I would be very cautious doing anything based on unattributed information printed by the NYT.

If they said the sun would rise in the East, I'd still check the other points of the compass.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
If I recall correctly there was an article a long time ago that indicated if Sessions resigned, Trump can appoint a new AG without the need of a confirmation hearing. However if Trump fires him, the AG must go through the entire confirmation process

Nope, nope, nope.

The President can appoint someone during a Congressional recess who may serve unconfirmed until the end of that Congress but this Congress ends in December.

There seems to be two camps on this quote from Rosenstein.

Appears he did say it but

one group says it was in jest,

another group says he said it seriously

Would be very useful to know who leaked the story to NYT and to see McCabe's notes (that he gave to Mueller)

Rosenstein says that the comment was made sarcastically. Do I trust Rosenstein? No.

New York Times journalist Adam Goldman says that the comment was made seriously. Do I trust Goldman? No.

An Obama-era Justice Department spokesman suggested Friday afternoon that McCabe leaked the story to the Times. Do I trust an Obama-era Justice Department spokesman? No.

I’ll wait to see how this plays out.

I don't trust Rosenstein any more than the rest of you guys do. But I kind of think he was joking around here. Rosenstein knows Trump doesn't like or trust him. So wearing a wire in a meeting with Trump isn't going to catch Trump saying anything that would give RR ammo for this 25th Amendment stuff. I doubt Trump would ever meet with him without Gen. Kelly in the room anyway. And I just can't see Trump saying anything crazy around someone he knows is out to get him. RR has to know this.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Rosenstein says that the comment was made sarcastically. Do I trust Rosenstein? No.

New York Times journalist Adam Goldman says that the comment was made seriously. Do I trust Goldman? No.

An Obama-era Justice Department spokesman suggested Friday afternoon that McCabe leaked the story to the Times. Do I trust an Obama-era Justice Department spokesman? No.

I’ll wait to see how this plays out.

This highlights a factor I have mentioned repeatedly in our deliberations here, which is none of us has any first hand information; we are all dependent on media reports.

This makes it perilous, foolish, to come to fixed intemperate conclusions about reported events. Time after time, we see alarming reports of events, following which many post “get a rope” type responses, demeaning, insulting, frankly emotional unthinking rants. These responses do not encourage confidence in the poster’s judgment and thought processes.

In reviewing this, I have a question....

The President seems completely lucid, aware, well oriented to his surroundings in public. Is it possible to be this way, without a miss, in public yet be so out of it, unaware, unfocused, inept, disoriented, in private as to cause doubt about his being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?”

I can’t accept that the 25th Amendment refers to mere disagreement about the exercise of the powers and duties... “The Cabinet recommends [choice A] and the President insists on [choice B].”

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
In reviewing this, I have a question....

The President seems completely lucid, aware, well oriented to his surroundings in public. Is it possible to be this way, without a miss, in public yet be so out of it, unaware, unfocused, inept, disoriented, in private as to cause doubt about his being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?”

I can’t accept that the 25th Amendment refers to mere disagreement about the exercise of the powers and duties... “The Cabinet recommends [choice A] and the President insists on [choice B].”

Ironically, if Clinton were POTUS now, she'd be exhibiting every sign possible to trigger the 25th, and with unimaginable corruption to boot. But no one would be talking about invoking the 25th. At. All.

quote:

I can’t accept that the 25th Amendment refers to mere disagreement about the exercise of the powers and duties...

don't think so either

repeat:

So what is section 4 of the 25th amendment?

It requires the Vice President and a majority of principal officers of the executive body to declare the president unable to discharge his duties

when the president writes that he has no disability, he resumes his powers, unless

the VP and majority of principal officers write they still think the president is unfit,

then Congress decides. It requires a 2/3 vote in both House and Senate to keep the president from resuming his office.

The amendment was written to cover the case where the president became incapacitated. Not about disagreements

Robert Costa (Wash Post) reports:

POTUS has told several people on Fri. and Sat. that he's not going to fire the deputy AG and is suspicious of anything that even tangentially involves McCabe, according to three advisers familiar with the ongoing discussions...

Re: Rosenstein

quote:

The Managerial Clique

[from thezman's blog and podcast: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

" The political philosopher James Burnham is usually credited with coining the phrase managerial state. In his seminal work, The Managerial Revolution, he theorized about the future of world capitalism. He was a former communist, like a lot of intellectuals of the period, so he thought about social organization from that perspective. He was mostly wrong about the evolution of capitalism, but he did describe an emerging phenomenon that is with us today. That is the semi-permanent managerial class that runs American society.

Paleocons would later pick up on the phrase and the concept to critique both the conventional Right, as well as Progressives. Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Paul Gottfried and others would describe the managerial elite as an amorphous collection of bureaucrats, politicians and academics that occupies the important institutions. This class maintains power by not only controlling the institutions, but also public morality. Gottfried described it as a theocratic religion, that uses accusations of impiety as a shield against challenges.

Like most theorists of his age, Burnham had an understanding of capitalism shaped by the materialist philosophy of Marx. Therefore, he could not conceive of an economic model evolving as a weapon used by a new class that formed out of the bourgeoisie. The paleocons understood this as they lived it. Their friends and family were often members of this new class. Paul Gottfried was a college professor, for example. They could see how a hybrid form of capitalism was used by this new class to maintain power in America.

Even the paleocons missed an important aspect of this new class. It’s something rooted in the nature of man and that is the extreme provincialism in the managerial elites. Despite their claims to worldliness and cosmopolitan affectations, these are people with the worldview of burghers. They may pronounce foreign words with a foreign accent, but their knowledge of anything outside their tiny bureaucratic universe is limited. With few exceptions, theirs is a world of small cliques conspiring against others for bits of turf.

We see this in the unfolding conspiracy within the FBI and the DOJ to subvert the last election. Taken in total, the FBI portion of the conspiracy looks like something you would see in high school, where the nerds plotted some caper against the jocks. Like teenagers, they did most of their plotting via text message. This is not the work of sophisticated actors operating on the world stage. This is the work of a small collection of clerks and functionaries. It’s petty provincialism directed at an outsider viewed as a threat.

This last week, this pettiness was underscored by the revelation that Rod Rosenstein was plotting against Trump. It could be a caper run by the neocon loons that are now infiltrating the New York Times and Washington Post. More likely, given the source is FBI memos about meetings with Rosenstein, this is the small group of FBI plotters stabbing at a former ally for personal reasons. Andrew McCabe was more concerned with someone he viewed as a rival in his little world, than he was with the over all plot to subvert Trump.

This is the nature of the managerial revolt we see going on, as well as the resistance to the Trump agenda within Washington. It is not a collection of policy professionals with deep philosophical differences with the White House. It’s pods of overgrown college students throwing tantrums about petty turf disputes and hurt feelings. Look at the nature of the push back against declassifying documents. It’s cliques of coevals operating from purely personal motives. For most of these people, this is just another playground dispute.

That’s the nature of the managerial class now. When you start to look at the people in these various cliques, you see that they often share more than just a cultural and class background. They grew up with one another, went to the same prep schools and worked with one another for years. Once one member of the clique lands an important position in the bureaucracy, he sets about recruiting his friends, classmates and neighbors to join his team. It turns out that the Dunbar number applies to the managerial class too.

The crisis we see in Western liberal democracy may be rooted in this feature of the managerial class. The bureaucratic government of Diocletian was like a super tanker plodding along through the sea. It was hard to steer, but even harder to stop. It’s strength was in the sheer force of its size. The modern bureaucracy has evolved not to defend the secular leadership through sheer force. Rather, it has evolved to serve the narrow interests of the bourgeoisie class who populate it, as a way to defend their interests.

Like all things that evolve within a democratic framework, the time preference of this class is very high. The plotters within the FBI, for example, were more concerned about jostling for status within their clique, than what could happen after the election. Judging by the text exchanges between Strzok and Page, it appears these two had the time preference of the typical ghetto dweller. None of these people thought much about what would come next or what could happen if their emotional needs were not properly satisfied.

Since the dawn of human settlement, the point of the state has been to maintain the power and position of the people in charge by protecting the interests of the people. The king gets to be king, and all that comes with it, by defending his people from threats. This requires a low time preference as the king expects to be king tomorrow and maybe even have his heirs sit on the throne when he is gone. Even a republican form of governance is designed to serve the interests of the property holders, who obviously have long term interests.

The managerial class that has subsumed western public institutions, exists to expand and protect the interest of these petty cliques, at the expense of the public. It’s not just parasitic, in terms of undermining the middle and working classes. It is parasitic within its own institutions. Since what matters is status within the clique, which has a transactional relationship within the institution it occupies. No one within the clique can think long term about the good of the institution. All they can do is borrow the language of the institution."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IOW, the bureaucracy.

The antics of this class were captured very nicely, and accurately, in a British TV comedy, “Yes, Minister” and the sequel, “Yes, Prime Minister.”

It is about the antagonists, a Cabinet Secretary and the entrenched civil service bureaucracy. These were produced in the early ‘80’s, and became very popular. I watch episodes every now and then.

Rod Rosenstein Has Verbally Resigned To John Kelly: Axios

After Friday night's blockbuster NYT report in which according to Andrew McCabe's personal files, the deputy Attorney General has offered to record president Trump (whether or not jokingly), and proposed invoking Article 25, and which prompted speculation that Trump would fire Rosenstein imminently, moments ago Axios reported that Rosenstein has decided preempt that step and has verbally resigned to Chief of Staff John Kelly in anticipation of being fired by President Trump, according to a source with direct knowledge.

Per a source close to Rosenstein: “He’s expecting to be fired,” so plans to step down.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news...ned-john-kelly-axios

Oh boy.

Holy smokes, this has been a crazy couple of weeks.

Meet Noel Francisco, the man who will oversee the Mueller probe if Trump fires Rosenstein - The solicitor general has argued for broad executive powers.
By Jen Kirbyjen.kirby@vox.com Sep 21, 2018, 4:40pm EDT

On Friday, the New York Times released an explosive report saying that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein suggested to other FBI officials that they secretly record Trump “to expose the chaos consuming the administration” and considered invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. The story has once again raised speculation that Rosenstein may soon be out of a job.

Rosenstein is the man in charge of overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from that role in March 2017 because of potential conflicts of interest.

If Rosenstein were fired, or if he quit, the spotlight would turn to Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Francisco is the next Senate-confirmed Justice Department official in line, which means the Mueller investigation would drop to him. (The No. 3 person in the department, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, resigned in February; the Trump administration hasn’t picked a replacement.)

Francisco would have two options as Mueller’s new boss: He could keep the status quo and allow Mueller to continue the investigation, or he could choose to curtail Mueller’s mandate or even shut down the investigation.

Francisco, a prominent Republican lawyer, has some impressive conservative credentials. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and worked in the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration.

He’s also defended a broad interpretation of executive power — he even tried to argue a case before the Supreme Court that defended the president’s expansive power to fire executive branch officials. That case is unrelated to the Mueller probe, but Francisco’s argument, and his legal interpretations, offers some insight into the man who might soon take over Rosenstein’s job.

Who is Noel Francisco?
The Senate confirmed Francisco as solicitor general, the lawyer who represents the government’s agenda before the Supreme Court, in September 2017 on a 50-47 party-line vote.

Francisco’s résumé includes working on George W. Bush’s legal team in the 2000 Florida recount and, as a partner at the law firm Jones Day, representing former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in his successful case before the Supreme Court that led to McDonnell’s corruption conviction being overturned.

Francisco has a sterling reputation as a conservative lawyer, but he apparently wasn’t Trump’s first choice for the job. Chuck Cooper, a well-known litigator, was Trump’s top pick, according to CNN, but he withdrew from consideration.

Eventually, the president nominated Francisco. His confirmation hearing took place the day after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey — so the issue of “loyalty to the administration” was on the minds of some Democratic senators.

In response to a written question on how he would maintain his independence from the White House, Francisco gave an anodyne answer: “If confirmed, I will provide the President, the White House, and any other entity that I am called upon to advise with candid and independent legal advice.”

Decoding Francisco’s views on executive power
Francisco’s past legal stances indicate he takes a pretty broad view of executive powers and has some skepticism about the need for special counsels.

