So really. What happens if Trump fires Mueller?

[Stinky The Clown]

Who will do ANYTHING as a result?

I dare say NO ONE with the power to do something meaningful actually will.

Not One Politician or Judge.

Not

One.

[tazkcmo]

1. I agree

It will be up to us. It's going to suck storming DC in winter but The People will be left with no other recourse.

[kentuck]

2. There will be a flood of news stories that will break...

...that will make the Republicans look like morons and useful idiots, unpatriotic, and dangerous to our national security.

[PoliticAverse]

3. The issue would likely make it to the Supreme Court. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Who has standing?

I suspect only the Republicans do, as leadership.

I refer back to my OP.

[PoliticAverse]

5. Mueller would. n /t

[scheming daemons]

6. The American people have standing.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. How does it get litigated?

[marylandblue]

13. Mueller sues for wrongful firing

In Watergate, a congressman sued to get Archibald Cox his job back, and won.

[onenote]

31. Huh? Cox did not "get his job back'

Leon Jaworski took over as Special Prosecutor.

I don't recall (and can't find any evidence of) any lawsuit brought by a member of Congress or anyone else challenging the firing of Cox.

And I doubt an individual member of congress would have standing to bring such an action.

[marylandblue]

33. It's in old newspaper clippings like this one

https://dks.library.kent.edu/cgi-bin/kentstate?a=d&d=dks19731115-01.2.4

Cox chose not to try to get his old job back based on the ruling, because the new special prosecutor was already in place.

[onenote]

35. Thanks. I'd forgotten about the decision.

Probably because it didn't change anything. Having done some further research, I discovered that Judge Gesell's ruling that the firing was illegal was vacated on order of the appeals court because the matter was moot. Consequently, Gesell's ruling is not a citable precedent (although that doesn't mean a different court might not reach the same conclusions).

[Orrex]

20. By rights, Gorsuch should recuse himself

He won't, of course, but he should.

Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito will certainly rule in Trump's favor.


Kennedy might do the right thing, but who knows?

[dalton99a]

22. It will be 5-4 just like Bush v. Gore

[onenote]

32. Why would Gorsuch recuse himself? Because he was nominated by Trump?

That's not grounds for recusal. The key Supreme Court case in the Nixon impeachment saga was US v. Nixon -- a case decided by a Court containing four Justices (including the Chief Justice) nominated to their positions by Nixon.

[Orrex]

34. Honesty? Because I believe that he is compromised.

He was nominated by a pretender who was illegitimate at the time of his nomination. If Gorsuch votes in Trump's favor, and I believe that he would, then it is reasonable to consider whether Gorsuch was nominated with the express intent of having a Yes-vote on the SCOTUS when the shit hits the fan.

A difference in the Watergate case IMO is that Nixon won his initial election, and the case at hand wasn't about the legitimacy of that election. In the current case, the legitimacy of the election is front-and-center, so Gorsuch's fitness to issue a ruling is subject to question.

Beyond which, there's this to consider:

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

Granted, a Supreme Court justice can not be compelled to recuse him or herself, nor is it likely that a case would be reheard at that level on the grounds that a justice "should have" recused, but if Gorsuch is the tie-breaker vote that lets Trump fire Mueller, then it'll look pretty clearly improper in the history books.

[Wellstone ruled]

8. New York will move in a heart beat.

As well as other States. Manafort and Gates are already on the Docket. Those will proceed as well as the Sentencing of Flynn and the Greek Guy.

[tableturner]

9. Mueller has some bombs fully ready for detonation if he is fired.

There most likely are a slew of sealed indictments that can be unsealed in a moment's notice. I think Mueller's office has things set up with his lieutenants and the judge to unseal them upon his firing.

I can see a bulletin announcing Mueller's firing, then an hour or two later see another bulletin announcing that the court has unsealed and handed down dozens of serious indictments of Trump's crew, along with multiple serious unindicted co-conspirator charges (not just obstruction) aimed at Trump himself.

Two main forces will then be at play. First, there will be a hugely negative reaction to the firing by the public and certain officials, some of them mainstream Republicans, that will turn into an even greater explosion. Second, the public will learn of Trump's and crew's serious criminal actions, doubling or tripling the explosion.

Game over. The justifications for the firing of Mueller will be exposed as nonsense. There will be a double explosion of public anger at Trump and the Republicans because of the firing and the unsealed indictments, and Trump and crew will be doomed.

[rockfordfile]

25. I don't think so

I do think that Mueller is afraid to indict Trump.

[orangecrush]

27. I would

not bet on that.

[guillaumeb]

29. Agreed.

As during the Watergate affair, the firing will be impossible to explain as anything other than a pre-emptive attack. And when the sealed indictments are opened, there will be some in the GOP ranks who will feel forced to take action.

