Mueller Legally Required To Resign As Special Counsel

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:

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

---

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.

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.

---

Okay, you got my attention....so where is this little known statute that "requires" Mueller to "resign" as you so eloquently stated. I'm betting that the Senate and Mueller know a little more about federal statutes than Trump, all day every day and twice on Sunday.

If it's the statutes you have cited in this thread....then no, that's not, as I have pointed out, what the statute says. I repeat my statement, the federal statutes you posted DO NOT state that the Special Counsel must "resign." It states clearly that the AG, or acting AG, can "remove" the SC if the rules and regs were to be violated. In other words, the AG can "fire" the SC for misconduct, etc.

As I have mentioned previously, the senate is about to introduce legislature regarding the removal of the SC. They are looking to create a panel of 3 judges to determine, pre-"firing" if there is just cause, and, in addition, a panel of judges post-"firing" (same as above). This is according to Senator Swawell of the Judiciary Committee (for those of you interested in cites).

P.S. In regards to any DOJ attorney "recusing" him or herself for conflict of interest (such as in the case of Sessions, which he was correct in doing), that's pretty much standard procedure in the DOJ. Here is the DOJ regulation that "required" Sessions to recuse himself...

Quote:

---

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.

---

Perhaps that is the cite to which you refer regarding resigning or recusal. Upon further research into the matter, I discovered that there are rules & regs regarding the Special or Independent Counsel. It is called the Independent Counsel Act that gives the AG the authority to choose a Special Counsel that provides such things as: Appointment of Counsel, Jurisdiction and Budget, The Extent of Independence of Special Counsel, Removal of Special Counsel and Termination of Investigations and Reports.

As far as removal of the SC is concerned:

Quote:

---

Section 600.7 has two provisions on redressing misconduct by special counsel...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 DOJ.
Grounds for removal are limited to misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.

...the AG's regulation provide that a SC may be removed from office "only by the personal action of the Attorney General and only for good cause" or physical or mental impairments.

---

There's more, but I think that the above should be sufficient for the purposes of this response.

P.S.S. After posting my respo

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I did reply to your response, but, for some reason, it didn't post. I will make another attempt later today.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

It sounds like you are saying that nobody in the Justice Department can ever be prosecuted for violating Federal Law. Is that your excuse for not allowing Mueller to be prosecuted for his refusal to abide USC 28 CFR 45.2?

---

Before I answer, I advise you to re-read my post. At no time do I say for anyone to violate the law, that's first and foremost. Secondly, what I clearly state is that the law does not "require" anyone to resign, but, more correctly, that the AG has the final word for hiring and firing the SC. There is a BIG difference. When you resign, the person, in this case the S.C. is in control. That is not the case with this statute, CFR 45.2.
If anyone, as it clearly states in CFR 45.2, violates any section of the law, the AG has grounds to dismiss. Period, end of story.

Quote:

---

How do you reconcile that it is proper for Sessions to abide CFR 45.2 but it is proper for Mueller to refuse to abide the same CFR 45.2?

---

Okay, simple. There is a section in the code that states that the AG must recuse himself if he has a personal or political relationship...it is the whole reason why Mueller was picked as Special Counsel. The moment the acting AG picked Mueller, he became subject to the rules & regs of CFR 45.2.

I know there are those that say that Mueller and others that he chose to run the investigation, donated monies to the Clinton campaign and that should be grounds for recusal. Donating money to a campaign is neither a personal or political "relationship" with a candidate. Sessions not only participated in Trump's campaign, he was chosen to be the AG. That's two strikes because he was intimately involved. He didn't just donate money, he helped run his campaign. There's nothing wrong with that, but he just can't be involved in a "criminal investigation or prosecution," especially since he was right in the middle of the alleged violation/misconduct. Hence the conflict of interest, Sessions, once he recused himself, could never be accused of cheating to clear his name of any charges because he's not involved in the case.

Quote:

---

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.

---

Sessions was involved directly in the campaign of one Donald J. Trump. Plus he was involved with communicating with a Russian and did not reveal it in his documents regarding security clearance. A serious matter. He had both personal and political relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions was directly involved. Period, end of story. He knew that there was no way he could fight it because Congress would have hung him out to dry.

Now, you want Mueller to be removed; let Trump fire him. Go ahead, write to your congressman and insist that Mueller be disqualified on the grounds that he......what!? What are your charges? Donations to Clinton? That he was improperly chosen to lead the investigation? Don't you think that Trump's attorneys haven't thought of that? Don't you think that they are plotting at this very moment to find a loophole or some caveat that will get their client off the hook?

