Jeff Sessions resigns as US attorney general ‘at Donald Trump’s request’.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Trump just fired Jeff Sessions.

[Lonestar]

I think that if I had Sessions money, with a senate pension, I would have quit before the mid terms and say that Trump made him hand over an undated resignation letter and told him he could expect to be fired after the midterms.

[The Romulan Republic]

Wow, they sure didn't wait long after election day to start the purge of the Justice Department. I thought it was probably coming, but I didn't expect it quite so fast.

As soon as his replacement is in, Mueller's gone. First order of business for the new House has to be securing any evidence Mueller has. Or could they simply reappoint him if fired (does a special counsel appointment have to go through the Senate, or just the House?).

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, given how quickly Trump is moving, his goal is probably to remove Mueller and suppress any evidence he has before the new House is seated. In that case, its time to take to the streets in protest, though we must be very careful not to do anything to provoke or initiate violence. Have no doubt that there will be Alt. Reich provocateurs in the crowds, ready to manufacture an excuse for a crackdown.

[Zaune]

Actually, given how quickly Trump is moving, his goal is probably to remove Mueller and suppress any evidence he has before the new House is seated. In that case, its time to take to the streets in protest, though we must be very careful not to do anything to provoke or initiate violence. Have no doubt that there will be Alt. Reich provocateurs in the crowds, ready to manufacture an excuse for a crackdown.

You say that like you think not fighting back would make them cease fire.

[MKSheppard]

"Sessions was Q trying to protect his own ass."

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, given how quickly Trump is moving, his goal is probably to remove Mueller and suppress any evidence he has before the new House is seated. In that case, its time to take to the streets in protest, though we must be very careful not to do anything to provoke or initiate violence. Have no doubt that there will be Alt. Reich provocateurs in the crowds, ready to manufacture an excuse for a crackdown.

You say that like you think not fighting back would make them cease fire.

You miss my point. People absolutely have the right to fight back in self-defence if fired upon (whether they should, and whether they actually have a hope of winning the subsequent fight, are other questions which depend on circumstances).

My point is that we should not provoke or initiate violence, because we a) don't want to give Republicans an excuse to send in the police or military and b) if they do anyway, we want it to be damn clear to everyone who the aggressor is.

I am honestly not sure where you got "don't ever fight back, even if you are literally being shot at" from "don't provoke or initiate violence". Once you are being shot at, the only question is whether retreat or returning fire is the more tactically/strategically effective choice. I would never question the right of someone fired upon by an aggressor to defend themselves.

The good news is that the House can simply reopen its investigation in the new year, or even reappoint Mueller in January if he was fired. In which case firing him and destroying evidence will delay/inconvenience the investigation, not stop it, and will make the obstruction case even more overwhelming.

My biggest concern is Trump and his cronies getting their hands on the evidence that Mueller has, so they know what the other side knows/who "ratted" on them/who Mueller's sources are (especially given that there is a not insignificant chance of that information making its way from the Trump team to Russia's assassins).

Jesus, what a cluster fuck.

[Zaune]

You miss my point. People absolutely have the right to fight back in self-defence if fired upon (whether they should, and whether they actually have a hope of winning the subsequent fight, are other questions which depend on circumstances).

My point is that we should not provoke or initiate violence, because we a) don't want to give Republicans an excuse to send in the police or military and b) if they do anyway, we want it to be damn clear to everyone who the aggressor is.

I am honestly not sure where you got "don't ever fight back, even if you are literally being shot at" from "don't provoke or initiate violence". Once you are being shot at, the only question is whether retreat or returning fire is the more tactically/strategically effective choice. I would never question the right of someone fired upon by an aggressor to defend themselves.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter a bucket of warm piss who the aggressor is in reality, because the Fascist International's media relations people will blame the victims no matter what actually happens and depressingly few mainstream media outlets will bother to double-check, so why even bother to try?

And I also take issue with your implication that self-defence requires you to let the person who wishes you harm initiate the use of violence. You can't fight back if they get lucky with their first shot.

[Batman]

When they come at you openly brandishing firearms in a ready to fire position I think TRR would agree that constitutes them initiating the violence

[bilateralrope]

What do we know about Matthew G. Whitaker, the man Trump appointed to be the acting AG ?

Sure, Whitaker looks like a Trump loyalist now. But so did Sessions, until he recused himself.

[Batman]

And I think you severely overestimate the sway international Fascist media has. A hell of a lot of the rest of the world remembers what happened the LAST time the Fascists ran a major first world country

[The Romulan Republic]

You miss my point. People absolutely have the right to fight back in self-defence if fired upon (whether they should, and whether they actually have a hope of winning the subsequent fight, are other questions which depend on circumstances).

My point is that we should not provoke or initiate violence, because we a) don't want to give Republicans an excuse to send in the police or military and b) if they do anyway, we want it to be damn clear to everyone who the aggressor is.

I am honestly not sure where you got "don't ever fight back, even if you are literally being shot at" from "don't provoke or initiate violence". Once you are being shot at, the only question is whether retreat or returning fire is the more tactically/strategically effective choice. I would never question the right of someone fired upon by an aggressor to defend themselves.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter a bucket of warm piss who the aggressor is in reality, because the Fascist International's media relations people will blame the victims no matter what actually happens and depressingly few mainstream media outlets will bother to double-check, so why even bother to try?

Because its the right thing to do? Because if we leap at the chance to kill people, then we are just another kind of monster? But if that does not convince you, then consider this:

There is plenty of media which is not fascistic, which will not take "we had to kill those protesters" at face value, and plenty of people (most crucially in law enforcement and the military) who would be okay with putting down violent rioters or insurrectionists by force but not with firing on peaceful protesters. Hell, I'm probably in the Leftmost five or ten percent of the population, and I'm not prepared to support initiating violence. Do you think that the forty or fifty percent or so of the country who is against Trump but more moderate than me would? Because those are the people who's support you need, whether in the peaceful political arena or, God forbid, the alternative.

Believe it or not, there are tens, maybe hundreds of millions of Americans who are not fascist, but are not prepared to support the radical Left starting a civil war. People who's support we need. Left-wing radicals arguing for immediate violent revolt need to understand that the ANTIFA crowd alone are not enough to actually win the fight you would have us start.

Saying "that doesn't matter" is argument of someone who just wants a fight, and doesn't care whether its one that we can actually win. Do you know what the only thing worse than a war is? A pointless war.

And I also take issue with your implication that self-defence requires you to let the person who wishes you harm initiate the use of violence. You can't fight back if they get lucky with their first shot.

There are risks to any action in times like this, but by your reasoning, you could justify any act of violence whatsoever on the basis of "He might shoot me if I don't shoot him first". You could justify the preemptive nuking of North Korea with that logic writ large.

Frankly? I would be terrified to have you at the same protest as me, because I would know that there is a not-inconsiderable risk that you'd be the guy to take the provocateurs' bait, and get the rest of us arrested/beaten/shot.

[The Romulan Republic]

And I think you severely overestimate the sway international Fascist media has. A hell of a lot of the rest of the world remembers what happened the LAST time the Fascists ran a major first world country

This.

When they come at you openly brandishing firearms in a ready to fire position I think TRR would agree that constitutes them initiating the violence

If someone draws a gun on you/points a gun at you, yeah I'd say that that constitutes justified grounds to fire at them (note: I am not a lawyer, and different jurisdictions will have different views on what constitutes justified self-defence). Someone walking around with a gun looking threatening, but not pointing it at anyone, would not be.

[Zaune]

There is plenty of media which is not fascistic, which will not take "we had to kill those protesters" at face value, and plenty of people (most crucially in law enforcement and the military) who would be okay with putting down violent rioters or insurrectionists by force but not with firing on peaceful protesters. Hell, I'm probably in the Leftmost five or ten percent of the population, and I'm not prepared to support initiating violence. Do you think that the forty or fifty percent or so of the country who is against Trump but more moderate than me would? Because those are the people who's support you need, whether in the peaceful political arena or, God forbid, the alternative.

No, I don't think they'd support it. But I don't think most of them would really care all that much -at least not enough to do more than impotently vent about it on their social media- if peaceful protestors were gunned down unprovoked unless someone they cared about was a victim. Martin Nemuller's famous poem hasn't got any less true in the last three-quarters of a century: People who care about moral issues they have no personal stake in are pretty damn rare.

There are risks to any action in times like this, but by your reasoning, you could justify any act of violence whatsoever on the basis of "He might shoot me if I don't shoot him first". You could justify the preemptive nuking of North Korea with that logic writ large.

Frankly? I would be terrified to have you at the same protest as me, because I would know that there is a not-inconsiderable risk that you'd be the guy to take the provocateurs' bait, and get the rest of us arrested/beaten/shot.

Well, you'll be happy to hear that I gave up on going to protests a long time ago. I can have my opinion ignored by anyone who matters while normal people make fun of me behind my back for caring about the plight of the less fortunate from the comfort of my own home in the age of widespread social media, so why blow over £40 on going all the way to Westminster?

