It all comes back to politics. The base has a stranglehold on the country. They vote, and the moderate Republicans are afraid of that vote. What keeps Trump in a state of control is that he knows his base has his back. There can be laws and ideas for improving laws, but as long as the base gives Trump carte blanche, he can do whatever he wants.
They gave this monster unfettered control of the branches of government, and now Mr. Chaos candidate can live up to his mandate to create mayhem for his enthralled base, damned be the country.
10
And pigs will fly.
10
The firing of Robert Mueller is exactly the length of rope Trump needs to finish hanging himself. This man has flouted every constitutional, ethical and moral standard of the presidency; anyone who believes a "Bork Rule" would suddenly send him scurrying into an act of contrition about following the rules, hasn't been paying attention.
A Bork Rule would be moot. Trump will not keep or fire Mueller because of a Justice Department rule. His decision will be made the same way all his decisions are made: What's in it for Donald Trump? Ultimately, this will be his undoing, and giving him the room to throw that rope over the limb and put the noose around his own neck is the best course of action (inaction?) The one thing Trump doesn't understand is that when you screw up the presidency you don't get to file for bankruptcy.
5
Trump will never go along with a 'Bork Regulation'. He'll balk; there will be a couple days of outrage, both real and feigned, and calls for something to be done; and then, it will blow over and be quickly forgotten, overtaken by the next Trump scandal(s).
Does anyone know what happened to the Democrats' rebuttal of the Nunes memo? See what I mean?
2
this duet is absurd, just like its performers. Mr. Starr was a slur on the dignity of all the offices he held. "That silence would speak volumes," Yeah, just like Trump 's "silence" about the Democratic rebuttal to the egregious Republican report from the House Intelligence Committee, spoke volumes.
The greatest absurdity of all in this is "showing it (Congress) that the president wants to bring its members into the decision-making fold on this most sensitive of questions." Where have these two pedantic disingenuous Pollyannas been for the last 18 months? What a crock !
5
That this article was reviewed by and published by the NYT is an embarrassing to this august publisher. The authors want to make us believe that Trump would appoint someone with a scintilla of integrity and then go along with a course of action that would surely end the Trump Presidency in disgrace. Oh please!
3
In another time in history a would-be dictator's propagandists and collaborators would be rounded up and dispatched in the public square. Often in ugly ways. This is one of the not so pleasant costs to the war for power between opposing political ideologies.
I do not advocate violence, but Trump mouthpieces like Coulter and Hannity and all their Fox News and NRA funded cronies will have no where to hide if the Mueller investigation comes to completion and the tax returns and other irrefutable documentary evidence is then corroborated by the testimony of former Trump aides and confidants like Flynn, Paige and others. You get the underlings of a criminal organization to turn on the men and women at the top.
So too, if Trump and Pence are not stopped, there will be hell to pay for the rest of the country that opposed them.
3
Everytime I read about the need to continue this investigation I laugh.
You silly liberals must believe that Mueller is like a probation officer or some other overseer of President Trump. Nothing could be further from the truth. Donald Trump is our President ( regardless of the very silly people who say "not my president" ). So get over it. You silly people want the investigation to continue, go ahead. One plus year and no boogey man.
silly = jerks
1
A nation of laws? Who’s laws, the ones for the rich or the ones for the rest of us. You know, the peasants, peons, proletariat, the lemmings being led off a cliff. We have a traitorous idiot for president, a moron, a stooge, the most corrupt president ever, and two lawyers want us to believe we still have the rule of law to comfort us. Laws would have stopped all of this years ago. Money is all that matters, citizens united assured us of a foreign interference in our hallowed democracy. Putin is our de facto leader with Xi planning for China’s rise to world leadership.
1
Trump will never agree. He is too stupid and he gets contrary and mediocre legal advice that only seems to empower his indignation and filthiness. So be it. Firing Mr. Mueller is a no-win situation though any way you slice it. Trump is like a deer caught in the headlights. He has nowhere to go.
1
Bork should've fired his beard instead.
2
well stated. ok, don con, will you support? if not, why not/
2
A non starter. Imagining that the odious and ignorant buffoon Trump has any respect for the law or the office he disgraces reveals that the authors are totally divorced from reality.
3
Ken Star?? The Ken Star of the blue dress caper?? OMG. I would think he might more profitably suggest that the special prosecutor investigate Stormy Daniels wardrobe closet.
4
Re: "...Acting Attorney General Robert Bork testifying in 1973 before the Senate Judiciary Committee..."
When Mr. Bork's career was damaged-/-destroyed by his grotesque failure to protect the Nixon_Special_Prosecutor, (and, by extension...ALL U.S. citizens...), from the criminal_presidency of R.M. "I-am-NOT-a-crook!" Nixon...I laughed; ...'Poetic_Justice' was the 'polite' version of the phraseology which popped into mind. In that same vein...
I HOPE that...if/when V.P Mike Pence is faced with pardoning/NOT pardoning D.J. 'K.K.K.' Trump...he leaps at the opportunity, just like 'President' Ford did!
We all know how wonderful that idiotic mistake was, re Jerry Ford's, (...never, to be), 'elected, president' career aspirations...don't we?
1
I hope you will forgive me if I do not wait for hell to freeze over!
1
Why anyone would pay attention to the partisan clowns that lead the Clinton witch hunt (and I'm no fan of either Clinton) is beyond me.
Hey NYT, let's get Kissinger and Gingrich's opinions, if we are headed to the bottom of the barrel. Let's go the the wellhead.
Drivel.
5
I can't believe that the New York Times is contributing to the resurrection and rehabilitation of Kenneth Starr--whose bio should read: "was removed as
president and chancellor of Baylor University for conspiring with the Athletic Department and Waco Police to "disappear" complaints of sexual abuse and rape by football players." His most recent project is the promotion of "religious liberty" (translation: persecution of GLBTQ people and women). This doesn't even touch on what he subjected the country to in his highly political and tawdry "investigations" of the Clintons. Yuck!!! He has nothing positive to add to a discussion of how to protect our country from corrupt leaders. Hilarious that he is pointing to Bork as a model!
4
It's fairly obvious what he's afraid of. (Read Tom Friedman's column today.) He's said several times, "don't look at my finances." He's practically screaming, "My finances are criminal!!!"
3
We need an out-of-the-box, Hail Mary play to save Mueller and Rosenstein from Trump firing them, to push for Senate investigatory hearings on why there is no Presidential leadership actions on 2018 election sabotage/what needs to be done and for the Senate to pass emergency legislation to coordinate/fund election security. We need a play like 2 brave and courageous GOP Senators going Independent caucusing with the Democrats ***NOW*** to flip control of the Senate to get these 3 actions going. Dare the Senate GOP to filibuster, the House to block it and Trump to veto it. Senators Flake and McCain, please go Independent to save our country rather than staying GOP that enables GOP collusion with Russian sabotage! You will actually save the GOP from its embrace of Trump! You have absolutely nothing to lose and our country’s eternal gratefulness to gain!
4
Ken Star, the master of the blue dress evidence, is now lecturing us on how to ethically proceed against one of the most anti-law abiding presidents. That's a laugh.
27
Ken Star?? Blue dress??? I would think he might want to proceed to protect our democracy based on any evidence in Stormy Daniels closet.
15
It was fortunate that Bork took administrative steps to protect the Watergate investigation, but Nixon could have fired him, too. Who would be the Bork that would stand up to Trump and Trump wouldn’t fire? What a polyannish view of the current reality in the White House.
9
The writers suggestion might possibly work...With a "normal" President. Obviously, our current occupant of the Oval Office does not fall under any reasonable person's definition of "normal". He has clearly shown that he will lie as easily as he breathes, thus could not be trusted to abide by ANY agreement that he would enter into -especially not one made under duress.
He is illegitimate, and every single appointment, executive action, or even laws passed by Republican congress should be immediately nullified (see: Paris accord, tax "reform", ad infinitum). Republicans DO NOT "get a pass" & just replace Trump with Pence. A dream scenario for them.
Voters already rejected "President" Pence!
ALL of this is contingent upon Mueller's investigation indicting Trump, et al, practically inevitable, in my estimation. Once Mueller finishes putting him & his family, McConnell, Paul Ryan & Republican enablers in prison (I am convinced that they knew about the Russians, because THEY have knowingly accepted Russian "help" through NRA among other "conservative" entities).
Trump will NOT "go quietly" like Nixon. Nixon understood (-& cared about-) the historical precedent(s) at stake, for the Country, the Office of POTUS itself, not to mention any possibility of repairing his historical legacy.
Trump cares not a WHIT about ANY of those things, as he has repeatedly proven...He would rather USE that "big button"
and take us ALL down with him
14
2 distinguished lawyers. BUT
Proposal is absolute RUBBISH. Blatantly unconstitutional.
And totally unenforceable.
Unless it reaches a SCOTUS staffed with majority subscribing to Humpty Dumpty (cf Lewis Carroll) jurisprudence: "The law is exactly what I say nothing more or less; all that counts is who has power". (Oh there are some: cf Breyer book on judging and some decisions by certain of "liberal" faction.