In 2007, he testified about his views on presidential power during a congressional inquiry into Bush’s politically motivated firing of nine US attorneys. The administration had been reluctant to turn over documents or let officials testify under oath on issues related to mass dismissal of US attorneys. Bush invoked executive privilege to defend his decision.

Francisco, who by then was in private legal practice, appeared before a House committee to defend the administration. As Mother Jones reports, he criticized the idea of appointing a special counsel to investigate the Bush administration over this scandal:

“I don’t think it would be appropriate for the Department of Justice to appoint” a special counsel, he testified, explaining that “my own personal belief is that when you hand these issues off to the career prosecutors in the public integrity sections in the US attorneys’ offices in the Department of Justice, those attorneys are generally better able to assess whether a case should be pursued.”

Francisco also argued for the expansiveness of executive power, saying that conversations between administration officials, even if Bush wasn’t actively involved, could be protected by executive privilege. He didn’t say executive privilege was absolute — but he basically said it was up to the court to decide: “What the courts have said is that in the context of a criminal investigation, if there is a sufficient showing of need, it can obviate the privilege.”

Francisco’s early tenure in the Trump administration indicates his positions haven’t shifted all that much.

He argued a case before the Supreme Court that could have implications for the Mueller investigation. It involves a narrow issue of how Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative law judges are hired.

But as the Los Angeles Times reported in April, Francisco has stepped in and asked the Court to decide on a much larger question of the president’s constitutional authority to not just hire officials but fire them too:

Francisco points to two provisions of the Constitution as giving the president very broad authority. One says the president shall appoint ambassadors, judges and “all other officers of United States.” The other says the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

”The president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws requires adequate authority to remove subordinate officers,” Francisco told the court in February. “The framers understood the close connection between the president’s ability to discharge his responsibilities as head of the executive branch and his control over its personnel. … The president’s ability to execute the law is thus inextricably linked to his authority to hold his subordinates accountable for their conduct.”

Francisco is basically saying the Constitution gives the president the authority to dismiss all officials who have power under the executive branch. That could, most conspicuously, give Trump a legal way to oust Mueller.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administration, but decided the case very narrowly on the question raised about the status of SEC administrative law judges. And as legal writer Cristian Farias pointed out, Justice Elena Kagan chastised Francisco for trying to make a broader argument about presidential power.

But it’s telling that the administration took this stance and that Francisco, as the solicitor general, is making these arguments before the court.

Francisco’s approach to executive power doesn’t mean that if he takes over he’ll immediately fire Mueller, or even rein in Mueller’s mandate. But it does hint that he might be more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s stance, especially if the allegations about Rosenstein intensify the clamor on the right about the Mueller probe being biased against the president.

And yet Francisco did dine with Rosenstein and Sessions in March shortly after Trump slammed Sessions on Twitter for kicking the investigation of what Trump and his allies see as the FBI’s mishandling of the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page to the inspector general.

The dinner, coming as it did on the heels of the president viciously and publicly attacking his attorney general, seemed to suggest the three men had formed a united front against Trump’s assaults on Sessions and the Justice Department.

Then again, all three, Francisco included, could be fired by Trump at any time.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/21/...trump-noel-francisco

@PeteWilliamsNBC reports that Rosenstein has said if Trump wants him gone, they'll have to fire him, and that Rosenstein will refuse to resign and go quietly.

From @johnrobertsFox “A SOURCE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITUATION SAYS ROSENSTEIN IS HEADING TO THE WHITE HOUSE – EXPECTING TO BE FIRED. HE HAS NOT VERBALLY RESIGNED…”

wonder if Kelly will pat him down for a wire?

I think they'll send him back over to DOJ, and say "get back to work"

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
wonder if Kelly will pat him down for a wire?

I think they'll send him back over to DOJ, and say "get back to work"

I agree. It's not the president's job to fire an Assistant Attorney General. It's the AG's job.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
wonder if Kelly will pat him down for a wire?

I think they'll send him back over to DOJ, and say "get back to work"

I agree. It's not the president's job to fire an Assistant Attorney General. It's the AG's job.

I doubt he's being fired.

Trump wouldn't call him in for that, he'd just send him a letter like others.

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
wonder if Kelly will pat him down for a wire?

I think they'll send him back over to DOJ, and say "get back to work"

Yes, I agree too.