Before you answer, stop and think a moment.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

It sounds like you are saying that nobody in the Justice Department can ever be prosecuted for violating Federal Law. Is that your excuse for not allowing Mueller to be prosecuted for his refusal to abide USC 28 CFR 45.2?

---

Before I answer, I advise you to re-read my post. At no time do I say for anyone to violate the law, that's first and foremost. Secondly, what I clearly state is that the law does not "require" anyone to resign, but, more correctly, that the AG has the final word for hiring and firing the SC. There is a BIG difference. When you resign, the person, in this case the S.C. is in control. That is not the case with this statute, CFR 45.2.
If anyone, as it clearly states in CFR 45.2, violates any section of the law, the AG has grounds to dismiss. Period, end of story.

Quote:

---

How do you reconcile that it is proper for Sessions to abide CFR 45.2 but it is proper for Mueller to refuse to abide the same CFR 45.2?

---

Okay, simple. There is a section in the code that states that the AG must recuse himself if he has a personal or political relationship...it is the whole reason why Mueller was picked as Special Counsel. The moment the acting AG picked Mueller, he became subject to the rules & regs of CFR 45.2.

I know there are those that say that Mueller and others that he chose to run the investigation, donated monies to the Clinton campaign and that should be grounds for recusal. Donating money to a campaign is neither a personal or political "relationship" with a candidate. Sessions not only participated in Trump's campaign, he was chosen to be the AG. That's two strikes because he was intimately involved. He didn't just donate money, he helped run his campaign. There's nothing wrong with that, but he just can't be involved in a "criminal investigation or prosecution," especially since he was right in the middle of the alleged violation/misconduct. Hence the conflict of interest, Sessions, once he recused himself, could never be accused of cheating to clear his name of any charges because he's not involved in the case.

Quote:

---

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.

---

Sessions was involved directly in the campaign of one Donald J. Trump. Plus he was involved with communicating with a Russian and did not reveal it in his documents regarding security clearance. A serious matter. He had both personal and political relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions was directly involved. Period, end of story. He knew that there was no way he could fight it because Congress would have hung him out to dry.

Now, you want Mueller to be removed; let Trump fire him. Go ahead, write to your congressman and insist that Mueller be disqualified on the grounds that he......what!? What are your charges? Donations to Clinton? That he was improperly chosen to lead the investigation? Don't you think that Trump's attorneys haven't thought of that? Don't you think that they are plotting at this very moment to find a loophole or some caveat that will get their client off the hook?

Before you answer, stop and think a moment.

SGG

---

You seem to be missing the point. Repeatedly.

Are you allowed to violate Federal Law?

If so, then why shouldn't everybody be allowed to violate any Federal Law they choose?

If not, then why should Mueller be allowed to violate Federal Law?

CFR 45.2 specifies that he is violating the law, regardless of whether anybody chooses to fire him. Knowingly violating the law does not mean that he is not violating the law.

Before you answer, stop and think a moment.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Again, the lines of communication have failed. Let's start from the beginning, shall we?

Since you state that Mueller is violating federal law, in your opinion CFR 45.2.....can you tell me what exactly did he do that has you making that statement?

Let me see if I can break it down and go step-by-step:

Quote:

---

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee

---

Mueller became a DOJ employee the moment the acting AG Rod Rosenstein hired him as Special Counsel (do we agree on that?)

Quote:

---

...shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution

---

Pretty self explanatory; can't be involved in the investigation or court trial if...stay with me, here's the tricky part

Quote:

---

...if he has a personal or political relationship with

---

Again self explanatory; DOJ employee personally knows or is friendly with a politician

Quote:

---

...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.

---

More self explanatory; Does Mueller personally know anyone in the Trump White House? Did he help with the campaign? If he did Rosenstein could not hire him, he would be in breach of the federal statute mentioned above. Rosenstein knows this so he hired Mueller. He has no ties to anyone, personal or political, in the Trump Administration.

The fact that he donated money to Clinton's campaign, or Santa Claus for that matter, has nothing to do with the Russian case. If Clinton were being investigated, then he would not be able to run the investigation. Simple.

Sessions, on the other hand, had a personal and political relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions also worked with the Trump Campaign, plus Trump chose him to be the AG. So, because he worked on the Trump Campaign, he could not run the investigation because he was involved in the campaign.
It would be a conflict of interest - in other words he could not investigate himself, he was involved with the campaign.

Rosenstein hired Mueller as an independent counsel to oversee and head up the investigation into the possible collusion with Russia.

So, tell me what federal law did Mueller violate? What did he do that has you all upset, and why are you accusing me of ignoring the statute? I understand perfectly what the law is and I know that Mueller has not violated that law. It's there in black and white.

Since you know what he did to violate that law...please enlighten me!
Once you do that, then I could understand and if he did so then, and only then will I know what you know.

Quote:

---

CFR 45.2 specifies that he is violating the law, regardless of whether anybody chooses to fire him. Knowingly violating the law does not mean that he is not violating the law.

---

Here you state that he's violating federal law, but you never say what he did; you never say why you think he violated the law. Of course, no one is above the law...no one. If he did something to break the law, then he should be removed as Special Counsel.

What did Mueller do to break the law?


SGG

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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.

---

Okay Siggy, I think I know why JEWEL thinks that Mueller should "recuse" himself or that he's in violation of the Regs in CFR 45.2. I've seen a number of comments on social media regarding the relationship between Comey and Mueller.

But Comey is not "directly" involved in the case that Mueller is investigating, namely the alleged collusion. Comey is, however, involved indirectly in the obstruction of justice part of the case. When Trump fired Comey, he set the wheels in motion. I say indirectly because the obstruction of justice part is a separate issue that is an offshoot of the main case. Comey is not under investigation for colluding with the Russians, he's a material witness in the obstruction of justice case. A completely separate issue.

Again, if this were not so, then Trump's attorneys could file a motion to remove Mueller as the Special Counsel. A move that, at this juncture, would be premature. If this case ever gets to be tried, then I would make that motion to remove Mueller. But that's a big IF.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

The fact that Trump sold his mansion in Florida to a Russian oligarch and suspected mobster, making millions in profit, hasn't disqualified Trump from becoming the greatest president ever in the history of the World.

Wait, I just threw up a little...


SGG

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Again, the lines of communication have failed. Let's start from the beginning, shall we?

Since you state that Mueller is violating federal law, in your opinion CFR 45.2.....can you tell me what exactly did he do that has you making that statement?

Let me see if I can break it down and go step-by-step:

Quote:

---

28 CFR 45.2:...a Justice Department employee

---

Mueller became a DOJ employee the moment the acting AG Rod Rosenstein hired him as Special Counsel (do we agree on that?)

Quote:

---

...shall not participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution

---

Pretty self explanatory; can't be involved in the investigation or court trial if...stay with me, here's the tricky part

Quote:

---

...if he has a personal or political relationship with

---

Again self explanatory; DOJ employee personally knows or is friendly with a politician

Quote:

---

...an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization.

---

More self explanatory; Does Mueller personally know anyone in the Trump White House? Did he help with the campaign? If he did Rosenstein could not hire him, he would be in breach of the federal statute mentioned above. Rosenstein knows this so he hired Mueller. He has no ties to anyone, personal or political, in the Trump Administration.

The fact that he donated money to Clinton's campaign, or Santa Claus for that matter, has nothing to do with the Russian case. If Clinton were being investigated, then he would not be able to run the investigation. Simple.

Sessions, on the other hand, had a personal and political relationship with Trump and his campaign. Sessions also worked with the Trump Campaign, plus Trump chose him to be the AG. So, because he worked on the Trump Campaign, he could not run the investigation because he was involved in the campaign.
It would be a conflict of interest - in other words he could not investigate himself, he was involved with the campaign.

Rosenstein hired Mueller as an independent counsel to oversee and head up the investigation into the possible collusion with Russia.

So, tell me what federal law did Mueller violate? What did he do that has you all upset, and why are you accusing me of ignoring the statute? I understand perfectly what the law is and I know that Mueller has not violated that law. It's there in black and white.

Since you know what he did to violate that law...please enlighten me!
Once you do that, then I could understand and if he did so then, and only then will I know what you know.

Quote:

---

CFR 45.2 specifies that he is violating the law, regardless of whether anybody chooses to fire him. Knowingly violating the law does not mean that he is not violating the law.

---

Here you state that he's violating federal law, but you never say what he did; you never say why you think he violated the law. Of course, no one is above the law...no one. If he did something to break the law, then he should be removed as Special Counsel.

What did Mueller do to break the law?

SGG

---

Are you saying you are in the dark about the relationship between Comey and Mueller?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME