"Flake: Mueller bill has votes to pass Senate"

"Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said Friday that he believes legislation protecting special counsel Robert Mueller could pass the Senate, if Republican leadership would agree to bring it up for a vote."

"I do believe the votes are there on the floor if we can just get a vote, and that's what I'm calling, let's just have a vote," Flake told CNN, asked about a measure that would protect Mueller from being fired without good cause."

"The legislation — crafted by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — has languished for months after it passed out the Judiciary Committee. Republican leadership argues it isn't necessary because President Trump, they believe, will not try to interfere with or fire Mueller

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...to-pass-senate

Given Flake is one vote, Tillis and Graham two more, seems Flake is correct

But the best part is that Mitch ain't allowing it because he believes what Trump says that he has no intention of firing Muller, that needs repeating, cause Mitch believes what Trump says. Outside of Fox viewers, few in America believe anything that Trump says, but Mitch, who is a smart guy, is really basing his reasoning on what Trump says?

Seems Mitch has caught Trump's aversion to honesty

 

Still.

Trump just vetoes it, and there is no way in hell that the Senate can get 67 votes for an override.

It would be great if they could though.

Get 20 GOP Senators to jump ship.

And, of course, they also need 2/3 in the House.

 

Pretty sure he caught that long, long ago.

How pathetic is it that McConnell alone can decide what the Senate votes on or doesn't? Seems like a bad system to me.

 

What evidence is there that Trump would fire Mueller ??

 

Point is it puts Trump on the spot, if he vetoes it he as to show why,

 

Good point.

 

Ah, lets see, the hundreds of tweets saying that he thinks it is a witch hunt, or, his escalating attacks on Mueller as being partisan and unjust. Need more?

 

Need evidence that Trump would fire Mueller. You have none.

 

If Trump was going to fire Mueller he would have already.

Besides, what is the point?

It doesn't stop the investigation, they just pick someone else who carries on where Mueller left off.

How people miss the obvious simply astounds me sometimes.

 

It’s the result of TDS.

 

Took Individual 1 a year and a half to fire the Elf.

 

None, but it doesn't matter. The proposal for Congress to bind the head of the Administration over supervision of an Administration employee violates seperation of power.

Jeff Flake: I probably wouldn’t be blocking these judges if I weren’t retiring



Great.

Blocking how many qualified judges out of small minded spite. This is what Flake will forever be known for.

 

Well he did fire the previous person in charge of the investigation because of that "Russian thing."

The dozens of tweets calling Mueller investigation a fraud, a hoax, a witch hunt, etc.

If he makes that claim now, how would a reasonable expect him to react should Mueller start to target or indict trump's family or trump himself?

 

Trump fired Comey because of that Russian thing and he has, on multiple occasions ordered others to carry out the firing of key individuals associated with the Mueller investigation (and Mueller himself?), but stopped after other people threatened to quit.

The bill does not stop trump from firing Mueller. It makes the firing harder by requiring that Trump justify the firing. Plus, it is a protection that existed for years and it would apply to all special counsels.

 

Flake is an embarrassment.

 

Trump fired Comey because he was dishonest and incompetent. Where is the evidence that Trump has ever ordered anyone to fire Mueller ??

 

Firing Mueller won't stop the investigation, what part of that are you not understanding?

 

And a retarded vindictive skunk

Mitch McConnell just did our constitutional order an enormous favor by burying the so-called Robert Mueller protection bill, hopefully never to rise again.

There’s been much harumphing about how Republicans are in the tank for President Trump by not getting on board the bipartisan bill, but it is a singularly misbegotten piece of legislation.

Trump would have vetoed the bill if it passed Congress, and if it somehow passed Congress with a veto-proof majority, the Supreme Court would have struck it down.

The push for the bill again shows again Trump’s hysterical opposition. That opposition is willing to throw overboard legal and constitutional niceties to thwart Trump.

Hence, the astonishing spectacle of U.S. senators, sworn to uphold the Constitution, advancing a blatantly unconstitutional bill.

The president is the chief executive, and Trump is president.

“I conceive that if any power whatsoever is in its nature executive,” James Madison declared, “it is the power of appointing, overseeing and controlling those who execute the laws.”​

If the president can fire the attorney general as Jeff Sessions attests that he can, he certainly can fire Mueller. The attorney general is a much more important position than the special counsel.

The constitutional problems with the Mueller protection bill is that to be constitutional, the special counsel must be an inferior officer. Otherwise, he has to be confirmed by the Senate, which Mueller wasn’t. And if he’s an inferior officer, he can be fired.

Mueller can’t be an inferior officer in some respects and a hyper superior officer in others, enjoying protections from his ouster that even Cabinet officials don’t enjoy.

Justice Department guidance say that the president can’t be indicted. That means that all Mueller can do regarding the president directly is produce a report that may well instigate congressional action, up to and including an impeachment probe. This preliminary investigative work should be the work of Congress alone, without the help of someone nominally working for the president he’s targeting.

Indeed, if you want investigations of the president that the president can’t stop or have influence over, you have to run them out of Congress. With the Democratic takeover of the House, such congressional probes are on their way.

This is a normal working of our system that doesn’t require any extra constitutional exertions. Insofar as Mueller has been “protected” to this point, it has been via just this sort of basic political accountability.

Trump has huffed and puffed about Mueller, yet cooperated — in some instances, quite fulsomely — with his investigation. That could change at any time. But firing Mueller would lead to dire political consequences and now fail to achieve its end of truly shutting him down. If cashiered, Mueller would presumably show up in January as the first witness before Rep. Jerry Nadler’s Judiciary Committee.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/robert-mueller-protection-bill-trump-russia-probe/

 

One NYT report that we can neither confirm nor deny.

 

Especially since Turtle Boy McConnell is dog **** and should be exiled to some ****-hole somewhere with his wife it tow.



Mitch McConnell Is the Real Evil One
https://www.gq.com/story/mitch-mcconnell-is-evil

 

Another well reasoned response from the left. One has to wonder if those that compose posts such as the above realize how ____ they sound.

 

How can you respond without even reading the link and expect to be taken seriously? McConnell is scum...defend him with opposing facts or go bark up another tree.

 

And there they go again. And they claim a person is pond scum and then actually complain about being taken seriously. Amazing.

 

I figured he was ruthless as soon as the Kavanaugh affair took place. He and the Childlike Emperor make for a truly toxic combination for the country.

Good story here, though, thanks! I see it was written in December '16, before Mitch even had a chance to prove his depravity under Trump. I wasn't even aware of his role during the Obama years, having not paid the kind of attention to Congress then as I have been lately.

 

And there they go again. More derangement from the regressive illiberals.