Posted on 01/24/2018 6:50:03 PM PST by Golden Eagle
The Sessions Justice Department is calling on House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) to allow the FBI to review the “shocking,” FISA abuse memo to ensure its release will not harm national security.
ABC News reports:
The Justice Department is urging the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, whose staff has compiled a secret memorandum purporting to show “shocking” political bias within the FBI, to give the department a chance to see the memo and warning that first sharing information from the memo with reporters would be “unprecedented” and dangerous.
Furthermore, the department said certain allegations of impropriety are completely unfounded.
“We believe it would be extraordinarily reckless for the Committee to disclose such information publicly without giving the Department and the FBI the opportunity to review the memorandum and to advise the [committee] of the risk of harm to national security and to ongoing investigations that could come from the public release,” a top Justice Department official wrote in a letter today to Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Sessions has always been an enigma.
You mean it's no longer "Trump is afraid to fire Sessions because Congress threatened him"? What happened to that explanation? Did it get retired?
Now it's "Trump is in danger of impeachment for obstructing justice" by exercising the authority to fire his cabinet?
So... did Myers vs the United States get reversed by SCOTUS and we all missed it? Did the Tenure of Office Act sneak back in? Inquiring minds wanna know!
Rope-A-Dope
That, and the Senate (Corker) warned Trump not to fire him, that they would not confirm another.
Gung Ho...great movie.
The essence of the FISA abuse memo centers around whether or not the FBI and Justice Department provided false information to the FISA court for the purpose of obtaining spy warrants.
No, I just figured after all the times it's been explained to you, you would remember that a special counsel investigating the President sends a report to Congress, for possible impeachment, so if it is claimed the President bolstered the special counsel's case, then Congress's threats have more weight. At least you remembered the word Congress this time, since I left that one word out, which is better than usual. I guess it's a start, so go back and read all the rest again, and let me know when you have more questions. Thanks!
So...in light of Myers would you care to explain who it is that Trump has to ask before he can fire Sessions?
What law is it that Mueller would say that Trump violated in order to recommend impeachment?
The Tenure of Office Act is what Congress used in trying to impeach Johnson- do you think that one would work again?
I'm trying to understand how you think your 'impeachment for firing Sessions' theory is going to get around Myers.
Chief Justice William Howard Taft, writing for the Court, noted that the Constitution does mention the appointment of officials, but is silent on their dismissal. An examination of the notes of the Constitutional Convention, however, showed that this silence was intentional: the Convention did discuss the dismissal of executive-branch staff, and believed it was implicit in the Constitution that the President did hold the exclusive power to remove his staff, whose existence was an extension of the President's own authority.
Well, they WOULD say that, wouldn't they?
“Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.”
That’s a neat trick. The supreme court defining the constitutional powers of the executive. We should just let them run the country.../s
Impeachment is a political process. If that dossier of “russian collusion” was better crafted, Congress may have acted on it. They just need a fig leaf from mueller to start impeachment hearings...Anything ominous sounding like “obstruction of justice”
Chief Justice William Howard Taft, writing for the Court, noted that the Constitution does mention the appointment of officials, but is silent on their dismissal. An examination of the notes of the Constitutional Convention, however, showed that this silence was intentional: the Convention did discuss the dismissal of executive-branch staff, and believed it was implicit in the Constitution that the President did hold the exclusive power to remove his staff, whose existence was an extension of the President's own authority.
He is the biggest disappointment in the administration. Too many years in gummit.
The deep state is a family in their rules book. The family can have it’s wild and strong problems, but family comes first above all else, and family business stays in the family.
My point is the courts don’t get to define the constitutional role of the executive.
Trump has the right to fire Sessions, just like he fired Comey, or anyone else that he appointed. But Mueller will claim that is additional evidence that Trump is obstructing justice in his report to Congress, for possible impeachment, and some Congressmen even Republicans have threatened Trump with impeachment if he fired Sessions.
It’s really quite simple, unless you believe bizare theories like your own that Mueller is not even after Trump, but after Obama and Hillary, even though he worked with them, and for them, for years, covering up their crimes. Then none of it makes sense, as we can see by your posts. Good luck, once again, understanding it his time.
“My point is the courts don’t get to define the constitutional role of the executive.”
The Founders decided the President’s power to fire his executive officers without asking anyone’s consent. That is the point that Taft made in his decision, citing the debates at the Constitutional Convention.
The Radical Republican Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act trying to give themselves the power over firing Cabinet Officers. It was this law that they used to impeach President Johnson.
“But Mueller will claim that is additional evidence that Trump is obstructing justice in his report to Congress, for possible impeachment,”
So let me get this straight- your argument is that Mueller will be able to claim that Trump firing Sessions constitutes obstruction of justice; despite Myers vesting that power solely in the presidency? Is that your position?
So what high crime or misdemeanor is it going to be that Congress will cite in their bill of impeachment?
That Trump lawfully exercised his authority to fire a Cabinet officer and Mueller didn’t like it? I’m not seeing the law that you imagine Trump will have violated by firing Sessions. Please cite that law.
You’re beyond my help. Or most others it would appear. I would suggest some self study OFFLINE where you research Mueller’s planned case of obstruction against Trump, and prior articles of impechment against other Presidents that included obstruction. Also necessary would be some remedial studies about Congress’s role in impeachments, which is their main check against the executive branch.
But nothing is going to help you until you actually start to realize that Mueller wasn’t put in place to investigate Obama and Hillary. As long as you keep thinking that, your entire world will continue to be upside down.
That’s interesting how you’ve settled on the obstruction of justice rationale.
The NY Times didn’t start reporting about Mueller working on an obstruction of justice case before this year. And yet you’ve been beating the Trump can’t fire Sessions drum for months.
So what happened to the other reasons? Weren’t the other reasons any good? What happened to them?
“Pete King was on Ingraham just now. A couple of days ago he was a “no” vote for the release. Tonight he is for the release.“
Well, the government tells us, See something, say something?”
I think some of these congresspeople saw something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.