Grand Jury Issues Sealed Indictments in Mueller Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-donor-asked-data-firm-if-it-could-better-organize-hacked-emails-1509133587


Hmmm, and how would Rebecca Mercer happen to know that Hillary Clinton's emails were soon to be leaked by Wikileaks?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/28/trump-assange-bannon-farage-bound-together-in-unholy-alliance

These are the questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can Trump simply fire Mueller at this point if the heat really turns up?

He probably could -- although the special counsel position was designed to not allow that. It would be insane for Trump to do it, although I don't know if he realizes that. It would be much worse than firing Comey, and that was very bad for Trump.

How could Trump fire Mueller? The only person who can fire Mueller is Rod Rosenstein. Can you see him firing Mueller? Trump would have to fire Rosenstein, then find a replacement who would fire Mueller. Doesn't Rosenstein's position require confirmation? So wouldn't any firing of Mueller have to wait until Rosenstein's replacement was confirmed?

Is this correct? Am I missing something?

That’s not correct. If Rosenstein refuses to do it, President Trump can fire him and ask Rachel Bland to carry out the order. Trump has the authority to fire Mueller. The only question is the political calculation.

Who is Rachel Bland? Why would she have the authority to fire Mueller? Please cite the statute.

DP. Rachel BRAND is the Associate AG. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Brand

She’s conservative. But a serious, well respected conservative with a distinguished career. Not a Trumpkin.

The authority is an EO Trump signed for the line of succession in at the DOJ.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/31/presidential-executive-order-providing-order-succession-within

Line of succession is AG (Sessions); Deputy AG (Rosenstein); Associate AG (Brand); Senate confirmed DOJ officials Sessions May designate (there are only 1-2 now), US Atty EDVA (Boente, who just resigned); US Atty EDVA (Robert Higdon, who was just sworn in); and US attorney ND Texas (John Parker, who is an Obama holdover. Trump just announced his nominee).

Everyone in that line would absolutely resign before firing Mueller. Except maybe Robert Higgdon, who I do not know enough about to say for sure. Although I think we are past the point where the Senate would conform a Trump lackey into the line of DOJ succession. Their worst nightmare is Trump finding someone to fire Mueller. Because then they would have to act.

Good outline here:
http://www.newsweek.com/us-attorney-robert-higdon-justice-succession-mueller-660685

Then again, this is based on a Trump EO. So he is free to repeal it, or ignore it, or replace it. But this is how it *should work*.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can Trump simply fire Mueller at this point if the heat really turns up?

He probably could -- although the special counsel position was designed to not allow that. It would be insane for Trump to do it, although I don't know if he realizes that. It would be much worse than firing Comey, and that was very bad for Trump.

How could Trump fire Mueller? The only person who can fire Mueller is Rod Rosenstein. Can you see him firing Mueller? Trump would have to fire Rosenstein, then find a replacement who would fire Mueller. Doesn't Rosenstein's position require confirmation? So wouldn't any firing of Mueller have to wait until Rosenstein's replacement was confirmed?

Is this correct? Am I missing something?

That’s not correct. If Rosenstein refuses to do it, President Trump can fire him and ask Rachel Bland to carry out the order. Trump has the authority to fire Mueller. The only question is the political calculation.

Who is Rachel Bland? Why would she have the authority to fire Mueller? Please cite the statute.

DP. Rachel BRAND is the Associate AG. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Brand

She’s conservative. But a serious, well respected conservative with a distinguished career. Not a Trumpkin.

The authority is an EO Trump signed for the line of succession in at the DOJ.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/31/presidential-executive-order-providing-order-succession-within

Line of succession is AG (Sessions); Deputy AG (Rosenstein); Associate AG (Brand); Senate confirmed DOJ officials Sessions May designate (there are only 1-2 now), US Atty EDVA (Boente, who just resigned); US Atty EDVA (Robert Higdon, who was just sworn in); and US attorney ND Texas (John Parker, who is an Obama holdover. Trump just announced his nominee).

