• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will Trump fire Mueller? If he does - Impeach?

Will Trump fire Mueller? If he does - Impeach?


  • Total voters
    72
Sessions recuse himself, goes to Rosenstein, if he refuses, down the line, each one that refuses they resign or are fired.

This.

Trump can't fire Mueller, and neither can Sessions. The only one who can, is Rosenstein, who didn't seem too interested in firing him the other afternoon.

However, Rosenstein can be fired by Trump, and the next person in line can fire Mueller. If he refuses, he will also be fired, and Trump will keep going down the line until someone is agreeable to firing Mueller.

And then nothing will be done.
 
What cracks me up is how Trump and his followers keep saying there is nothing there, because no proof has been provided.

I'm just trying to remember the last time a special investigation was held, and the special prosecuter willingly gave up his evidence.

Just because it isn't being reported on, doesn't mean it isn't there.
 
This.

Trump can't fire Mueller, and neither can Sessions. The only one who can, is Rosenstein, who didn't seem too interested in firing him the other afternoon.

However, Rosenstein can be fired by Trump, and the next person in line can fire Mueller. If he refuses, he will also be fired, and Trump will keep going down the line until someone is agreeable to firing Mueller.

And then nothing will be done.
It can also be done via executive order if Rosenstein is fired.
 
The rumor mill is running in overtime. It has been said that Mueller will be gone by 12/22. Right during the busiest time of the holidays, when we are the least likely to notice.
 
What cracks me up is how Trump and his followers keep saying there is nothing there, because no proof has been provided.
I'm just trying to remember the last time a special investigation was held, and the special prosecuter willingly gave up his evidence.
Just because it isn't being reported on, doesn't mean it isn't there.

If there were anything, it would have been leaked already.
One thing the Trump opposition is excellent at is how to leak info against Trump - whether imaginary or real.
 
Why is the FBI investigating Trump to FIND a crime, as opposed to investigating an actual crime to find who did it?

How come the only investigation "successes" so far are two people convicted of lying to an FBI agent (the same supervising agent recently found to have issues with Hillary support/bias) about things that were apparently not illegal, and 4 charges against an unpaid and short-term campaign manager that have nothing to do with Russian election interference and everything to do with his personal profit in a 9 year period prior to the campaign?

Where is the "smoking gun?" Where is the "conspiracy crime?"

The Mueller team is being targeted because of possible bias, and based on that bias the possibility of entrapment (with the lying charges if FBI tapes already showed the Flynn/Papadopoulos contacts), and other planned efforts to undermine the current administration.

I don't know if these things are true or not...but they fall into the same category of "suspicions" which promulgated the Trump investigation in the first place.

To put the shoe on the other foot, if Mueller's team has nothing to hide, then why worry about the investigation into the possibility? :coffeepap:
The crime is whether or not there was conspiring between members of the Trump campaign and Russian nationals interfering in the election. That's what the FBI counter intelligence team was looking into, before Trump fired Comey and publicly admitted the reason was for that investigation proceeding despite his wishes it end.

Out of that came the need for somebody Trump couldn't influence to do the deed as new FBI director, which led to the deputy AG seeing it in the public interest for a special counsel to determine if any crimes had been committed along the way.

That means if people are stupid enough to commit perjury or obstruction of justice for misdeeds that are not actually criminal, Mueller still has the authority to charge them with a crime -- which he is doing.
 
if he fires the special prosecutor, that would be obstruction of justice. congress would be forced to act.
 
If there were anything, it would have been leaked already.
One thing the Trump opposition is excellent at is how to leak info against Trump - whether imaginary or real.

If the special prosecutor were the opposition, I might agree with you.

Mueller is a Republican, and he was approved whole-heartedly by the GOP when he was first named. The only reason people are butt-hurt now is because he is finding things against Trump. Y'all thought because he was a Republican, he'd pass over any bad info he found.

As far as leaks, are you upset that the FBI is doing their job? Would you prefer they cheat? Lie?
 
I could be wrong but isn't this a two step process?

Isn't it only the AG that can dismiss Mueller and end the investigation?

In that case wouldn't Sessions need to tow the line or Trump would need to dismiss him, appoint someone who'd tow the line then get Mueller fired?

If it comes to that, one would hope Congress would grow a spine and intervene, there'd be little more proof you'd need to ascertain that Trump is trying to hide something than that... Unless of course you were a Trump supporter.

But with the reaction that he got when it seemed like he was actually poised to do just this with Sessions, I doubt he will do it and if he did, he'd have to feel significantly more threatened than he appears to be now, right now we're at raging twitter stage.

Pretty much. Technically, Trump actually doesn't have the power to fire Mueller, which enrages him. He'd have to engage in some kind of Nixon-esk Saturday Night Massacre, which would precipitate a constitutional crisis, because unlike the respectable republican party back in the day, who cared more for country and moral courage than partisanship, today's republican congress will not, I believe, impeach Trump even if there was irrefutable proof that Trump has for years laundered Russian money, knowingly accepted a quid pro quo deal to lift sanctions on Russia in return for Russian propaganda/Wikileaks campaign against Clinton, and once in office, was actively involved in trying to do just that.
 
if he fires the special prosecutor, that would be obstruction of justice. congress would be forced to act.

Who exactly is going to be left to force them to do so? Nunes is running the House Intelligence Committee, and he is Trump's personal water boy.
 
If the special prosecutor were the opposition, I might agree with you.

Mueller is a Republican, and he was approved whole-heartedly by the GOP when he was first named. The only reason people are butt-hurt now is because he is finding things against Trump. Y'all thought because he was a Republican, he'd pass over any bad info he found.

As far as leaks, are you upset that the FBI is doing their job? Would you prefer they cheat? Lie?

2/3 of the GOP was working against Trump. Already forgotten about Kasich's grandstanding, followed immediately by McCains.
That bunch would have approved of the devil if he had promised them to get rid of Trump.

People can't be butt-hurt over Mueller finding "things" about Trump, because Mueller hasn't found anything ... because there is nothing to find. :lol:

The top 5 layers of the FBI have already cheated. I'm surprised you are so ill-informed.
 
Pretty much. Technically, Trump actually doesn't have the power to fire Mueller, which enrages him. He'd have to engage in some kind of Nixon-esk Saturday Night Massacre, which would precipitate a constitutional crisis, because unlike the respectable republican party back in the day, who cared more for country and moral courage than partisanship, today's republican congress will not, I believe, impeach Trump even if there was irrefutable proof that Trump has for years laundered Russian money, knowingly accepted a quid pro quo deal to lift sanctions on Russia in return for Russian propaganda/Wikileaks campaign against Clinton, and once in office, was actively involved in trying to do just that.

Good lord ... :lol:
 
The AG is charged with hiring a special prosecutor, but Trump is over the Executive Branch. Consequently, Mueller works at the pleasure of the President.
I believe Trump, like Nixon, cannot fire Mueller directly due to Mueller's "special prosecutor" status. He has to order a Mueller superior to fire him.

(a'la Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre)

To wit:

However, the following day (Saturday) Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned.[3]

Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General of the United States, Robert Bork, as acting head of the Justice Department, to fire Cox. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had given personal assurances to Congressional oversight committees that they would not interfere, but Bork had not. Although Bork later claimed he believed Nixon's order to be valid and appropriate, he still considered resigning to avoid being "perceived as a man who did the President's bidding to save my job".[4] Nevertheless, having been brought to the White House by limousine and sworn in as acting attorney general, Bork wrote the letter firing Cox[5] – and the Saturday Night Massacre was complete.[6]

Reference: Wkipedia: Saturday Night Massacre
 
Who exactly is going to be left to force them to do so? Nunes is running the House Intelligence Committee, and he is Trump's personal water boy.

if congress refuses to recognize obstruction of justice, it would risk a signifiant backlash.
 
I believe Trump, like Nixon, cannot fire Mueller directly due to Mueller's "special prosecutor" status. He has to order a Mueller superior to fire him.

(a'la Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre)

To wit:



Reference: Wkipedia: Saturday Night Massacre

"A Mueller superior" = 1 dude, correct? When did he say he would not given current evidence? Googled, June. Or Sessions.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I wasn’t clear in my point about Trump being over the Executive Branch and that Mueller works at the pleasure of the President.

Yes, Trump most likely won’t directly fire Mueller. Only the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller can fire him and only for cause. But Trump could fire the Deputy AG who hired Mueller.

“Or Trump can order the special-counsel regulations repealed and fire Mueller himself”.. But Trump is too busy watching TV to see who is bad mouthing him and then Twitter about them.
To the bolded:

Those statutes were put in by Congress, so I'm not so sure they fall under Trump's purview to change. The President can't repeal law. But like so many things at the executive level, there may be Constitutional context I'm not aware of.
 
Seems that the rhetoric for firing him has increased in the past few months.
Particularly the last week or two, only amongst the GOP, and I'm sure it is a reaction to the Flynn indictment and the GOP realizing where this investigation may indeed be going.
 
The crime is whether or not there was conspiring between members of the Trump campaign and Russian nationals interfering in the election. That's what the FBI counter intelligence team was looking into, before Trump fired Comey and publicly admitted the reason was for that investigation proceeding despite his wishes it end.

Out of that came the need for somebody Trump couldn't influence to do the deed as new FBI director, which led to the deputy AG seeing it in the public interest for a special counsel to determine if any crimes had been committed along the way.

That means if people are stupid enough to commit perjury or obstruction of justice for misdeeds that are not actually criminal, Mueller still has the authority to charge them with a crime -- which he is doing.

Not really. :no:

There must be a seed crime (i.e. an actual crime the conspirators are planning or have already committed) in order for there to be a conspiracy.

Here are the "election crimes" in Federal Law:

Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2013/09/30/electbook-0507.pdf

Please show which issue applies to this investigation.

From my reading? None.

There is no crime unless it can be shown that 1. the Russians violated one of those election offenses (i.e. hacking of voting booths, etc.) and 2. Trump was directly involved in a conspiracy to aid and abet this action.

Currently, there is no crime. Just an investigation seeking one.

(EDIT)

To the bolded:

There was a crime --> election interference by the Russians.

Mueller's investigating what, if anything, Trump and his entourage may have had to do with it.

See above.
 
Last edited:
Why is the FBI investigating Trump to FIND a crime, as opposed to investigating an actual crime to find who did it?

How come the only investigation "successes" so far are two people convicted of lying to an FBI agent (the same supervising agent recently found to have issues with Hillary support/bias) about things that were apparently not illegal, and 4 charges against an unpaid and short-term campaign manager that have nothing to do with Russian election interference and everything to do with his personal profit in a 9 year period prior to the campaign?

Where is the "smoking gun?" Where is the "conspiracy crime?"

The Mueller team is being targeted because of possible bias, and based on that bias the possibility of entrapment (with the lying charges if FBI tapes already showed the Flynn/Papadopoulos contacts), and other planned efforts to undermine the current administration.

I don't know if these things are true or not...but they fall into the same category of "suspicions" which promulgated the Trump investigation in the first place.

To put the shoe on the other foot, if Mueller's team has nothing to hide, then why worry about the investigation into the possibility? :coffeepap:
To the bolded:

There was a crime --> election interference by the Russians.

Mueller's investigating what, if anything, Trump and his entourage may have had to do with it.
 
Trump won't fire Mueller until one of his family is indicted, or he feels Mueller is getting close to discovering a Trump financial crime (i.e. money laundering etc).
Or, if Trump feels the political tide has turned enough, that he can get away with it.
 
There is no valid reason for Trump to attempt to have Mueller fired. History is of little help to Trump, as Trump has little knowledge, understanding or memory of Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox.

Donald Trump is childishly and ridiculously impulsive. Why consider sound advice, why deliberate and why use valid reasoning now? He won't.

Mueller has distinct advantages over Trump, two of which are intelligence and sanity. Mueller seems to have prepared for the possibility that Trump would attempt to end the investigations. Trump, putzing around in his pajamas until 10 AM, slamming diet cokes, wolfing KFC and watching up to 8 hours a day of cable news is clueless and woefully unprepared for much of anything.

If somehow or someway Trump is impeached and as a result is forced to leave office the United States and the world will be left in the hands of Mike Pence - and we'd all remain fairly ****ed. Pence would be somewhat different but no better than Trump.
 
I don't think Trump will fire Mueller, or at least not without some backing/support from congress/others.

At the moment, firing him would look like, and be, an attempt to interfere with the ongoing investigation - obstructing justice, in other words. So unless significant reasons to doubt that investigation's validity surface, I think Trump won't do anything.
If he DOES fire Mueller, despite all that, I think impeachment will at least be attempted.
And frankly, in such a case, impeachment would appear warranted, without much more evidence that the investigation is flawed or unjust in some way.

We simply cannot have anyone, even a president, obstructing the rule of law.
Hell, we have enough problems from money twisting the rule of law to suit those with it.
These are noble thoughts, but impeachment is a political matter, and it is in the hands of the GOP.

We saw them eventually back Roy Moore. At this point, I have no reason to believe they may not back Trump.
 
What cracks me up is how Trump and his followers keep saying there is nothing there, because no proof has been provided.

I'm just trying to remember the last time a special investigation was held, and the special prosecuter willingly gave up his evidence.

Just because it isn't being reported on, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Four individuals either felony indicted, or pleading guilty to felonies and turning over as state witnesses, seems like a pretty fruitful six months to me!
 
Back
Top Bottom