as one of the low points of the republic.

Where freedom and due process were sacrifice in a barely disguise coup attempt.

wphamilton said...

No, I assumed that what I wrote there is non-controversial and almost universally accepted as fact. I would be flabbergasted to hear that you thought that every investigation must necessarily begin with the certain knowledge of a crime.

Isn't it obvious on the face of it, from the fact that some defendants are found not guilty because their actions were not deemed criminal after all? The prosecutor thought it was a crime, a judge or jury disagreed. No crime was committed.

Some times you start with a crime. Sometimes the investigation has to establish a crime. That's common knowledge, isn't it RRB?

Anonymous said...



scooter libby committed no crime. and he just recently - and finally - enjoyed a pardon for the crime he never committed.

like cs noted, this is a temper tantrum over a lost election. and that's all it ever was. that was and is the singular basis for this 'investigation.' so democrats are going to get their do-over via a coup.

and you can poll this until the cows come home with folks who still watch the evening news on the big 3 networks, and they will never grasp what is really happening as much as political junkies like us.





C.H. Truth said...

The memo from Rosenstein approving the investigation of Manafort was written in June, not May. While there is certainly a claim that Rosenstein and Mueller "hashed out" what limits there were, the official approval came after the actual raid of Manafort.

The issue here is what's proper and according to the guidelines of Special Counsel, and and what is technically legal under the grounds of prosecution. Even if there was no specific authorization from Rosenstein, I think it would be difficult to see a judge throw the case out if everything else (search warrant, probable cause, etc) was satisfied.

There is nothing in the constitution that provides protection from a "rogue special counsel" unless that "rogue special counsel" was breaking other sets of established laws regarding this sort of thing... like raiding the house without a warrant.

So effectively everything Manafort (and his attorneys) might have claimed could be 100% true (Mueller probably didn't have written authority from Rosenstein at the time to get a warrant to raid Manafort)... and the case would probably still hold up exactly because they had proper warrants, probable cause, etc.



Commonsense said...

Isn't it obvious on the face of it, from the fact that some defendants are found not guilty because their actions were not deemed criminal after all? The prosecutor thought it was a crime, a judge or jury disagreed. No crime was committed.

You're confusing guilt and innocence (Or more accurately not guilt) with whether a crime was committed or not.

A man could but found not guilty of murder but the crime of murder still exist as fact.

In the overwhelming number of criminal investigations a documented crime actually exist.

It is almost unheard of until Trump's election to target a man and then go find a crime. If goes against 300 years of US jurisprudence and English common law.

Commonsense said...

Marist On Impeachment Fever: Dems Might Need An Inoculation

It's not surprising impeachment talk is motivating Trump's base to vote.

What's surprising is that it discourages at least 30% of Democrats from voting for candidates in favor of impeachment. That's a pretty big chunk and it could make a diffrence.

wphamilton said...

CS you're not following this. Even with a body, sometimes it's an accidental death. You MIGHT NOT know that a crime was committed until you investigate.

Sometimes it's obvious that there was a crime, and I'm sure that you'll point out some obvious examples. Bank was robbed. Car was stolen. But you'll be missing the point that knowing for certain that a crime was committed is NOT necessary for an investigation. The District Judge explained it. I've tried to explain it. You're kind of standing all alone here.

Commonsense said...

CS you're not following this. Even with a body, sometimes it's an accidental death.

I think 99 percent of the time the corner would know whether it's an accidental death or a homicide.

And if the cause of death is not known, it is investigated. Only it's not called a criminal investigation until evidence of a crime is uncovered.

And nobody is named as a person of interest until they confirmed a crime has occured.

Again Mueller and company has got it backwards. They have a person of interest and they are looking for a crime to charge him with.

In English jurisprudence that hasn't happened since the reign of the Tudors.

Commonsense said...

This is quite a chronicle of Mueller's abuse of power.

Revealed: Robert Mueller’s FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion

I was wrong, this was going on for quite awhile.