[The Romulan Republic]

MoveOn.org has called for a nation-wide protest starting five tomorrow:

https://act.moveon.org/even/mueller-fir ... ts/search/

Note: If you choose to attend an event, you agree to engage in nonviolent, peaceful action, to act lawfully, and to strive to de-escalate any potential confrontations with those who may disagree with our values.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Democrat response:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Democratic congressional leaders reacted to the news of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' firing on Wednesday by warning that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into potential Russia collusion must be safeguarded from interference.

They also called for the new acting attorney general, who has been openly critical of Mueller and the investigation, to recuse himself from oversight of the inquiry.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said on Twitter, "It is impossible to read Attorney General Sessions' firing as anything other than another blatant attempt" by President Donald Trump "to undermine" and "end" the Mueller probe.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said at a news conference in Washington that "protecting Mueller and his investigation is paramount" and it "would create a constitutional crisis if this were a prelude to ending or greatly limiting the Mueller investigation."
Both called for the recusal of Matthew Whitaker, who Trump announced on Twitter will become the new acting attorney general.
Whitaker, who was Sessions' chief of staff, is expected to take charge of the Russia investigation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Whitaker argued in a CNN op-ed last year that Mueller was "dangerously close to crossing" a red line following reports that the special counsel could be examining financial records tied to the Trump Organization. In the same op-ed, Whitaker called for the investigation to be limited in its scope.
"It is time for Rosenstein, who is the acting attorney general for the purposes of this investigation, to order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation to the four corners of the order appointing him special counsel," he wrote. "If he doesn't, then Mueller's investigation will eventually start to look like a political fishing expedition."
In a statement released after his news conference Wednesday, Schumer also called on Whitaker to recuse himself from oversight of the investigation.
"Given his previous comments advocating defunding and imposing limitations on the Mueller investigation, Mr. Whitaker should recuse himself from its oversight for the duration of his time as acting attorney general," Schumer said in the statement.
Pelosi made a similar statement on Twitter, saying, "Given his record of threats to undermine & weaken the Russia investigation, Matthew Whitaker should recuse himself from any involvement in Mueller's investigation. Congress must take immediate action to protect the rule of law and integrity of the investigation. #FollowTheFacts."
Sessions resigned his position as attorney general in a letter to the President, writing, "At your request, I am submitting my resignation."
Mueller is investigating potential links or coordination between Trump's 2016 campaign associates and the Russian government. The President has consistently denied that there was any collusion and has attacked the inquiry as a "witch hunt."
A senior GOP congressional aide reaffirmed the previous position for GOP leadership that Trump should not fire Mueller.
"He would be playing with fire," the aide said.
Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, who is poised to become the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when Democrats take control of Congress, said in a statement that "The firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions fits a clear pattern of interference from President Donald Trump in the work of the Department of Justice and the ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller."
He added, "We are immediately issuing multiple letters to key officials demanding that they preserve all relevant documents related to this action to make sure that the investigation and any evidence remains safe from improper interference or destruction."
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California, who is expected to take over the gavel on the House Intelligence Committee, vowed that Democrats will "protect the rule of law."
"President Trump just removed Jeff Sessions. He wants an Attorney General to serve his interest, not the public," Schiff tweeted. "Mueller's investigation and the independence of the DOJ must be protected. Whitaker and any nominee must commit to doing both. We will protect the rule of law."
Schumer said at his news conference that he hopes "if there is a constitutional crisis that our Republican colleagues would join us in thwarting the President from creating that crisis."
The Senate Democratic leader said he finds the timing of Sessions' departure "very suspect." He went on to say, "Our paramount view is that any attorney general, whether this one or another one, should not be able to interfere with the Mueller investigation in any way. They should not be able to end it. They should not be able to limit it. They should not be able to interfere with Mueller going forward and doing what he thinks is the right thing."
This story has been updated.
CNN's Jim Acosta, Laura Jarrett and Veronica Stracqualursi contributed to this report.

And this might have something to do with why Trump is so desperate to interfere with the investigation:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11 ... a-bad-mood

Excerpt:

Trump’s move against Sessions today arrives at a moment when Trump allies are increasingly concerned about Donald Trump Jr.’s legal exposure. In recent days, according to three sources, Don Jr. has been telling friends he is worried about being indicted as early as this week. One person close to Don Jr. speculated that Mueller could indict him for making false statements to Congress and the F.B.I. about whether he had told his father about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians to gather “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. This source had heard that the case could revolve around Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates, who’s cooperating with Mueller and who was deeply involved in the campaign at the time of the meeting. Trump, this person continued, is “very upset” about the risks Don Jr. faces. “The president is very depressed,” this person said. (“Don never said any such thing, and there is absolutely no truth to these rumors,” said Don Jr.’s lawyer, Alan Futerfas.)

So, Donny Boy probably lied to the FBI, and Trump probably knew about the Trump Tower meeting with Russia (in short, Trump personally colluded with Russia).

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, such a conservative figure as Judge Andrew Napalitano says that Trump's replacement of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General may be illegal:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4156 ... -nefarious

Fox News legal commentator Andrew Napolitano questioned the reasoning behind President Trump's ouster of Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday, saying that Trump's move looked to be a first step in an attempt to end the Russia investigation.

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who has sharply criticized special counsel Robert Mueller's probe in the past, will take over the job of overseeing the investigation, the Justice Department announced.


“This is being done by a person who said, ‘Let’s dry him up by shrinking his budget.’ Beginning to look more and more to me, Shep, nefarious," Napolitano said in an interview with Fox News's Shepard Smith.

“The president can fire an attorney general for almost any reason, but not for an improper purpose. He cannot fire him if the purpose of the firing is to shake up the leadership of the Justice Department in order to interfere with a criminal investigation that the president wants to interfere with," the former judge added.

"[Whitaker] told CNN … that the best way to take care of Mueller is to dry up his funds," Napolitano continued. "If that is the reason for which Mr. Whitaker is now the acting attorney general of the United States, Mr. Whitaker himself could be in the crosshairs of Bob Mueller.”

Trump had been expected to seek a new attorney general after the conclusion of Tuesday's midterm elections, but the abrupt timing of Sessions's ouster caught many in Washington by surprise.

"We are pleased to announce that Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, will become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States. He will serve our Country well," Trump said on Twitter.

"We thank Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his service, and wish him well! A permanent replacement will be nominated at a later date," the president added.

It should be noted that even some Republicans still think that going after Mueller is a step too far.

[bilateralrope]

What I'm hoping is that someone has had a discussion with Whitaker and pointed out a few things:
- Trump has shown no loyalty towards anyone who has got in trouble over this investigation. He's not going to protecting Whitaker.
- Someone personally appointed by Trump interfering with an investigation into Trump looks bad at best. At worst, it opens up Whitaker to a obstruction of justice investigation.
- It also looks bad for Whitaker's future career prospects if he intends to go into any position where ethics matters.
Basically, give him selfish reasons to leave the investigation alone.

Then give him a detailed briefing to show that there is a serious issue that needs to be investigated.

Hopefully that's enough to get him to stay out of the way.

[The Romulan Republic]

Word is going around that Mueller has begun writing his final report. I mean... maybe, he's been at it a long time, and there's been this sort of speculation for a while. But it seems to me highly convenient that this would come out RIGHT NOW. I feel like this is Mueller stalling for time, making it sound like he's almost done and is wrapping things up to placate the orange dick.

[bilateralrope]

Word is going around that Mueller has begun writing his final report.

Word from where ?

Mueller's team has a reputation for not leaking. Which makes me doubt any alleged leaks.

I feel like this is Mueller stalling for time, making it sound like he's almost done and is wrapping things up to placate the orange dick.

Could be. But I doubt he could stall for long enough to matter unless he is about to make some big move that Trump can't undo. I've got no clue what that move could be.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, there's been a lot of indications that he's closing in on Roger Stone, and as I posted earlier in the thread, Don Jr. reportedly believes he could be indicted within the week (which probably has something to do with the urgency of Trump's actions here).

Anyhow, I regrettably can't make it to the US by 5:00 tonight to protest, but Democrats Abroad notified me by email of a protest scheduled up here as well. So I'll be attending. Check MoveOn.org for scheduled protests in your area.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.businessinsider.com/robert- ... rt-2018-11

The special counsel Robert Mueller has reportedly begun compiling a final report of his findings in the Russia investigation.
The news raised questions from legal experts who wondered whether Mueller had moved up his timetable following President Donald Trump's decision to replace former Attorney General Jeff Sessions with Matthew Whitaker, a Trump loyalist who has publicly castigated Mueller and the investigation.
Whitaker reportedly will not recuse himself from the Russia probe or approve any request from Mueller to subpoena Trump.
Whitaker also has final say on whether Mueller's report sees the light of day.
The myriad questions surrounding Whitaker's independence prompted Department of Justice veterans and constitutional law experts to argue that Mueller has grounds to challenge Whitaker's appointment if he overrules a decision by Mueller.
The special counsel Robert Mueller's team has begun writing a final report on its investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, CNN reported.

In addition to probing Russia's election meddling, Mueller is also examining whether members of President Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Moscow, and whether Trump sought to obstruct justice after he learned of the investigation's existence last year.

News of Mueller's team working up a final report is not entirely unexpected. There's long been speculation that the special counsel was holding off on making any big moves until after the midterm elections, because of DOJ guidelines barring investigators from taking any overt actions that could be seen as influencing the outcome of an election.

Still, the news raised questions among some legal experts, who wondered whether the special counsel had moved up his timetable following Trump's decision to oust Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday. The president replaced the long-embattled Sessions with former US attorney Matthew Whitaker, a hardline loyalist who has publicly railed against Mueller and the Russia probe.


Whitaker has reportedly been described as the West Wing's "eyes and ears" in the DOJ. He also said in a CNN op-ed last year that Mueller had overstepped his mandate by digging into the Trump Organization's finances. And The Daily Beast has reported the new acting attorney general circled right-wing media over the past two years claiming there was "no collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russian interests.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that Whitaker has no plans to recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, despite his history of making antagonistic remarks about the special counsel.

Whitaker's appointment comes as Trump's lawyers are putting the finishing touches on their written answers to a first round of questions from Mueller about potential collusion. They are refusing to answer questions about obstruction of justice, and Mueller reportedly insisted on getting a chance to ask the president follow-ups as well.

On Thursday, CNN reported that as Trump was preparing to replace Sessions with Whitaker, the president had already begun reviewing the answers his lawyers had put together to send back to the special counsel.

It's unclear whether Mueller will accept the answers as is without pressing for an in-person interview.

If the special counsel wants to subpoena the president, he would need to get permission to do so from Whitaker. The Post reported that Whitaker would reject such a request.

As the person in charge of the investigation, Whitaker will also have final say on whether or not to make Mueller's report public.

The myriad questions surrounding Whitaker's independence prompted DOJ veterans and constitutional law experts to lay the groundwork for a legal argument saying Mueller could challenge Whitaker's appointment if he overruled a decision by Mueller.

Attorneys Neal Katyal and George Conway wrote in a New York Times op-ed that because a "principal officer" of the US must be confirmed by the Senate, "President Trump's installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of [former Attorney General] Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It's illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid."

So Whitaker will fuck with Mueller, but there is significant grounds to believe that his appointment is illegal, and that any actions he takes are therefore illegal, and that due to his lack of independence, Mueller could challenge the appointment when Whitaker fucks with him.

Unfortunately, such a challenge would presumably go to the Supreme Court, which now has five conservative judges, two of them hand-picked by Trump. But a long court challenge would delay any effort to shut down the investigation and suppress Mueller's report- long enough for the House to subpoena the report and get its own investigations up and running again, for example.

[Galvatron]

What if Mueller simply says he doesn't recognize Whitaker's authority? Even the Fox News legal pundit regards him as an illegitimate AG ("acting" or otherwise).

[muse]

Um...hello? Fired vs. forced resignation is an important distinction. Yes yes yes, I know it's the same thing for all intents & purposes, but legally speaking it's completely different. A "resignation" clears the table for a new appointment, but, here's the fun part, it's an interim appointment which IIRC is limited to 7 months, which can be extended under certain conditions which i don't remember.

I am not a lawyer (but I did take law courses in a US university) but I think your efforts are best focused on handcuffing Whitaker and tying him up with recusal obligations rather than trying to remove him. The chances of removing him are slim with how everything is stacked against it, but you can force him to keep his hands away from Mueller's investigation by making him recuse everything. Lame duck him, basically.

[The Romulan Republic]

Whitaker has already said he won't recuse himself, because apparently he's as shameless as his master, but there are several reasons why Whitaker's appointment is probably illegal. The firing vs resignation question, the fact that apparently interim appointments are only supposed to happen when the Senate isn't in session (meaning that rightfully Rosenstein should have become AG), the fact that Whitaker is not eligible because he's never been approved for any office by the Senate... not to mention the conflict of interest issues. And yes, a number of people have already pointed out that Mueller could refuse his orders/contest his appointment if he interferes with the investigation. I expect it would go to the Supreme Court, and again it's a case of "How much judicial integrity does Justice Roberts still have?" (and also "Does RBG make a full recovery"). But I imagine that it could certainly tie Whitaker up for a while as Mueller tries to finish his work.