Consider: I am appointed to position in the executive (laughable I know).
I decree that none of my minions can be fired. My peers-and even minions??-do likewise.
These 2 propose to de facto rewrite of Constitution. Not only in regard to executive power. But also separation of powers (cf suggestion I can decree jurisdiction on the legislative)
They should know better.
Constitutionally there should never be/can be a special counsel with unlimited jurisdiction and budget ( notwithstanding SCOTUS earlier decision when there was a statute that by common assent was allowed to lapse. )
And consider SP abuses (cf Scooter Libby conviction in V Plame in invest (cf Wiki)
And NONE is warranted here (cf Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law).
In any case for many reasons Mueller cannot be it. (eg reg prohibiting involvement where SP had any significant relationship with one like Comey, a potential witness.
Glad to see 2 agree Congressional statue would be unconstitutional
Respectfully submitted by ALL KNOWING POOHBAH
Oh Mr Katyal and Mr Starr.......when you say “In one swoop, President Trump could assure the public that he will let the investigation continue.” you seem to make the assumption that he actually wants to assure the public the investigation will proceed uninhibited.
Your column is like a plumbers instructional manual on how a bad landlord can fix a leaky pipe. “Gee, if he only knew HOW to fix the leaky pipe he would do it”.
But that’s the problem, he wants the leak to continue so he can get those tenants out and raise the building for a brand new hotel and resort that he is building!
8
The question is already lingering - no, flashing in bright colors: What is he afraid of? And it doesn't require any of this article's nonsense to see.
5
You Mr. Starr, are the essense of what Trump is afraid of!!! An out of control partisan prosecutor who went so far afield of his mandate to do what ever was needed to, as payback for Nixon or Reagan's Iran-Contra investigations, injury Clinton! Whether he was innocent or guilty was never the question! You just gobbled up money, power, and the TV cameras on your path towards a meaningless impeachment proceeding that resulted in NOTHING but more Clinton haters!!! You looked only towards your own mandate and igored whatever you needed, just as with your football team! Hopefully, yes, hopefully, in this modern age of internet news, we the people will be able to have a say in all this in 2 years, nine months! BTW, dont you feel as if you were the root of this partisan attack the credibility undercurrent going on by the Oval Office? You are allowed to take some credit where credit is due?!
8
Mr Starr should go away. He's caused enough damage and waste of tax payer money.
12
Does the author know abut the "Friday Night Massacre'? The one where all of Trumps hoaxes about the 'Russian Hoax'. were slaughtered. Rosenstein/Muller will always be ahead of Trump's curve.
2
"What is he afraid of?" Trump is afraid of nothing. Like any accomplished sociopath, he will proceed with the same arrogance that led to his phony business "successes," bullying and bluffing along the way. Shame on all those who abet him: his consigliere, Cohen, his made-men, McConnell and Ryan, his henchmen, Nunes and Miller, et alia ad nauseum.
11
A minor detour when thinking of Nixon.
I always thought Reagan selling arms illegally to Iran and giving the money to the Contras who raped nuns was a much bigger sin than breaking into the DNC.
And certainly much bigger than Clinton lying about oral sex in the White House. (Thank you Mr. Starr.)
So impeachment is purely political?
It has nothing to do with real right and wrong?
8
Gentlemen, your "solution" comes down to hoping that Dim Li'l Donnie will do the right thing, i.e., tell the DoJ to treat the Mueller investigation and America's interests as higher priorities than his own personal whims and wishes. When he doesn't (as he undoubtedly won't), you say that "the question will linger: Just what is he afraid of?" The answer to that question — any investigation into his, um, "professional" behavior and his personal finances — has been obvious for some time now; his words and actions have consistently shown that he will do anything and everything within his power to hide his wheelings and dealings from public scrutiny. Sadly, your suggestion wouldn't come close to ensuring that investigators — let alone the electorate — learn the truth about his (and his campaign's and/or associates') various efforts and activities.
I honestly don't know who's more delusional — you two or the Oval Office oaf.
5
Happy Presidents Day! Do we really have one to celebrate?
3
Seriously? Do you really think Trump would agree to to issue such a regulation after we have watched him try to derail this investigation every step of the way? And do you think the spineless, soulless Republicans would go along with it? If he attempts to fire Mueller or Rosenstein then it is up to us-We The People-to take to the streets to stop this traitor. And remember in November-
VOTE THEM OUT! VOTE THEM OUT! VOTE THEM OUT!!!