Everyone in that line would absolutely resign before firing Mueller. Except maybe Robert Higgdon, who I do not know enough about to say for sure. Although I think we are past the point where the Senate would conform a Trump lackey into the line of DOJ succession. Their worst nightmare is Trump finding someone to fire Mueller. Because then they would have to act.

Good outline here:
http://www.newsweek.com/us-attorney-robert-higdon-justice-succession-mueller-660685

Then again, this is based on a Trump EO. So he is free to repeal it, or ignore it, or replace it. But this is how it *should work*.

That's great info, thank you! Quick correction that Higdon is the nominee for EDNC, not EDVA - significant because Boente is EDVA and only just said he was resigning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-donor-asked-data-firm-if-it-could-better-organize-hacked-emails-1509133587


Hmmm, and how would Rebecca Mercer happen to know that Hillary Clinton's emails were soon to be leaked by Wikileaks?

Good question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why am I not surprised that CNN has close ties with Fusion GPS:

CNN’s reporting on the Trump-Russia dossier has left out at least one crucial fact: the close ties between the network and the opposition research firm at the center of the dossier controversy.

CNN’s reporting on the dossier, led by justice correspondent Evan Perez, has been favorable to the firm, Fusion GPS, and hyped the dossier’s credibility. Left out of Perez’s reporting, which has relied largely on unnamed sources, is his personal closeness to Fusion GPS’ operatives. Fusion has repeatedly been described in Senate testimonies as a smear-for-hire operation that manufactures misleading or false media narratives for its clients.

Glenn Simpson, the Fusion co-founder most often associated with the dossier, is used to working on stories with Perez. As reporters at The Wall Street Journal, Perez and Simpson regularly co-authored stories on national security.

Did you write this yourself?

You are implying that Perez and Simpson's history as WSJ journalists together is a black mark. Seems like an indication that they're reputable to me.

Italics indicate no. Daily Caller article. Read it.

All opposition research firms are paid to dig up dirt and frame it in a negative light. Where do you think all those negative campaign ads come from?

Russia!

The unnamed Dossier sources were Russians, btw.

Does everyone know this?

Since about December, yes.

If you are having trouble following this tangled GOP/Russia/treason mess, I posted in another thread yesterday this whole timeline of info, sourced, with any editorializing in bright red https://www.scribd.com/document/360428007/The-Russian-White-Paper

This is excellent!

[Anonymous]

The big question.....will Trump pardon after the accused's name becomes public?

[Anonymous]

That White Paper is an excellent summary. Unfortunately, I think Trump supporters in this country will not read it. If Trump tells them Russia is great and that Russia has not attacked us, they accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The big question.....will Trump pardon after the accused's name becomes public?

Manafort who worked for the Podesta Group?

[Anonymous]

People speculating that Roger Stone may be the person since he lost his mind on Twitter last night going after CNN reporters and his account is now suspended.

[Anonymous]

Manafort who worked for Podesta,
is the #1 person going to lock-up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Manafort who worked for Podesta,
is the #1 person going to lock-up.

As opposed to Flynn who committed felonies and possibly treason, or Kushner who committed felonies and possibly conspiracy to obstruct, or Stone, who possibly colluded...

I have no idea who will be first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort who worked for Podesta,
is the #1 person going to lock-up.

As opposed to Flynn who committed felonies and possibly treason, or Kushner who committed felonies and possibly conspiracy to obstruct, or Stone, who possibly colluded...

I have no idea who will be first.

Which crimes did Manafort commit? None?
I doubt that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Manafort who worked for Podesta,
is the #1 person going to lock-up.

And where Manafort goes Pence follows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort who worked for Podesta,
is the #1 person going to lock-up.

As opposed to Flynn who committed felonies and possibly treason, or Kushner who committed felonies and possibly conspiracy to obstruct, or Stone, who possibly colluded...

I have no idea who will be first.

Which crimes did Manafort commit? None?
I doubt that.

No, I just meant that the crimes are many. It's hard for me to pick the first one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manafort who worked for Podesta,
is the #1 person going to lock-up.

And where Manafort goes Pence follows.

Not at all. Manafort stayed loyal to his real friends at the Podesta Group, imo.