I am confused about Sessions and the Mueller Investigation.

[BigmanPigman]

I can't decide if it is better for the US if Sessions is fired or if he isn't. If he is I would normally be very pleased. But it seems (this part is confusing) that if he is then the Moron can somehow get around all the legalities and can have Pruitt, if he replaces Sessions, do some round about moves with Rosentstein and derail the investigation indirectly. Since the GOP reps have all begun to stand with the Moron and have flipped in the past few months, for some reason (blackmail, money,?) then they will allow it to happen and screw the US, the constitution, etc. Am I understanding the current situation correctly?

[dhol82]

1. Well, I will agree with you. Would like some input from someone who really knows.

Everything I have read and understand is that we want Sessions to stay.
Actually surprised that he did not leave of his own volition.
We live in very strange times.

[pnwmom]

2. Yes, we're better off with Sessions and Rosenstein in place. nt

[shanny]

3. All it takes is an AG unscrupulous enough to ignore the law

and fire Mueller without "good cause"--no reason or a made-up reason.

With Sessions recused, and Rosenstein as his deputy, the job would fall to him, and he has already indicated that he won't do it. A different AG, installed above him, could. Especially if he is one of the swamp creatures tRump loves so much.

I don't know if you recall but when Nixon ordered Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox fired in the fall of '73 (illegally), both the AG and the Deputy AG resigned rather than do it. Nixon moved further down the food chain and found Solicitor General (acting head of DoJ) Robert Bork, who was willing to do the deed. A shitstorm ensued, and imo impeachment became inevitable (forestalled only by Nixon's resignation).

St Ronnie of the Raygun tried to reward Bork years later with a Supreme Court seat, but he was not confirmed (interestlngly, his posthumous memoir claimed that rat bastard Nixon had promised him the next seat, but there were no openings and after the aforementioned shitstorm I'm sure the nomination would not have succeeded then either).

[emulatorloo]

4. Well said, thanks for posting nT

[BigmanPigman]

6. I watched the MSNBC Watergate special and was able

to follow it. I didn't know about the supreme court seat info though.

From what I've gathered, this crime is worse than Watergate however it may not be able to follow the same justifiable outcome since back in the 70s the GOP Congress wasn't as corrupt as this one is. That is a huge difference. This is why impeachment will not happen as long as they control Congress. As we have seen recently, the GOP reps who supported Mueller and the investigation 6 months ago are now attempting to derail it. Their loyalty is with their party 100% (not like during Watergate). These politicians are unscrupulous and will break constitutional law and re-write laws to suit their desires including rigging the midterms.

[EffieBlack]

5. I think we're definitely better with them in place

Rosenstein seems to be trying to be a straight shooter. And Sessions is prohibited from getting in the way. If he's moved out, Trump will replace him with a yes man who's not recused, Mueller will be fired and the investigation will be shut down.

And Congress has made clear by their behavior that they'll do nothing about it.

So, as despicable as Sessions is, he needs to stay - not because of anything he'll do but because he can't do anything and in this instance, that's a good thing.

[question everything]

7. I think that we are better off without him

and let the chips fall where they will.

Sessions is a horrible person. Not just going after weeds, but also reinstating civil Forfeiture.

I think that the Mueller investigation has progressed so much that it will never be stopped, one way or the other.

[BigmanPigman]

10. What is the Civil Forfeiture?

little while ago someone on DU told me that one good thing about Sessions was that he wanted to make it legal for the govt to seize assets. I was asking about The Moron and his cabal and family if found guilty. I would love all of their assets seized since the reason all of this is happening is due to personal greed/ wealth and how the crooks gain financially by selling our country to Russia. I was hoping that our govt could seize all of their assets, and their children's assets like they did with Bernie Madoff. Jail time is great, seizing their assets is even better. Could this still happen without Sessions? Has the change in that law covered this?

[question everything]

11. Read the WSJ editorial, of all places, about this topic and Sessions

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028406138

It really has to do with due process. I've heard local talk about it, how local law enforcement are encouraged to collect assets for their own use, while rarely returning it. One has to go to court and most people affected, without extra money, cannot afford it.

[question everything]

12. One more explanation, from the ACLU

https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse

Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

Forfeiture was originally presented as a way to cripple large-scale criminal enterprises by diverting their resources. But today, aided by deeply flawed federal and state laws, many police departments use forfeiture to benefit their bottom lines, making seizures motivated by profit rather than crime-fighting. For people whose property has been seized through civil asset forfeiture, legally regaining such property is notoriously

And, you are from CA, right? We had a hot debate about Kamala Harris.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029373292

[BigmanPigman]

13. Yes, I am from CA but I wasn't aware of DU

until early in 2017 when I was becoming active in the Resistance to bring the Moron down and discovered DU in my efforts.
After reading your links I take it that Harris changed positions on this issue at some point.

However, this states that the assets seized were at a local level where most of the seizures took place instead of on a federal level as originally intended. So are the local forfeitures the main problem and suffer under the law yet the federal forfeitures, who the law was originally put into place for, get away without the same penalties under the same law? And does this mean that the law is only enforced on the state and local levels but not on the federal level where the GOP/DOJ will likely allow the Moron to get out of it unscathed?

Am I understanding this correctly?

[L. Coyote]

8. If he's fired for crimes and perjury, good, if he's fired for refusing to commit crimes, that's bad.

Republicans want to fire him not because he is a bad boy, but because he is unwilling to be as bad a boy as they need him to be. They want an AG who is THE lawyer for theer mafia Don, not a defender of the laws for the People.

[BigmanPigman]

9. Yep, that is what they are doing.

They want someone who will get rid of the investigation. Period. This is a bad, bad situation for the country. No one to enforce the laws so they can be free to get away with murder. I feel sick.