PDA

View Full Version : Ken Starr: Trump Has Authority to Fire Mueller



jimnyc
06-11-2018, 11:42 AM
Former special prosecutor himself...

---

Ken Starr: Trump Has Authority to Fire Mueller — Would Be a ‘Political Question,’ Not Obstruction of Justice

Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” former Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr told host Margaret Brennan that President Donald Trump had the authority to fire special counsel Robert Mueller if he saw fit.

Starr said the question of firing Mueller would deal with the politics of it and it was not an obstruction of justice question.

Partial transcript as follows:

BRENNAN: Well, we also know that Bob Mueller’s team is talking with the president’s own attorneys about getting the chance to interview him. You faced some of these questions when you were dealing with then-President Clinton. I think you went to him something like six times. You ended up having to subpoena before ultimately he agreed to sit down.

If you were consulting with President Trump’s lawyers, would you advise him to sit with counsel, and sit with Bob Mueller?

STARR: I think they’d better be cautious. And I think they are being cautious. First, we have to remember, this is the president of the United States, and this is an authorized law enforcement investigation. So that makes the situation unique. Looking at it simply from the perspective of a defense lawyer, you never want your client, unless you have an extraordinarily high level of confidence, to be exposed in this way.

So there are only two perspectives here, the president, you’re talking to the president of the United States, but he also is the — at least the subject of a serious investigation. So I think caution is the rule of thumb here.

BRENNAN: But an obligation — is there an obligation on his part to sit and answer these questions?

STARR: I think there may be a moral obligation, frankly, because he is the president of the United States. And unless he takes very decisive action, such as directing the firing of the special council. And there’s been no suggestion to my knowledge that that’s in the offing at all.

Then —

BRENNAN: But you believe he could?

STARR: Oh, yes, the president clearly has the authority to direct the firing, if not a direct firing himself.

BRENNAN: What would that signify to you?

STARR: It would be, I think, but it’s a political question, I don’t think it’s obstruction of justice. And I disagree with those who seem to find obstruction of justice in almost anything that the president has done. But it certainly would be, I think, a political firefight of — of the highest order because you have people in both parties saying, this is an authorized investigation, let it run its course.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/06/10/ken-starr-trump-has-authority-to-fire-mueller-would-be-a-political-question-not-obstruction-of-justice/

Kathianne
06-11-2018, 12:07 PM
I think it's pretty common to think Trump has that power. The problem is, impeachment is a political remedy, not legal.

Personally, I think impeachment should be removed from the lexicon. Everyone wants to 'impeach' any president they didn't vote for. That's not how it works.

jimnyc
06-11-2018, 12:17 PM
I think it's pretty common to think Trump has that power. The problem is, impeachment is a political remedy, not legal.

Personally, I think impeachment should be removed from the lexicon. Everyone wants to 'impeach' any president they didn't vote for. That's not how it works.

Understood, and I think some of them would be going for impeachment now if they could, and that would give them a reason to make the leap. But, if the firing is legally sound, then I don't think impeachment would remove him, but perhaps slap him in the hand.

I don't think he's going to do it anyway, not even close. But it's something that the liberals started pushing, as to make it sound as if he was actually on the cusp of doing so. I think if anything, Giuliani, Trump and others in this administration are replying to those things making their stance clear I guess, that it's an option. Some want to even push legislation forbidding him from doing so, which I don't think they should do, bad precedent to set.

I don't think he needs to even think about it at this point, as more info has come out since it started showing the involvement of the left, setting him up perhaps, definitely went too far with the FISA warrants and lord only knows just how far they went. But still, still nothing to date showing he somehow colluded with Russia, so I don't even see a reason to think about firing the man, even though I do think it's when on more than long enough, and has long turned into a witch hunt trying to get anyone and everyone for things not really within the scope of what they set out to do. I think at this point, it's become a tool for the left to possibly help them in the mid-terms.

So I don't see anything to believe there would be a firing and subsequent impeachment proceedings. And I don't think any backlash towards Mueller is to hide anything or to try and prevent and charges against Trump, but rather to stop them from ruining the upcoming elections in any way.