re: Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

quote:

---

If anyone should be pissed, it's the American taxpayers who are paying millions of dollars to lawyers who can basically do whatever they want

---

my experience is only the opposing side gets worked up over the cost.

quote:

---

Correct, but the head of the agencies inside of the Executive branch sure as hell do report to the President and he has the power to fire them...as for the with cause assertion, it helps to have one, but as Andrew Jackson proved....he does not need to.

---

It's rather said there are people in this thread who don't understand what "Executive Agency" means, even when they admit the President is the "Chief Executive."

quote:

---

It doesn't exist.

---

You are ruining this for everyone.

quote:

---

Toddy and his ilk better hide

---

Going to invest in barbed wire manufacturing

quote:

---

It's not the justice system's duty to hold him in check. The DoJ is part of the president's executive branch and the president is the chief executive. This means all of the DoJ (including the FBI) works for him. This is how the constitution was written. I am sorry if people don't like it, but that's how it is. There are "protocols" and etiquette put into place for "separating" the president from investigations going on at DoJ, but it is not a law and the president can end any investigation he chooses at any time for any reason.

---

No one is above the law in this country, but the way the law is applied can be different, which is why if you read the rest of what I wrote, I spoke about the congressional path presidential abuses are addressed through. Which you yourself acknowledge.

The oath people take at the DOJ or the FBI is not an oath to the president. It is an oath to serve the constitution and the country.

That same set of protocols you reference are the ones that are intended to not treat the DOJ like a weapon the president can simply yield to do his bidding by command, coercion, reprisal, or other means. And more importantly, that separation is crucial to ensuring public trust in this institution of justice.

That is why the talk of Trump going down that path if he pulls a Saturday Night Massacre has people talking about a constitutional crisis.

He has the power and broad authority to do things like execute a Saturday Night Massacre, but that is why the founders gave congress broad authority to impeach. So abuses of those powers we endow upon elected officials can be held in check.

The irony n all this though, is that this talk is resurrecting support for the sort of independent counsel laws that Kenn Starr was appointed with. Which would open the door for even looser standards for the investigators and really make it impossible for Trump to shut things down. Which is sort of the story of this whole saga, Trump just making things worse for himself by lacking discipline and respect for the core of institutions of the government he is the executive of.

quote:

---

Link us to a few examples

---

The first google hit is from Slate Magazine back in 2008. They wrote an article about Bush getting ready to leave office and the traditional last minute presidential pardons. The issue of pre-emptive pardons came up. I will quote:

quote:

---

With six months to go before President Bush leaves office, the White House is receiving a flurry of pardon applications. The New York Times reported that "several members of the conservative legal community" are pushing for the White House to grant pre-emptive pardons for officials involved in counterterrorism programs. Wait—can a president really pardon someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime?

Yep. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." (In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.) Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time—regardless of whether charges have even been filed.

---

LINK

quote:

---

For what exactly? Talking to Russians is not illegal. Even if Manafort told Putin "Hey bro, I heard you hacked the DNC, can I have those emails?" Even if that happened, it's not a crime. There is no crime on the books regarding "reading stolen emails."

---

FARA violations.

Manafort potentially money laundering but that might not be related to the campaign.

quote:

---

Even if Trump himself told Putin "let's coordinate these leaks according to the news cycle" that's still not illegal. The only crime at ALL with the whole e-mail thing was the hacking of the emails themselves. All the sharing and releasing is completely legal. Unless they can get Trump and crew conspiring to HACK the e-mails in the first place, they got zero. Zip. There is no "crime of collusion". It doesn't exist.

---

FEC violations
criminal conspiracy

**could** possibly stem from this. But I am not aware of what evidence they have. I do read a lot though. This is some of what I see tossed around as possibilities.

And there will be aides and operatives that get Obstruction of justice charges.

quote:

---

The irony n all this though, is that this talk is resurrecting support for the sort of independent counsel laws that Kenn Starr was appointed with. Which would open the door for even looser standards for the investigators and really make it impossible for Trump to shut things down.

---

That's the law that Congress let expire in 1999 (with Clinton's full approval). None of them liked it because it gave the special prosecutor far too much power in open-ended investigations. No politician wants to be subject to political witch hunts, which all special counsels are by their very nature.

Congress is free to reauthorize the law if they so choose, but they are opening a can of worms. Democrats are not immune from having these witch hunts opened on them.

quote:

---

mean, I guess you could argue Trump technically can't obstruct justice, but charges could be made.

---

wow you and hawkwant are incredible