REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Mueller Legally Required To Resign As Special Counsel

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Friday, August 11, 2017 04:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 554
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:21 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.

His new FBI Director appointment just got confirmed by the Senate, and Senators claim it was because the nominee stated that he would not direct Mueller to Resign as SC.
BUT now that he is in place, it is pointed out that Mueller is leggaly required under Federal Law to resign as Special Counsel.


US Code 28 CFR 45.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-1999-title28-vol2/CFR-1999-title
28-vol2-sec45-2/content-detail.html



US Code 28 CFR 528
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/528


US Code 28 CFR 600.7
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7

https://www.lawserver.com/law/country/us/cfr/28_cfr_600-7

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:23 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Legal or not, we won't be seeing the establishment SC resign anytime soon. I bet $1

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 5:01 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Legal or not, we won't be seeing the establishment SC resign anytime soon. I bet $1

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

Who said the center-left is dead?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 5:16 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Just so people don't think that JEWEL is bullshitting, here are the relevant passages from the linked sites

US Code 28 CFR 45.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2

Quote:

28 CFR 45.2 - Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.



US Code 28 CFR 528
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/528
Quote:

28 U.S. Code § 528 - Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice
The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.



US Code 28 CFR 28 CFR 600.7
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7

Quote:

28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).

(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.




-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 5:28 PM

RIVERLOVE


Mueller AND the 40 Hillary-donating Democrap lawyers he hired to nail Trump?

That's a real shame.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 6:43 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Just so people don't think that JEWEL is bullshitting, here are the relevant passages from the linked sites

US Code 28 CFR 45.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2
Quote:

28 CFR 45.2 - Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.


US Code 28 CFR 528
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/528
Quote:

28 U.S. Code § 528 - Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice
The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.


US Code 28 CFR 28 CFR 600.7
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7
Quote:

28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.


Thanks for expanding upon the facts. I had limited time to make the post, as is oft the case for me lately.

Also, it looks like (d) is the applicable subpart of US 28 CFR 600.7 here.

And WHO in the REAL WORLD would even suspect that I could produce BS?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 6:49 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Mueller AND the 40 Hillary-donating Democrap lawyers he hired to nail Trump?

That's a real shame.

Are you revealing yourself as a Conspiracy Theorist? Exposing facts like that could make Libtards call you names!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 2:59 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


You guys need to get your facts straight; the headline should read: "AG Can Legally Remove Special Counsel."

Where do I get this from?, why from the very cites you posted. Only the AG, or in this case, the acting AG, can remove or fire the Special Counsel were he to violate any of those rules and regs listed in the statutes. Not the president, not the FBI Director...not anyone, but the AG.

28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

So the FBI Director correctly stated "he would not direct Mueller to Resign as SC." Well, he could ask him to, but he has no legal standing to remove him from his post as SC. Besides resign means to quit and the statute reads that he could be removed (fired) by the AG for misconduct or violation of the US Code. In other words, there must be good cause to be determined by the AG. And soon by Congress, if they are able to get enough votes as part of their passing legislation to review said removal; as part of the Judicial Committee's jurisdiction.

How do I know of the above statement regarding Congress's, and in particular, the Judicial Committee's possible future role in determining the Special Counsel's removal by the AG, or anyone else for that matter.
I saw an interview with the head of the Judicial Committee where he stated such a move was being considered based upon the speculation and actions by the Trump Administration.

Now, I'm assuming that at the end of the SC's investigation and possible trial, that his services would no longer be needed, and so the AG would disband or dismiss the SC and whomever he hired as part of his investigation. But he's still not "required" to resign, he serves at the pleasure of the AG, who serves as the top cop in the land. You know, the rule of law, American law, requires it.


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.

His new FBI Director appointment just got confirmed by the Senate, and Senators claim it was because the nominee stated that he would not direct Mueller to Resign as SC.
BUT now that he is in place, it is pointed out that Mueller is leggaly required under Federal Law to resign as Special Counsel.


US Code 28 CFR 45.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-1999-title28-vol2/CFR-1999-title
28-vol2-sec45-2/content-detail.html



US Code 28 CFR 528
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/528


US Code 28 CFR 600.7
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7

https://www.lawserver.com/law/country/us/cfr/28_cfr_600-7


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 4:28 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.


Can I ask you a question?

What exactly is the trick that the Donald pulled off?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 7:06 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Mueller AND the 40 Hillary-donating Democrap lawyers he hired to nail Trump?



Get real! There's at least 80!

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 7:12 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Just so people don't think that JEWEL is bullshitting...



Like I'd trust either of you 2 servants of Trump to have a balanced, legal eye on any of this. Careful you don't drool all over your keyboards.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:30 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Quote:

Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.
Can I ask you a question?

What exactly is the trick that the Donald pulled off?

SGG

Senate thought they had the Director by the balls, and with his pronouncement, they had Mueller protected. Not realizing that the Administration's "ace-in-the-hole" was that Mueller is legally required to recuse or remove himself. By not revealing this prior to the Confirmation of the Director, Senate "got snookered" in effect. Classic bait-and-switch known to eons of salesmen, which most people consider The Donald to be.

Make sense?

Kelley can't really take credit for, because any intentional withholding of the relevant statutes from the public discussion occurred prior to Kelley moving jobs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:45 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.

His new FBI Director appointment just got confirmed by the Senate, and Senators claim it was because the nominee stated that he would not direct Mueller to Resign as SC.
BUT now that he is in place, it is pointed out that Mueller is legally required under Federal Law to resign as Special Counsel.


Federal Law defining Mueller's non-resignation as illegal:
Quote:

Quote:


US Code 28 CFR 45.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-1999-title28-vol2/CFR-1999-title
28-vol2-sec45-2/content-detail.html



Federal Law defining AG's promulgation of rules and regulations applicable re: USC 28 CFR 45.2 - which were already in place by the Office of the AG:
Quote:

Quote:


US Code 28 CFR 528
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/528


Federal Law defining who can forcibly remove SC, without addressing the Illegal actions of the SC not resigning when known to be in violation of USC 28 CFR 45.2, and without regard to prosecution of SC, disbarment of SC for willfully violating CFR 45.2, which would disqualify SC as a lawyer:
Quote:

Quote:


US Code 28 CFR 600.7
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7

https://www.lawserver.com/law/country/us/cfr/28_cfr_600-7


You guys need to get your facts straight; the headline should read: "AG Can Legally Remove Special Counsel."

your headline suggestion would only apply to one of the 3 Federal Laws detailed.
Quote:


Where do I get this from?, why from the very cites you posted. Only the AG, or in this case, the acting AG, can remove or fire the Special Counsel were he to violate any of those rules and regs listed in the statutes. Not the president, not the FBI Director...not anyone, but the AG.

28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

So the FBI Director correctly stated "he would not direct Mueller to Resign as SC." Well, he could ask him to, but he has no legal standing to remove him from his post as SC. Besides resign means to quit and the statute reads that he could be removed (fired) by the AG for misconduct or violation of the US Code. In other words, there must be good cause to be determined by the AG. And soon by Congress, if they are able to get enough votes as part of their passing legislation to review said removal; as part of the Judicial Committee's jurisdiction.

How do I know of the above statement regarding Congress's, and in particular, the Judicial Committee's possible future role in determining the Special Counsel's removal by the AG, or anyone else for that matter.
I saw an interview with the head of the Judicial Committee where he stated such a move was being considered based upon the speculation and actions by the Trump Administration.

Now, I'm assuming that at the end of the SC's investigation and possible trial, that his services would no longer be needed, and so the AG would disband or dismiss the SC and whomever he hired as part of his investigation. But he's still not "required" to resign, he serves at the pleasure of the AG, who serves as the top cop in the land. You know, the rule of law, American law, requires it.

For your improved comprehension, I re-identified the 3 Laws in easy-to-read American English language.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 4, 2017 3:30 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Okay, you got my attention....so where is this little known statute that "requires" Mueller to "resign" as you so eloquently stated. I'm betting that the Senate and Mueller know a little more about federal statutes than Trump, all day every day and twice on Sunday.

If it's the statutes you have cited in this thread....then no, that's not, as I have pointed out, what the statute says. I repeat my statement, the federal statutes you posted DO NOT state that the Special Counsel must "resign." It states clearly that the AG, or acting AG, can "remove" the SC if the rules and regs were to be violated. In other words, the AG can "fire" the SC for misconduct, etc.

As I have mentioned previously, the senate is about to introduce legislature regarding the removal of the SC. They are looking to create a panel of 3 judges to determine, pre-"firing" if there is just cause, and, in addition, a panel of judges post-"firing" (same as above). This is according to Senator Swawell of the Judiciary Committee (for those of you interested in cites).

P.S. In regards to any DOJ attorney "recusing" him or herself for conflict of interest (such as in the case of Sessions, which he was correct in doing), that's pretty much standard procedure in the DOJ. Here is the DOJ regulation that "required" Sessions to recuse himself...

Quote:

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.


Perhaps that is the cite to which you refer regarding resigning or recusal. Upon further research into the matter, I discovered that there are rules & regs regarding the Special or Independent Counsel. It is called the Independent Counsel Act that gives the AG the authority to choose a Special Counsel that provides such things as: Appointment of Counsel, Jurisdiction and Budget, The Extent of Independence of Special Counsel, Removal of Special Counsel and Termination of Investigations and Reports.

As far as removal of the SC is concerned:

Quote:

Section 600.7 has two provisions on redressing misconduct by special counsel...Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the DOJ.
Grounds for removal are limited to misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.

...the AG's regulation provide that a SC may be removed from office "only by the personal action of the Attorney General and only for good cause" or physical or mental impairments.



There's more, but I think that the above should be sufficient for the purposes of this response.

P.S.S. After posting my response, I saw that Siggy had posted the Section 600.7 of the IC Act. So I stand corrected.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Quote:

Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.
Can I ask you a question?

What exactly is the trick that the Donald pulled off?

SGG

Senate thought they had the Director by the balls, and with his pronouncement, they had Mueller protected. Not realizing that the Administration's "ace-in-the-hole" was that Mueller is legally required to recuse or remove himself. By not revealing this prior to the Confirmation of the Director, Senate "got snookered" in effect. Classic bait-and-switch known to eons of salesmen, which most people consider The Donald to be.

May sense?

Kelley can't really take credit for, because any intentional withholding of the relevant statutes from the public discussion occurred prior to Kelley moving jobs.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 4, 2017 8:09 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
Quote:

Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.
Can I ask you a question?

What exactly is the trick that the Donald pulled off?

SGG

Senate thought they had the Director by the balls, and with his pronouncement, they had Mueller protected. Not realizing that the Administration's "ace-in-the-hole" was that Mueller is legally required to recuse or remove himself. By not revealing this prior to the Confirmation of the Director, Senate "got snookered" in effect. Classic bait-and-switch known to eons of salesmen, which most people consider The Donald to be.

Make sense?

Kelley can't really take credit for, because any intentional withholding of the relevant statutes from the public discussion occurred prior to Kelley moving jobs.


Okay, you got my attention....so where is this little known statute that "requires" Mueller to "resign" as you so eloquently stated. I'm betting that the Senate and Mueller know a little more about federal statutes than Trump, all day every day and twice on Sunday.

If it's the statutes you have cited in this thread....then no, that's not, as I have pointed out, what the statute says. I repeat my statement, the federal statutes you posted DO NOT state that the Special Counsel must "resign." It states clearly that the AG, or acting AG, can "remove" the SC if the rules and regs were to be violated. In other words, the AG can "fire" the SC for misconduct, etc.

As I have mentioned previously, the senate is about to introduce legislature regarding the removal of the SC. They are looking to create a panel of 3 judges to determine, pre-"firing" if there is just cause, and, in addition, a panel of judges post-"firing" (same as above). This is according to Senator Swawell of the Judiciary Committee (for those of you interested in cites).

P.S. In regards to any DOJ attorney "recusing" him or herself for conflict of interest (such as in the case of Sessions, which he was correct in doing), that's pretty much standard procedure in the DOJ. Here is the DOJ regulation that "required" Sessions to recuse himself...
Quote:

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.
Perhaps that is the cite to which you refer regarding resigning or recusal. Upon further research into the matter, I discovered that there are rules & regs regarding the Special or Independent Counsel. It is called the Independent Counsel Act that gives the AG the authority to choose a Special Counsel that provides such things as: Appointment of Counsel, Jurisdiction and Budget, The Extent of Independence of Special Counsel, Removal of Special Counsel and Termination of Investigations and Reports.

As far as removal of the SC is concerned:
Quote:

Section 600.7 has two provisions on redressing misconduct by special counsel...Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the DOJ.
Grounds for removal are limited to misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.

...the AG's regulation provide that a SC may be removed from office "only by the personal action of the Attorney General and only for good cause" or physical or mental impairments.

There's more, but I think that the above should be sufficient for the purposes of this response.

P.S.S. After posting my response, I saw that Siggy had posted the Section 600.7 of the IC Act. So I stand corrected.

SGG

It sounds like you are saying that nobody in the Justice Department can ever be prosecuted for violating Federal Law. Is that your excuse for not allowing Mueller to be prosecuted for his refusal to abide USC 28 CFR 45.2?

How do you reconcile that it is proper for Sessions to abide CFR 45.2 but it is proper for Mueller to refuse to abide the same CFR 45.2?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 6, 2017 8:49 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


I did reply to your response, but, for some reason, it didn't post. I will make another attempt later today.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 7, 2017 2:42 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

It sounds like you are saying that nobody in the Justice Department can ever be prosecuted for violating Federal Law. Is that your excuse for not allowing Mueller to be prosecuted for his refusal to abide USC 28 CFR 45.2?


Before I answer, I advise you to re-read my post. At no time do I say for anyone to violate the law, that's first and foremost. Secondly, what I clearly state is that the law does not "require" anyone to resign, but, more correctly, that the AG has the final word for hiring and firing the SC. There is a BIG difference. When you resign, the person, in this case the S.C. is in control. That is not the case with this statute, CFR 45.2.
If anyone, as it clearly states in CFR 45.2, violates any section of the law, the AG has grounds to dismiss. Period, end of story.


Quote:

How do you reconcile that it is proper for Sessions to abide CFR 45.2 but it is proper for Mueller to refuse to abide the same CFR 45.2?


Okay, simple. There is a section in the code that states that the AG must recuse himself if he has a personal or political relationship...it is the whole reason why Mueller was picked as Special Counsel. The moment the acting AG picked Mueller, he became subject to the rules & regs of CFR 45.2.

I know there are those that say that Mueller and others that he chose to run the investigation, donated monies to the Clinton campaign and that should be grounds for recusal. Donating money to a campaign is neither a personal or political "relationship" with a candidate. Sessions not only participated in Trump's campaign, he was chosen to be the AG. That's two strikes because he was intimately involved. He didn't just donate money, he helped run his campaign. There's nothing wrong with that, but he just can't be involved in a "criminal investigation or prosecution," especially since he was right in the middle of the alleged violation/misconduct. Hence the conflict of interest, Sessions, once he recused himself, could never be accused of cheating to clear his name of any charges because he's not involved in the case.

Quote:

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.


Sessions was involved directly in the campaign of one Donald J. Trump. Plus he was involved with communicating with a Russian and did not reveal it in his documents regarding security clearance. A serious matter. He had both personal and political relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions was directly involved. Period, end of story. He knew that there was no way he could fight it because Congress would have hung him out to dry.

Now, you want Mueller to be removed; let Trump fire him. Go ahead, write to your congressman and insist that Mueller be disqualified on the grounds that he......what!? What are your charges? Donations to Clinton? That he was improperly chosen to lead the investigation? Don't you think that Trump's attorneys haven't thought of that? Don't you think that they are plotting at this very moment to find a loophole or some caveat that will get their client off the hook?

Before you answer, stop and think a moment.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 7, 2017 7:44 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

It sounds like you are saying that nobody in the Justice Department can ever be prosecuted for violating Federal Law. Is that your excuse for not allowing Mueller to be prosecuted for his refusal to abide USC 28 CFR 45.2?


Before I answer, I advise you to re-read my post. At no time do I say for anyone to violate the law, that's first and foremost. Secondly, what I clearly state is that the law does not "require" anyone to resign, but, more correctly, that the AG has the final word for hiring and firing the SC. There is a BIG difference. When you resign, the person, in this case the S.C. is in control. That is not the case with this statute, CFR 45.2.
If anyone, as it clearly states in CFR 45.2, violates any section of the law, the AG has grounds to dismiss. Period, end of story.


Quote:

How do you reconcile that it is proper for Sessions to abide CFR 45.2 but it is proper for Mueller to refuse to abide the same CFR 45.2?


Okay, simple. There is a section in the code that states that the AG must recuse himself if he has a personal or political relationship...it is the whole reason why Mueller was picked as Special Counsel. The moment the acting AG picked Mueller, he became subject to the rules & regs of CFR 45.2.

I know there are those that say that Mueller and others that he chose to run the investigation, donated monies to the Clinton campaign and that should be grounds for recusal. Donating money to a campaign is neither a personal or political "relationship" with a candidate. Sessions not only participated in Trump's campaign, he was chosen to be the AG. That's two strikes because he was intimately involved. He didn't just donate money, he helped run his campaign. There's nothing wrong with that, but he just can't be involved in a "criminal investigation or prosecution," especially since he was right in the middle of the alleged violation/misconduct. Hence the conflict of interest, Sessions, once he recused himself, could never be accused of cheating to clear his name of any charges because he's not involved in the case.

Quote:

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.


Sessions was involved directly in the campaign of one Donald J. Trump. Plus he was involved with communicating with a Russian and did not reveal it in his documents regarding security clearance. A serious matter. He had both personal and political relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions was directly involved. Period, end of story. He knew that there was no way he could fight it because Congress would have hung him out to dry.

Now, you want Mueller to be removed; let Trump fire him. Go ahead, write to your congressman and insist that Mueller be disqualified on the grounds that he......what!? What are your charges? Donations to Clinton? That he was improperly chosen to lead the investigation? Don't you think that Trump's attorneys haven't thought of that? Don't you think that they are plotting at this very moment to find a loophole or some caveat that will get their client off the hook?

Before you answer, stop and think a moment.

SGG

You seem to be missing the point. Repeatedly.

Are you allowed to violate Federal Law?

If so, then why shouldn't everybody be allowed to violate any Federal Law they choose?

If not, then why should Mueller be allowed to violate Federal Law?

CFR 45.2 specifies that he is violating the law, regardless of whether anybody chooses to fire him. Knowingly violating the law does not mean that he is not violating the law.

Before you answer, stop and think a moment.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 8, 2017 7:33 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Again, the lines of communication have failed. Let's start from the beginning, shall we?

Since you state that Mueller is violating federal law, in your opinion CFR 45.2.....can you tell me what exactly did he do that has you making that statement?

Let me see if I can break it down and go step-by-step:

Quote:

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee


Mueller became a DOJ employee the moment the acting AG Rod Rosenstein hired him as Special Counsel (do we agree on that?)

Quote:

...shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution


Pretty self explanatory; can't be involved in the investigation or court trial if...stay with me, here's the tricky part


Quote:

...if he has a personal or political relationship with


Again self explanatory; DOJ employee personally knows or is friendly with a politician

Quote:

...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.


More self explanatory; Does Mueller personally know anyone in the Trump White House? Did he help with the campaign? If he did Rosenstein could not hire him, he would be in breach of the federal statute mentioned above. Rosenstein knows this so he hired Mueller. He has no ties to anyone, personal or political, in the Trump Administration.

The fact that he donated money to Clinton's campaign, or Santa Claus for that matter, has nothing to do with the Russian case. If Clinton were being investigated, then he would not be able to run the investigation. Simple.

Sessions, on the other hand, had a personal and political relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions also worked with the Trump Campaign, plus Trump chose him to be the AG. So, because he worked on the Trump Campaign, he could not run the investigation because he was involved in the campaign.
It would be a conflict of interest - in other words he could not investigate himself, he was involved with the campaign.

Rosenstein hired Mueller as an independent counsel to oversee and head up the investigation into the possible collusion with Russia.

So, tell me what federal law did Mueller violate? What did he do that has you all upset, and why are you accusing me of ignoring the statute? I understand perfectly what the law is and I know that Mueller has not violated that law. It's there in black and white.

Since you know what he did to violate that law...please enlighten me!
Once you do that, then I could understand and if he did so then, and only then will I know what you know.

Quote:

CFR 45.2 specifies that he is violating the law, regardless of whether anybody chooses to fire him. Knowingly violating the law does not mean that he is not violating the law.


Here you state that he's violating federal law, but you never say what he did; you never say why you think he violated the law. Of course, no one is above the law...no one. If he did something to break the law, then he should be removed as Special Counsel.

What did Mueller do to break the law?


SGG




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 3:38 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

28 CFR 45.2 - Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.



Okay Siggy, I think I know why JEWEL thinks that Mueller should "recuse" himself or that he's in violation of the Regs in CFR 45.2. I've seen a number of comments on social media regarding the relationship between Comey and Mueller.

But Comey is not "directly" involved in the case that Mueller is investigating, namely the alleged collusion. Comey is, however, involved indirectly in the obstruction of justice part of the case. When Trump fired Comey, he set the wheels in motion. I say indirectly because the obstruction of justice part is a separate issue that is an offshoot of the main case. Comey is not under investigation for colluding with the Russians, he's a material witness in the obstruction of justice case. A completely separate issue.

Again, if this were not so, then Trump's attorneys could file a motion to remove Mueller as the Special Counsel. A move that, at this juncture, would be premature. If this case ever gets to be tried, then I would make that motion to remove Mueller. But that's a big IF.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 3:55 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


The fact that Trump sold his mansion in Florida to a Russian oligarch and suspected mobster, making millions in profit, hasn't disqualified Trump from becoming the greatest president ever in the history of the World.

Wait, I just threw up a little...


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Mueller AND the 40 Hillary-donating Democrap lawyers he hired to nail Trump?

That's a real shame.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 8:07 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
The fact that Trump sold his mansion in Florida to a Russian oligarch and suspected mobster, making millions in profit, hasn't disqualified Trump from becoming the greatest president ever in the history of the World.

Wait, I just threw up a little...

Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Mueller AND the 40 Hillary-donating Democrap lawyers he hired to nail Trump?




"If donations to Democrats mean you’re anti-Trump, the White House is in very deep trouble"
http://wapo.st/2vNGMW1

1. We'd have to exclude Trump's WH family.

Kushner alone has donated some $140,000+ to Dems, $40k in 2014.
2. Should they be replaced with Republicans?

IF this jazz about Mueller needing to resign were even remotely feasible, reps and Trump's staff would be all over it. So far, nothing.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 3:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Again, the lines of communication have failed. Let's start from the beginning, shall we?

Since you state that Mueller is violating federal law, in your opinion CFR 45.2.....can you tell me what exactly did he do that has you making that statement?

Let me see if I can break it down and go step-by-step:
Quote:

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee
Mueller became a DOJ employee the moment the acting AG Rod Rosenstein hired him as Special Counsel (do we agree on that?)
Quote:

...shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution
Pretty self explanatory; can't be involved in the investigation or court trial if...stay with me, here's the tricky part
Quote:

...if he has a personal or political relationship with
Again self explanatory; DOJ employee personally knows or is friendly with a politician
Quote:

...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.
More self explanatory; Does Mueller personally know anyone in the Trump White House? Did he help with the campaign? If he did Rosenstein could not hire him, he would be in breach of the federal statute mentioned above. Rosenstein knows this so he hired Mueller. He has no ties to anyone, personal or political, in the Trump Administration.

The fact that he donated money to Clinton's campaign, or Santa Claus for that matter, has nothing to do with the Russian case. If Clinton were being investigated, then he would not be able to run the investigation. Simple.

Sessions, on the other hand, had a personal and political relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions also worked with the Trump Campaign, plus Trump chose him to be the AG. So, because he worked on the Trump Campaign, he could not run the investigation because he was involved in the campaign.
It would be a conflict of interest - in other words he could not investigate himself, he was involved with the campaign.

Rosenstein hired Mueller as an independent counsel to oversee and head up the investigation into the possible collusion with Russia.

So, tell me what federal law did Mueller violate? What did he do that has you all upset, and why are you accusing me of ignoring the statute? I understand perfectly what the law is and I know that Mueller has not violated that law. It's there in black and white.

Since you know what he did to violate that law...please enlighten me!
Once you do that, then I could understand and if he did so then, and only then will I know what you know.
Quote:

CFR 45.2 specifies that he is violating the law, regardless of whether anybody chooses to fire him. Knowingly violating the law does not mean that he is not violating the law.
Here you state that he's violating federal law, but you never say what he did; you never say why you think he violated the law. Of course, no one is above the law...no one. If he did something to break the law, then he should be removed as Special Counsel.

What did Mueller do to break the law?

SGG

Are you saying you are in the dark about the relationship between Comey and Mueller?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 10, 2017 3:21 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Okay, since you won't/can't answer my question: What did Mueller do to warrant removal? I will answer for you based on the statute you presented, namely:

Quote:

28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.



In other words, the AG won't ask Special Counsel to resign, he will fire him because, according to Section D above, he is the only one that can "remove" him. END OF STORY.

He is not required to "RESIGN." If the Special Counsel violates any of the rules and regs of the DOJ; only the AG could fire him. The AG will produce it in writing, when he determines it is for good cause. The AG will also report to Congress.

Checks and balances, my friend, checks and balances.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:16 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I forgot to answer this one:

Quote:

28 CFR 45.2 - Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.

(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or

(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.



In response I say, I'm assuming you're talking about the "relationship" between Comey and Mueller. Okay, let's take a look, shall we?

(1) Let me ask you this: Is Comey or Mueller being investigated or prosecuted? If the answer is NO then we move on to...

(2) Since Comey was fired for conducting the investigation of the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, then Comey no longer has a "specific or substantial interest" in the case, and is not "directly affected" by the outcome...

Trump outsmarted himself when he fired Comey, which opened the door for Mueller to be hired by the acting AG Rosenstein. Again, if there was any legal standing to remove/fire or force Mueller to resign, the Trump rocket scientists lawyers would have made that motion in court or Congress, whichever is appropriate.

Now Sessions recused himself because HE WAS directly involved and would directly be affected by the investigation and prosecution. Plus he didn't recuse himself right away, he was asked to recuse and he did so based upon DOJ rules & regs. You see how that worked out. A neat little bow.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:58 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

Are you saying you are in the dark about the relationship between Comey and Mueller?


No, I am not, but you should have said what it was about Comey or Mueller that was a violation of the statute. Now that I know that it's the "friendship" you are worried about, now I can answer.

Were that a problem, Trump's brilliant attorneys would have filed a protest or motion to dismiss Mueller as a legitimate pick.....oh wait, it seems they did.

http://www.snopes.com/comey-mueller-besties/


Quote:

Conflict of interest means there’s some financial or pecuniary benefit that could come one’s way [as a result of an investigation]. For example, If I had worked at a business and business has something at stake, that’s a conflict. But just people being friends and knowing each other, that’s not a conflict.


Tell me, what benefit would go Comey's way if Mueller remains as SC?


SGG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 10, 2017 8:55 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Are you saying you are in the dark about the relationship between Comey and Mueller?

Are you in the dark about the special relationship between Special Counsel Mueller and Trump?



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 11, 2017 4:37 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Second, that was HI-larious! Thanks for posting, I missed that one on Colbert's show.

You know what this means? Trump will have to step down because he has a "Special" relationship with Special Counsel Mueller; and that constitutes a conflict of interest.

Ahhhh shit! Now things are getting interesting!

Ha!


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Are you saying you are in the dark about the relationship between Comey and Mueller?

Are you in the dark about the special relationship between Special Counsel Mueller and Trump?



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
this is what a starving polar bear looks like
Tue, December 12, 2017 10:57 - 4 posts
Where are the democrats? Waiting for the Deep State to get rid of Trump?
Tue, December 12, 2017 10:47 - 23 posts
Trump not invited to Paris December climate change summit for now, says France
Tue, December 12, 2017 10:43 - 8 posts
Putin Orders Withdrawal Of Russian Troops During Surprise Syria Visit
Tue, December 12, 2017 10:24 - 3 posts
Accusing Someone You Disagree With Of Being A Russian Troll Is Admitting You Have No Argument
Tue, December 12, 2017 09:49 - 92 posts
Shout out to Second - hope you are doing well
Tue, December 12, 2017 08:51 - 211 posts
Male Role Models
Tue, December 12, 2017 08:46 - 112 posts
Bomb Exploded Times Square
Tue, December 12, 2017 08:26 - 9 posts
The Evidens
Tue, December 12, 2017 06:22 - 733 posts
Trump's Swamp Thing
Tue, December 12, 2017 06:08 - 19 posts
New Alabama Motto Contest
Tue, December 12, 2017 03:42 - 13 posts
Game Companies are Morons.
Mon, December 11, 2017 20:41 - 48 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL