Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
On Monday, 19 March 2018 5:06:42 PM AEDT Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
The common practice in Australian politics is to have the "Deputy PM" be someone who supports the PM but lacks the power to mount a credible challenge. Likewise in Westminster, if memory serves.
I've heard that the practice in China is similar. It's not an issue of the local political process but of game theory strategy.
In the case of Pence, I doubt that he would be likely to win a Congressional popularity contest, it's possible that he would do worse than Trump. Paul Ryan might not be the most likely, but he seems a much better candidate. You may already know this, but just to be clear: If the US President dies
Oh yes. My point is that if you had Pence as Deputy PM under a system like ours then I don't think he would have much chance at the top job.
cooperate in all matters in exchange for reduced charges. Then, with the underling wearing a wire and/or revealing all past communications with peers and higher-ups, he pursues another persion slightly higher up the food chain. As it happens, Pence was among other things in full charge of the transition team coordinating the incoming Administration's affairs between the election results and the inauguration, so there is high likelihood that he was _deeply_ involved in the Trump people's unlawful activities at that time, and possibly also afterwards. All it would take for some damning evidence to emerge, and Pence could be ruined.
If Mueller gets sufficient evidence on Trump to compell impeachment would he keep working on making a case against Pence or would he just go for Trump?
If he is doing his job as Special Counsel, he will pursue goals dictated _not_ by surrounding politics but rather by evidence and the pursuit of justice that is his charge. As appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, he was charged thus, in order to 'ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election': The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before he House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. section 600.4(a). See: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-M... (Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 600.4(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4 , appears to be the Justice Department administrative regulation establishing the powers and jurisdiction of a Special Counsel, to 'investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted'.) Section (ii) of Mueller's authorisation is powerful and interesting, empowering him to pursue _any_ apparent Federal crimes provided they arise directly from his investigation of Russian interference and coordination between Trump campaign staff / entourage and Russian agents. So, the Special Counsel is by design a sort of implacable Inspector Javert, where he is not supposed to be constrained by political objectives, only concerns of law enforcement. Mueller is a universally respected former prosecutor and veteran FBI Director, as was James B. Comey before him. (Like many, many top FBI people, both men are also Republicans. One of the ironies of the present situation is that political liberals have been heard to be putting their faith in the integrity and independence of the FBI as a national domesic police force, though a decade ago they might have been loadly skeptical on that very point.)
Yes. Trump wouldn't want to shut him down unless he expected something to happen. ;)
The politics of that continues to be twisty indeed. This situation is haunted by the memory of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre firings during Watergate in 1973, which in turn lead to Congress passing enabling legislation for Special Prosecutors with strengthened protection so that they could not be fired by the Executive Branch, but then even Republicans conceded that Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr went completely off the rails in his attempt to hound Bill Clinton on something, anything, and the Special Prosecutor statute was allowed to expire and not re-adopted. So, the current situation is that, per Executive Branch regulations, Mueller as Special Counsel, having been appointed and charged with his duties by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after Attorney General Jeff Sessions was so politically compromised that he was obliged to recuse himself from all Trump/Russia matters, can be fired _only_ by Rod Rosenstein, which Rosenstein has vowed will never be for any poliical reason, unless one of two things happens: 1. The Toddler could at his options fire Rod Rosenstein, who, as an Executive Branch employee with no special protection, serves at the pleasure of the President. Or rather, The Toddler would direct Rosenstein to fire Mueller, and if Mueller failed to comply could fire Rosenstein. The Toddler would then turn to Rosenstein's own deputy, Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio, and hold the same 'Would you like to keep your job?' conversation. This was the chain of firings Nixon went through on Saturday, October 20, 1973, when Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardsonto fire independent Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox (who Nixon found to be too competent at pursuing the Watergate investigation). Rather than comply, Richardson resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned. Third on the list was the Solicitor General of the United States, Robert Bork, as acting head of the Justice Department. He (finally) complied. (This was the Saturday Night Massacre.) This all was enormously controversial and proved to any doubters that Nixon was guilty. Moreover, a month later, a Federal District judge ruled that Cox's firing was unlawful absent a finding of extraordinary improprieties that was wholly absent. This in turn set the stage for resumption of the investigation and the eventual returning of articles of impeachment by the House Judiciary Commiteee (if memory serves), followed by Nixon's resignation on the eve of of his certain impeachment (indictment) by the full House. This was the same Robert Bork later appointed by Reagan to the US Supreme Court and grilled by House Democrats so severely that the appointment was defeated. 2. The Toddler could unilaterally rescind the Executive Branch regulations that assign supervision of Special Counsels to Rosenstein as acting head of the Justice Department (given Sessions's recusal) -- and then fire Mueller personally. Either of these two tactics would then of course be subject to immediate court challenge. As with the firing of Cox, judges might well find that the actions had illicit purpose. Meanwhile, Congress and the American people would also explode, and we would have endless fun.