So Lindsey Graham, how about expanding your proposed legislation to protect BOTH Mueller & Rothenstein?
We’re waiting for you to come out, with it.
What a shithole.
Dysfunctional much?
I hate these articles, because sometimes I think they’re giving them ideas…
Then again - by publicizing it, all hell will break loose if he does it…
As always, the republican cabal chooses to defend its criminal president rather than the US Constitution. The oath of office means absolutely nothing anymore. We are no longer a nation of laws, and sadly, not even a nation of honorable men.
“Rachel Brand, a Republican legal operative who’s perceived as a Trump loyalist.” This is not established at all. She is a Republican with sterling credentials, as is Mueller and others. Pls. provide backing for this assertion or consider changing it.
But not for an out right arrest, correct?
Obviously I could be dead wrong, but they way things have unfolded so far makes me believe that Comey/Rosenstein/Mueller have this entire matter wired for sound, so to speak.
Trump, based on a very long history of getting away with shit, fully expects to get away with this too. The sad thing is, he just might. If so, it will be the end of our democracy, such as it is. Even a Democratic wave in 2018 and 2020 wouldn’t entirely undo the damage, though it would certainly help.
We’ve been outplayed by Trump - how is that possible?
We need a fourth name for that ultimate of sound expression, quadraphonic surround sound.
For the same reason that he is rich, He has no scruples.
Yes, she also worked for Obama for 5 years. And also Rosenstein was a Trump nominee, that obviously did not make him a Trump loyalist. Anyone who would refuse to refer Mueller’s impeachment recommendation to Congress would be destroying their careers. The reality is that numerous people are going to be indicted, including very likely people in Trumps family and close associates. So to then say that you don’t agree with Mueller on an impeachment recommendation could potentially be an obstruction of justice.
Manafort was wiretapped for years, so anyone who talked to him could be in trouble. And since they don’t know what was recorded, possibly will get caught lying to investigators. We know now that these people were not too bright and liked to brag about what they did.
Even though I, like everyone here, is utterly cynical (i.e., realistic) about what the GOP would do (or not do, more accurately), it’s hard to believe that Mueller could present rock-solid evidence of OOJ and money laundering - and they would not act. The public pressure would be tremendous.
I would bet that if the investigation’s findings are undermined, there would be the most spectacular series of leaks in world history, with so much juicy stuff that half the US population would take to the streets with pitchforks and pikestaffs.
Making Rosenstein the scapegoat for the Mueller inquiry and targeting him for removal must be extremely satisfying for many “Deep State” conspiracy theorists.
His last name is a perfect fit for their refurbished “stabbed in the back by members of shadowy world-dominating cabal” thesis.
To the rest of us, all this talk of a “secret society” bent on undermining legitimate government is yet another chilling blast from the past…
I agree, except that the last sentence may be a bridge too far logically and probably legally–it would be saying that the person (whoever it is) is breaking the law by not referring. But on the hole I agree with you. I think that the writer made an assumption.
I think I’m unclear on what, exactly, is the nature or necessity of a formal “referral” with regards to a hypothetical impeachment proceeding. IANAL, but impeachment is completely a legislative-branch affair. It seems obvious on its face that officers of the executive branch cannot stymie an impeachment by withholding some sort of approval or certification.
So, maybe this means Mueller might not be able to technically recommend that Congress impeach the President, but obviously the body (or one of the select committees) could call him to testify and present whatever they wanted to hear. And then they could make whatever decision they like.
What am I missing here? This seems like an utterly meaningless technicality.