6
A better way....N.Y.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN SHOULD MAKE “DONNIE FINGERS” AN OFFER HE CAN’T REFUSE:
RESIGN OR “CIVIL - ASSET FORFEITURE” (#resignorcivilforfeiture)
4
Comrade Trump could not have colluded with the Russians. He's consistently proven he can't work with anyone.
The President is afraid his treason on behalf of Russia will be discovered. The Russians have a hold on him. He will not agree to what you recommend, he will not protect our country from Russian 2018 election meddling, he has not imposed further sanctions authorized by Congress. I hope we can remove this traitor from office and restore some safety to America.
5
Perfect solution!
Can you say, "Fat chance," boys and girls? Sure you can!
2
Why has the Times published this precious nonsense, other than as click bait. Were there any chance at all that Trump would willingly allow such an order to be issued, there would be no need for the order. The problem, which the writers ignore totally up to their last line, is that the White House is occupied by a malignant narcissist with no regard for the rule of law, or anything else other than his own distorted self-image. If Trump doesn’t agree to what the authors suggest it will raise the question, what is he hiding? No kidding. And now what?
4
So, Ken - Bork was a bastion of legal integrity...
What's that again, about justice delayed being justice denied...
Your last line is your tell, as were Comey's contemporaneous memos-to-self...
"...If President Trump cannot agree to an investigation modeled on what Richard Nixon agreed to, the question will linger: Just what is he afraid of...
Doesn't sound like a construct for preponderance of evidence, let alone transcending of reasonable doubt - through fact, logic, and reason...
Sounds more like goading speculation - inviting MSM-fed innuendo and insinuation...
...................
Right up there with Bader-Ginsberg's circuitously admitting that some title IX investigations veer toward star chambers and witch hunts...
https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/19/ruth-bader-ginsburg-due-process-me-too
Though she was careful not to compact the admission into a short sound-bite...
See, what you prosecutors all feast on - against a background blather about presumption of innocence - and sometimes appear to revel in, is that you can grind people and things to your purpose, long before reasonable doubt is a safeguarding threshold...
...................
Al Capone was brought down by a "special prosecutor", because he was an otherwise untouchable gangster...
Going down the same path, because someone is - to some part of the population - a thoroughly detestable president...
Forget what Trump is or isn't afraid of...
You show yourself to be something I am afraid of...
3
"...the question will linger: Just what is he afraid of?".
This Q has been lingering since the election as he goes about plundering and pillaging for personal and 1%'s gain. You're late to asking, and DT's oppositional defiance to precedent makes a Bork regulation moot. We're in a Godfather series, a lousy one.
5
There is only one answer to this situation; November 6, 2018. VOTE!
3
This article is nothing more than dorm room spit-balling masquerading as serious proposal around an eminent national crisis; a crisis that simply does not exist. Unasked by the authors is the more important question, is a special prosecutor the right mechanism to pursue the Russian meddling in our election. All the special prosecutor can do is bring charges against Russians. They will never see a court room. Sure, some creep will get it for unrelated money laundering – other than some political outrage what does that get us.
3
Well, add to more names to the next Twitter attack by the President
Ken Starr has never been noted for good judgment. Does he really think the GOP is going to let their useful idiot be subjected to an honest investigation?
2
President Trump, show us your taxes.
2
Ken Starr? Nope.
1
Good refresher of measures to be taken to prevent our thuggish president from thwarting an investigation over suspected collusion of Trump's team with Russia's Putin. Although crooked lying Trump is a bully, a most vulgar one at that, he remains a coward in disguise, deeply insecure and immature, and always self-serving (whose only fidelity is to himself), he may still attempt to disrupt justice by obstructing the investigative process by 'firing' whomever gets in his way of staying immune to the rule of law, and get away with 'murder' with impunity. Can't we see that Trump is a despicable and unscrupulous con man, ready and willing to destroy anybody in his way to ill-gotten riches at our expense? We must continue to device ever more sophisticated ways to protect the constitution and this ailing democracy from being further eroded by a malevolent 'snake'. Hence, protect Mueller's noble undertaking.
2
Exactly Just what is he afraid of? His behavior speaks loudly and clearly to all Americans. Though no fan of Ronald Reagan, Reagan’s behavior during the course of the Iran Contra controversy exemplifies what a leader who is suspected of wrongdoing, yet ultimately shown to be innocent , what their behavior should be.
That’s right, a leader. Trump is no leader. Never has been nor is he likely to grow into a maturity level enabling him to transform into one. ( Playboy bunnies at his age? Please!)
He is going down in flames. And-taking all his sycophant enablers , like the GOP in toto, with him. His admirers will be stuck holding the bag- it’s SOP for him.They will be like rats ( that they are) fleeing the sinking ship.
And America will rebuild itself without him and his right wing extremist/ born again supporters.
An article on appropriate executive and legislative behavior by Mr Starr seems to be equivalent to a book on good social skills by Al Capone or a guide to democracy by Stalin
1
Like I would read anything by Ken Starr.
1
Nice idea. But were this to happen, the next special prosecutor would likely be Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani.
1
In history and the times we live, this American has long lost interest in 'Who is Afraid of Trump', let alone 'What is he Afraid' of these days. A nearly young friend of mine with two children in school, her spouse and she, worried with reason, laced with common sense, about their safety.
'Jeeper Creepers' is a brief summing-up on her part on Our State of Affairs. Early at dawn, a big smile greets me on waking; a balloon card in the overhead, from her ten year-old. He is already going about their community with 'Good Morning, Mrs. Craddock', and 'How are you, Mr. Potter'. Perhaps he will grow to be a politician, or a patriot. A staunch Republican family, who reluctantly accepts outsiders, the members maintain their wits about them in the best and worse of times.
When Nixon orders The National Guard to shoot on unarmed students at Kent, there is an uproar. Something has gone wrong where the word 'Right' does not feature in America.
Hush, Hush, Whisper who dares, Mr. Mueller is doing his job. To my knowledge, We The People are going about our daily business. The Nation, who cares about Democracy Now and in the Future, to lend support to the Special Counsel in these allegations of interference from a foreign power, while The Justice Department opens its eyes.
George Washington wrote of the peril of external malignant influences, and he was right. Lincoln was assassinated, but left us with a sense of direction
in his Gettysburg Address. Come back, America.
NEAL K. KATYAL and KENNETH W. STARR, you guys must be masters of understatement! Trump isn't about to permit a Bork regulation. And, his base will deny that means anything. You keep thinking Trump is a reasonable person and that his "base" is rational. Neither is true.
Don't think Mueller needs your [idea of] protection. The facts are sufficient.
1
Mueller is an adult. He doesn't need protection. But he is not exactly doing a stellar job for the money he is paid. The 37 page indictment was really a "nothing burger". Any student of Russian history and current politics could have come up with those names. What makes the indictment so pathetic, is that there is no chance that these men will ever be seen in a US Courtroom - the indictment was nothing but a publicity grab. Really disgusting when you consider all the money we are wasting on Mueller and his team of HIllary Democrats.
Sorry, this is just nonsense. How can it be constitutional for a Bork to limit the President's ability to fire a special counsel, but unconstitutional for Congress to do the same? And if the law is based on such idiotic distinctions without a difference, then we shouldn't be surprised that respect for the law is at such a low point.
While in academic theory this proposed solution could be a good idea, our reality TV apprentice, I mean president, will never sign it!
Mr. Starr's contribution to your opinion article is unfortunate. His tarnished (sullied) reputation as former head of Baylor and recalling the excesses he allowed to take place during his tenure as special prosecutor preclude any value being ascribed to his opinion on this topic. Complimenting Bork for his daft political maneuvering, all the while forgetting he was Nixon hatchet man (warranting historical disgrace) is also unseemly. Why even waste your time writing such a silly and complimentary opinion piece when reality dictates such is not a plausible idea!
The problem with this approach, and where the proposal fails, IMHO, is that Nixon, whatever his failings, believed in the rule of law. Not so The Donald. I suspect he would just ignore the regulation and terminate the special prosecutor anyway. If a constitutional crisis results, so what? Withnthe help of the Republican Party and the conservative media machine, he would probably get away with it.
Why is Kenneth Starr given the light of day by any entity with a shred of dignity? His role prosecuting Clinton was sufficiently egregious. One of the biggest sex scandals involving college athletes occurred under his watch at Baylor. He seemed not to care much, the football and basketball teams were both ranked, a marked improvement over their normal status as perennial losers. He didn't apologetically resign, he was forced out when saner adults in the room decided his continued presence wasn't the right look for a Baptist university recovering from such a scandal.
1
It's not going to happen. Trump is not the brightest kid on the block, but he understands that it is unwise to tie his own noose and put it around his neck. Nixon had some shreds of basic decency left, while that word does not exist in Trump's vocabulary.
He has operated on short-term advantages and bullying for his entire life. That's the only thing that makes him predictable.
The smoking gun will be hidden in his tax returns. For all practical purposes, Trump may be Russian by ownership. Now THAT is scary!
"And if the president doesn’t permit a Bork regulation? That silence will speak volumes."
Trump won't not only not permit a Bork regulation but he abhors silence and will be as annoying and loud as ever with Tweets and interviews and such.
Russians may not have won the Cold War, but they certainly have succeeded in making America weak by helping elect an ill-mannered, ill-informed and ill-tempered clown.
He is back already, after Baylor.
If impeachment and removal of Trump did succeed then we would go from an amoral libertine to bible-thumper Pence, That would be a real neck snapper. I guess we are in for some interesting times.
Great idea; use Courageous Hero of the Republic Bork's lapsed regulation. Oops, the regulation has lapsed... bad idea.
Tell me again, with a straight face, exactly why DT would agree to this...
The writers really underestimate the era of Trump, where every day brings another scandal and every scandal makes us numb to how far afield our democracy has wandered, how abnormal this president is. Trump is desperate and desperate people do desperate things. Of course he won't go along and in the noise of daily scandals, will anyone even notice?
Mueller has] wasted countless millions on a fishing expedition for collusion between Trump and the Russians and he has come up with what can omly be termed a democrat inspired nothing burger. hold the pickles, Ketchup, Bun and everything else. I am shocked shocked the Russians bought ads on facebook and Twitter. That's it? I am sure we do worse over there. Puleese. Time to wrap it up and go home. Trump won. Get over it.
This is an incredibly naive opinion. It depends on Trump first of all not appointing a sycophant, and secondly, agreeing to support some fairy tale rule, proposed by said toady, to allow the Russia investigation to continue. LOL!
Can trump start issuing pardons to people who have damaging information about him?
"And if the president doesn’t permit a Bork regulation? That silence will speak volumes. If President Trump cannot agree to an investigation modeled on what Richard Nixon agreed to, the question will linger: Just what is he afraid of?"
his "silence" or even lack of it (Twitter) already speak volumes of the utter contempt this man has for the office of the President of the United States, his total disregard for any aspect of the position having to do with actually leading a country and his downright ineptness.
I grow tired of these articles that state "what he should do if he were smart...." let's just stop there. he's not smart (I mean in a way he has been by using the legal system we have all built to con so many people out of so many millions of dollars, but that's not what I'm getting at), and advice like this is pointless. as if he has any interest in what would make the people of this country more confident in his presidency.
he's an idiot and needs to be removed from office. he is not deserving of the highest office we have in our society.
1
I didn't know Trump University had a School of Law, too.
1
Muellers work represents a possible attempt to correct the voters mistake of electing trump to the presidency. The founding fathers and framers designed a weak system of presidential impeachment despite having given the president a four year term with no original term limits.
Today we Americans are faced with an increasing problem of incompetent presidents who could americansrerguably be described as idiot sons of more competent father's. Bush and Trump come to mind.
Faced with the need to more easily and quickly remove dangerously incompetent presents, we need to change the removal system. If a parliamentary system is not possible, where a shadow government is always waiting in the wings, then a new more aggressive impeachment must be implemented.
As a still young country, America needs to recognize the ongoing need to fine tune the constitution as a way to improve the health of the ship of state!
2
If wishes were horses beggars would ride.
The question doesn't linger. It's obvious the President is afraid of something. if it's not what Muller will find it's what Putin knows about Trump. That covers the gamut of posiibilities.
The drawback of this approach, which should be codified following the conclusion of Mueller's investigation is that the attempt itself could precipitate Muller's firing with no Bork or Jaworski in the wings because Trump would never countenance an honest man in the second spot at Justice.
Let Mueller do his job without risky efforts to bullet proof him which might backfire. If Trump fires him, it will be out of madness and desperation, impeachable offenses.
1
ken starr? this has gotten so bad we are getting advice from him? seems to me he owes us 60 million.
The authors naively believe that " . . . President Trump could assure the public that he will let the investigation continue." There is a reason that Trump protests Special Counsel so much. He has much to hide (and little else to do with his time). After all, "he who protests too much . . . ."
Is the Fake President's continual mantra of "No Collusion, No Collusion" referring to his probable criminal conspiracy to help launder the ill begotten gains of his Russian oligarch friends, or his probable criminal conspiracy with Russian bad actors to interfere with and sway the 2016 election? Most likely both, of course. Will some journalist please clarify this point with Huckster Sanders, however, at the next White House press briefing.
The authors MUST be joking. Do they in any universe actually expect Mr. Trump to act reasonably in this arena? If so they too are deluded. Mr. Trump may indeed be afraid of what Mr. Mueller has found or will find. Trump is certainly acting like a guilty party. We already know there were efforts of collusion by his campaign staff (what else were Jr.'s meetings about?). He is a fighter, a cornered rat. He will never ever ever do the responsible thing!
These authors are high.
I'm at a total loss reading this article. Where is the incentive for Trump to authorize a regulation limiting his power? This is Donald Trump we're talking about, not some fictional patriotic president in an Aaron Sorkin drama.
1
Whatever keeps Mueller in the hunt. Now that we know Kushner has requested more classified material than anyone else in the White House- the same White House that many think is being blackmailed by Putin- is no one concerned that Kushner may be in a similar position to be blackmailed?
1
A wonderfully reasonable proposal. Thanks! And if we had a marginally reasonable executive branch, it would execute it for sure. Trouble is, we have a narcissistic, paranoid, immature person at the helm of the executive who if he were actually informed as to what this proposal means, would never ever permit it to go forward.
And as for "what is he afraid of?", haven't we seen ample examples of this already? Come on now! It is so very obvious that something high significance is being hidden by the Trump gang. It's delicious to watch it come out and see Mr. Trump fly into a rage with every drop.
I am with the view that there is a big hole in the recommendation of Messrs Katyal and Starr. They are under the impression that Mr. Trump acts rationally and, most important, acts in the interest of the US public. Unfortunately, that will not be the case and, looking back at the man's life history, it has never been.
The only way to force Mr. Trump to do the right thing is to warn him that, if he takes the wrong step, he will be hit where it hurts the most: right at his ego.
That is the language he understands. For him to behave properly, his big ego has to be put in jeopardy. For instance, his true worth could be made public. Or, he could be warned that key documents containing his tax returns information may fall off the back of a truck! His relationship with Russian Mafia, who may have been laundering money in his casino, could be passed on to the media, etc.
It's been painfully apparent to me that Trump is beginning to realize that he cannot buy or bully his way out of scandals now that the lights are on. His cockroach scurrying worked well when he could control the spotlights, and his bullying worked well when his legal team went after anyone who objected to being abused or being cheated in business.
It IS the Big League you are in now, Mr. Trump. Guess you never imagined that it would be so hard to stay yourself and still survive.
It doesn’t help that Mueller is a dirty cop, and that he is totally compromised by his involvement in Uranium One.
Ken Starr, offering opinions regarding the Constitutionality of various solutions to Trump's treasonous disregard for ALL precedent, legal or customary propriety,
or impropriety of "special prosecutor over-reach", etc.
Is a GOOD ONE!
I had to check my calendar....
I thought it must be April fools day!
Thanks for the laugh to start my day...
You WERE joking, right?
Mssrs. Katyal and Starr recommend Justice Department rule-making "showing [Congress] that the president wants to bring its members into the decision-making fold on this most sensitive of questions." But the president has never in his life, let alone his presidential administration, has shown the respect that would invite shared decision-making about anything impacting his perceived interest. Such integrity is totally alien to our Narcissist-in-Chief.
This is a nice op-ed, but it is anchored in pure fantasy. This president will never allow himself to be "Borked."
1
Trump is like a lump of lead. Fully malleable at all times. Whomever speaks into his ear last, sets the tone. In this case, have the feeling that Kelly will shoot down any attempt at the move outlined in this article.
Trumpy - where are your tax returns? Why have you allowed a resurgence of worthless for profit on line colleges that prey on veterans and their educational benefits? Thinking vengeance for the embarrassment you rightfully suffered for the Trump University ripoff. Please resign tomorrow.
I have tremendous respect for Mr. Katyal, and none whatsoever for Mr. Starr. That said, neither will be happy with what Trump ends up doing to protect Mueller, which will be nothing. In fact, Trump will end up not firing him, but neutering him as much as possible instead. The most logical path for him would be to wait for Rod Rosenstein to be called as a witness by Mueller, which would cause him to be recused from the investigation, and to then plug one of his henchmen, with Mulvaney coming to mind, into that slot. Then, he will work through this toadie to strangle the investigation, thereby relieving him of any culpability. At least, in his so-called "mind".
This will be a farce, of course. But what control does the country have to prevent it? The Constitution can't, and Congress certainly won't show any leadership in this. It is all up to Mueller. He needs to get the rest of his indictments out now, before Trump puts the noose around his neck. He certainly has the evidence to hang Trump. And the country needs that to happen.
1
"In one swoop, President Trump could assure the public that he will let the investigation continue."
What on earth are the co-authors' thinking! Trump could care less about assuring the public of anything other than his self-aggrandizement! We're just a collection of spoiled morally weak fools unwilling to do our portion of bleeding and suffering for the nation. We want what we want without having to sacrifice a thing. We need a cleansing, which is coming. And no, I can't just run out into the streets naked with a gun and start shooting: The air itself has to crackle with change: You know it when it happens: You can feel it: You know that when you stand up and step out you will not be alone and that there is real possibility of change. Either that comes or we become a very sophisticated totalitarian state that never sees itself as such. But this article is hopeless drivel.
The only way Trump will resign will be when the courts (or Congress?) require that he makes his tax returns public. Call them his "Nixon tape" moment - and the moment when the Republicans "leave a sinking ship". Until then, he will take increasingly aggressive actions to do whatever he can do derail Mueller's investigation with minimal impedance from his Republican enablers.
I may be naive, but these writers - both experienced attorneys - seem even more naive than me.
Trust Trump???? A sociopath who took an Oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, to see that the laws are faithfully carried out? Who is not even carrying out his “sworn” Oath? Who seems not to understand the Constitution?
I just read that conservative friends of Trump are urging him to (already) pardon people!
I agree that this sounds like a nice idea. But what else could be added to make it “stick”?
I truly never thought experienced attorneys could be more naive than me!
Has Mueller said he needed protecting?
Personal opinion of special prosecutors is that they are redundant, unnecessary, cost us millions of dollars, and at the end of the day their conclusions are forgotten by the citizenry. Who remembers who Leon Jaworsky was, special prosecutor in Watergate affair, or what he concluded? Who recalls the name, believe it was Walsh, surname, of special prosecutor in Iran Contra, Who even remembers what Iran Contra was all about.Have vague recollection that we were selling arms to Islamic Republic in return for money then funneled to Contra fighters in Nicaruagua, but did public at large care? Do recall the "mechancete" of Special Prosecutor Starr investigating Clinton's sexual indiscretions in the Oval Office, and his threat to James Carville, uttered in an airport lounge somewhere when both were about to board the same flight: "We're gonna roll your boy,"meaning President Clinton. Starr has been trying to live down that remark ever since. Millions spent on Mueller's "enquete" would have been put to better use if they had been spent on improving sub standard housing for citizenry. 12 people died in Bronx because they were living in a fire trap, and could not escape in time. Weather was sub freezing. Merci,Monsieur le Maire!"Special prosecutors on ego trips as, I believe Attorney Mueller is,r superfluous in a democracy, and have political "arrieres pensees!"Spend the money on folks who are needy.Was not Mueller head of FBI when James Rosen was unlawfully investigated?
If & when Mueller is close to indicting Trump or Trump JR.and Jared of collusion,Trump will certainly pull out all stops to fire Rosenstein, and appoint a stooge to fire Mueller.Short of this he will drop a nuke on North Korea to divert attention against the collusion of the Trump administration. Trump will not go silently, & will take whoever he can down with him, that includes the country.
1
This well-intentioned piece is profoundly naive. Trump's DOJ. with Jeff Sessions at the helm, would move to issue such regulations??? And Trump and his Republican lackeys in Congress would let Sessions do so??? Please, give me a break.
1
Trump has been a liar and con man for almost his entire "career." He is not intelligent, notwithstanding his boasts of being a 'stable genius,' he is very cunning and clever. So far men and women in the white house who are willing to swallow his lies are not ready to take an axe to our young republic. We have to be ready to take to the streets. We have to contact as many congressmen to insist they protect our constitution and bill of rights. Trump is not defending the constitution, he is only defending himself. As for me, I urge all American voters to vote a straight Democratic party line in Nov 2018 !
"That silence will speak volumes..."
Well, isn't that just the whole problem in the Washington of today.
Nobody is listening, and on the rare occasion when reality manages to pierce their cocoon, they don't care. None of them care.
Lets talk Republican, because they have the power, and they have the certainly criminal, potentially traitorous President.
There is no shame, no conscience, no sense of responsibility or community.
Trump's refusal of your weak-tea solution, based on his worrying conscience, is never going to happen.
Whatever it is, and whatever it says, that is speaking volumes will go unheard by Ryan, McConnell (with special support from the very pretty yet terminally venal and self involved Rob Portman) will not be listening, and wouldn't care if they did.
80%+ of Americans want gun laws? Sorry 'bout them dead kids, but nope.
80%+ want to see an equitable solution to the DACA mess created by Trump? Yeah..nope.
Everybody's worried about the environment? Not us.
If you're looking for the Trumpian base, it's in Washington. And Republican Washington cares not one bit what you hear or what you think or what scares you for your country.
They have power, it's all theirs, and they will keep it.
Mueller needs to be terminated for cause. He is in bed with Comey. It is a fishing expedition for process crimes. The whole lot of them are corrupt to the core. The Russian indictments aren't worth the paper they were written on.
I have been a fan of Solicitor General Bork since his time under Nixon. