Mueller Legally Required To Resign As Special Counsel
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 15:00
VIEWED: 4930
PAGE 1 of 3
Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.
His new FBI Director appointment just got confirmed by the Senate, and Senators claim it was because the nominee stated that he would not direct Mueller to Resign as SC.
BUT now that he is in place, it is pointed out that Mueller is leggaly required under Federal Law to resign as Special Counsel.
US Code 28 CFR 45.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-1999-title28-vol2/CFR-1999-title
28-vol2-sec45-2/content-detail.html
US Code 28 CFR 528
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/528
US Code 28 CFR 600.7
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7
https://www.lawserver.com/law/country/us/cfr/28_cfr_600-7
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Legal or not, we won't be seeing the establishment SC resign anytime soon. I bet $1
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Who said the center-left is dead?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Legal or not, we won't be seeing the establishment SC resign anytime soon. I bet $1
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just so people don't think that JEWEL is bullshitting, here are the relevant passages from the linked sites
US Code 28 CFR 45.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2
Quote:
28 CFR 45.2 - Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
US Code 28 CFR 528
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/528
Quote:
28 U.S. Code § 528 - Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice
The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.
US Code 28 CFR 28 CFR 600.7
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7
Quote:
28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.
(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.
(b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).
(c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I kn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mueller AND the 40 Hillary-donating Democrap lawyers he hired to nail Trump?
That's a real shame. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for expanding upon the facts. I had limited time to make the post, as is oft the case for me lately.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Just so people don't think that JEWEL is bullshitting, here are the relevant passages from the linked sites
US Code 28 CFR 45.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2Quote:
28 CFR 45.2 - Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
US Code 28 CFR 528
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/528Quote:
28 U.S. Code § 528 - Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice
The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.
US Code 28 CFR 28 CFR 600.7
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7Quote:
28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.
Also, it looks like (d) is the applicable subpart of US 28 CFR 600.7 here.
And WHO in the REAL WORLD would even suspect that I could produce BS?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you revealing yourself as a Conspiracy Theorist? Exposing facts like that could make Libtards call you names!
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Mueller AND the 40 Hillary-donating Democrap lawyers he hired to nail Trump?
That's a real shame.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You guys need to get your facts straight; the headline should read: "AG Can Legally Remove Special Counsel."
Where do I get this from?, why from the very cites you posted. Only the AG, or in this case, the acting AG, can remove or fire the Special Counsel were he to violate any of those rules and regs listed in the statutes. Not the president, not the FBI Director...not anyone, but the AG.
28 CFR 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.
(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.
So the FBI Director correctly stated "he would not direct Mueller to Resign as SC." Well, he could ask him to, but he has no legal standing to remove him from his post as SC. Besides resign means to quit and the statute reads that he could be removed (fired) by the AG for misconduct or violation of the US Code. In other words, there must be good cause to be determined by the AG. And soon by Congress, if they are able to get enough votes as part of their passing legislation to review said removal; as part of the Judicial Committee's jurisdiction.
How do I know of the above statement regarding Congress's, and in particular, the Judicial Committee's possible future role in determining the Special Counsel's removal by the AG, or anyone else for that matter.
I saw an interview with the head of the Judicial Committee where he stated such a move was being considered based upon the speculation and actions by the Trump Administration.
Now, I'm assuming that at the end of the SC's investigation and possible trial, that his services would no longer be needed, and so the AG would disband or dismiss the SC and whomever he hired as part of his investigation. But he's still not "required" to resign, he serves at the pleasure of the AG, who serves as the top cop in the land. You know, the rule of law, American law, requires it.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.
His new FBI Director appointment just got confirmed by the Senate, and Senators claim it was because the nominee stated that he would not direct Mueller to Resign as SC.
BUT now that he is in place, it is pointed out that Mueller is leggaly required under Federal Law to resign as Special Counsel.
US Code 28 CFR 45.2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/45.2
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-1999-title28-vol2/CFR-1999-title
28-vol2-sec45-2/content-detail.html
US Code 28 CFR 528
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/528
US Code 28 CFR 600.7
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.7
https://www.lawserver.com/law/country/us/cfr/28_cfr_600-7
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.
Can I ask you a question?
What exactly is the trick that the Donald pulled off?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Senate thought they had the Director by the balls, and with his pronouncement, they had Mueller protected. Not realizing that the Administration's "ace-in-the-hole" was that Mueller is legally required to recuse or remove himself. By not revealing this prior to the Confirmation of the Director, Senate "got snookered" in effect. Classic bait-and-switch known to eons of salesmen, which most people consider The Donald to be.
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:Quote:Can I ask you a question?
Interesting trick Trump may have accomplished - and Kelley can't really take credit for.
What exactly is the trick that the Donald pulled off?
SGG
Make sense?
Kelley can't really take credit for, because any intentional withholding of the relevant statutes from the public discussion occurred prior to Kelley moving jobs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME