Discussion: Flake: If Trump Fires Mueller, Only Remedy Is 'Through Impeachment'

TPM Article Topics
#81

Paul Krugman points to this Vox article titled Trump would love to fire Mueller. But here’s why he’s been afraid to so far. The sub-titles are below and the analysis seems plausible enough but the Manchurian Cantaloupe is such a bloody berk that I remain convinced he won’t stop until he’s stopped; really stopped; full stop.

1) Firing Mueller would be much more procedurally complicated and legally challenging than firing Comey or Tillerson 2) Firing Mueller does not mean ending the Mueller investigation 3) Firing Mueller would unleash the leaks 4) A Trump cover-up could improve Democrats’ chances of retaking Congress — which would worsen the president’s legal woes

Trump could well calculate that despite all this, Mueller’s investigation is dangerous enough to himself, his family, or his allies in the near term that it’s worth taking the enormous risk of shutting it down.

But anyone who thinks firing Mueller would make Trump’s legal problems go away is badly mistaken. Instead, it would be the beginning of a new and far more serious crisis — with no end in sight.

5 Likes
#82

PatriotLou sez buckle up.

https://twitter.com/PatriotLouUSA/status/976179283185070080

Now I don’t have a clue in the world who PatriotLou is, but after a nice IPA, I’d sleep with anyone who sez stuff like this.

Speaking of folks who are like strange internet phenomena, what’s the bandit have to say:

https://twitter.com/BanditRandom/status/976239359585280001

Hmmm, that’s other than reassuring.

Maybe another IPA to steady the nerves.

Who am I kidding, it’s time for the “This is US” season finale on DVR!

3 Likes
#83

Any act to save Mueller would be subject to veto, would it not?

2 Likes
#84

The last 24 hours is another whirlpool. But it is beginning to look like everything is dumping on Trump. I am wondering if Fox is capable of assimilating and really deflecting the crap coming out. And then their man goes and compliments Putin against all advice.

Hard to keep up.

1 Like
#85

Endorsed. He’s just positioning for the post-Trump regime.

2 Likes
#86

Easy for a departing Senator to say. Will he still vote for bills Trump wants or is Congress done making laws for the rest of the year?

2 Likes
#87

yeah: make it three.

1 Like
#88

Yes, if passed without the requisite super-majority.

1 Like
#89

Same majority needed for impeachment… How many times we getting that enough votes out of Repubs in the Senate?

#90

The actual text:
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.” (My emphasis)

2 Likes
#91

Is “good cause” subject to review?

If it is, what do you suppose would happen if it was found to be un-good?

2 Likes
#92

IIRC he’s voted GOP party line pretty consistently.

So IMHO no credit for talking about doing the right thing.

3 Likes
#93

I think he should be impeached for his lack of action against Russia.
That is by far the most consequential misfeasance of his Presidency.

3 Likes
#94

Empty talk: Saying the obvious, Constitutionally speaking. Plus, Flake is retiring this year. Talk for him is free.

2 Likes
#95

And make him say “Thank you sir, may I have another” every time.

#96

Flake, like Prince Humperdinck, said something.

1 Like
#97

Under the current Special Counsel provision, yes, he would have the right to appeal to the Courts if he felt his removal was not for “good cause”.

The big difference between what exists now, and what existed until 1999 (when it was sunset), is only the President or the AG can appoint the special counsel, not Congress.

A much larger concern, though one that Trump is likely to consider because its not as flashy, is putting someone overseeing Mueller who actively engages in impeding his investigations…basically slow walk it to a stand still. Removing either Sessions or Rosenstein would allow that to happen. (Or Sessions announcing he is lifting the recusal he set upon himself could do it too).

#98

Trump stands to lose everything, including his money and freedom, because of Mueller’s investigations. The legal jeopardy doesn’t end with either impeachment or resignation. So yes, it is that dangerous to him, and there really isn’t any other options on the table, short of cutting a deal with Mueller/Pence to resign and receive a full pardon. (And I think that is where this all will end up normally…but mentally and emotionally, Trump isn’t normal).

That’s correct. But again, what other options does he have available? That question becomes basically moot when you factor in his NPD

So the question worthy of asking at this point is a timing question, and it applies to the GOP in Congress. Is it better to have Trump impeached before November, or sometime in 2019? IMO, for the GOP, its far better to do it before November, while they still control both Houses and can therefore control some level of the spin on it, as well as the blowback. A 2019 impeachment results in, politically at least, an unspoken condemnation of the GOP for enabling and refusing to deal with Trump. And they will have much less control over the PR side of such an impeachment.

2 Likes
#99

Well, duh. It was in writing. If they wanted to communicate their warning to the President, they should have booked time on Fox & Friends and presented their warning there.

2 Likes
#100

Yes
and
Article I, section 5 of the Constitution requires that a quorum (51 senators) be present for the Senate to conduct business.

so then the challenge would be to arrange the vote on impeachment to occur on a day when all 35+ of the GOPers ar off on some boondoggle junket / drunk fest / military contractor extravaganza

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available