[doc03]

10. Democrats will make a little noise Republicans will do nothing nt

[struggle4progress]

11. I love a good mystery!

[bluestarone]

12. maybe some state would hire Mueller

as there associate? to continue state charges?

[klook]

14. We take to the streets - see this link

https://www.trumpisnotabovethelaw.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response/search/

Thanks to applegrove for the link.

[CTyankee]

15. Ours will be on the historic New Haven Green. I would imagine a bunch of Yalies will be there and

many union members. Lots of visibility on the Green and used a lot for demonstrations.

[klook]

18. Beautiful

I'll be in downtown Atlanta with hopefully a cast of tens of thousands. We had a massive turnout for the Women's March in January and I'm sure many of the same plus more will show up.

I hate it that Trump is threatening to screw up Christmas, but this is where we are - on the brink of a dictatorship.

As Malcolm Nance said this morning, "This must not stand!"

[CTyankee]

19. After what happened in Alabama, I think a fire is re-lit under communities of color, liberals, women

and faith communities. Onward!

[Orrex]

21. And... Do what, exactly?

Are we physically going to remove people from office?

Are we going to shame them loudly enough that they act contrary to the wishes of their corporate masters?

Until corporate money is removed from politics, what can protests hope to accomplish in this environment?

[klook]

23. Make our voices heard, as we did in January.

If you have more effective suggestions for what to do in the next week, please let us know.

[Orrex]

24. I have no suggestions, but I also don't embrace futile gestures

When we made our voices heard in January, what was the result? Trump has continued on his merry, destructive way. Granted, he hasn't yet destroyed the ACA, but is that because of January's marches?

We are told to contact our Senators. Well, Pat Toomey is a wholly owned stooge of multiple corporate interests who completely ignores the wishes of his constituents. What will my call to him accomplish?


I'm not simply being a curmudgeon about this. Rather, the sheer futility of it horrifies me to my core, as I watch my neighbors lining up to put themselves and everyone else on the chopping block for the enrichment of Trump and others.

I would love for someone to give me a credible reason to believe that the voice of the people will be heard. It wasn't heard in November, it doesn't appear to have been heard in January, and I see little reason to believe that it would be heard now.

[klook]

26. I don't march to change Republican politicians' minds.

I march because a) this is still a democracy (of sorts) and I'm exercising my constitutional rights, and b) I'm helping to inspire others that they are not alone in this struggle.

I have no illusions that the resistance will achieve quick or easy success. But if Trump fires Mueller, I'm not sitting at home yelling at the TV or posting rants to like-minded people on the Internet. I'm making a visible and loud protest.

Others will have their own ways of fighting back. We are in this fight together.

[Orrex]

30. I truly hope that your protest makes a difference

[bluecollar2]

16. I'll be going to my assembly point

The DNC will be reaching for the moral high ground...

[MGKrebs]

17. I would think that if they have found evidence of criminal wrongdoing

they would turn it over to the FBI for further investigation. Of course then it goes to the DOJ to determine if prosecution moves forward, but at that point if they try to stop or cover up criminality... I don't know what happens then. I would think all hell will break loose in some form.

All that does not really involve Trump himself though. He is probably pretty much immune from a criminal charge from what I understand. Impeachment is the recourse for him. I am confident that there is some level of criminality that enough senators would have to vote to convict, but it's hard to say what that level is exactly.

[Saboburns]

28. I don't think anything will happen. It would be up to the Republican controlled Congress.

My fear is that nothing would happen.

And yes this topic gets a bunch of discussion around here. Some are convinced Trump can not fire Mueller, others are convinced Trump can fire Mueller. The truth IS THAT NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF HE TRIES IT.

The reason why nobody is quite sure either way is because currently there is no legal framework for 'Special Prosecutors'. The framework laws that outlined do's and dont's for Special Prosecutors expired in 1998. And Congress has not drafted nor passed the legislation needed.

So it's not just my opinion that nobody really knows what would happen, Constitutional lawyers (those in the know-not just political hacks) don't know what would happen.

At the end of the day if Trump does fire Mueller, or attempts to fire Mueller, IT WILL ULTIMATELY COME DOWN TO CONGRESS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Yes Congress. Which currently has REPUBLICAN MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES.

In often gets mentioned that Sen. Blumenthal has drafted legislation to protect Mueller, BUT THAT DON'T MEAN JACK SQUAT BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN DEBATED NOR VOTED ON YET. IT ISN'T LAW, IT ISN'T EVEN CLOSE TO BECOMING LAW.

You may feel different, but I have no faith in Republican Congress people to stop Trump from firing Mueller. None. Nada. Ain't going to happen.

So, as I said, I fear nothing will happen if Donald Trump fires Mueller. Because it would take Republicans to do something about it. And they are detestable Shitheads who have their heads up their asses.

I am shocked he hasn't tried it already.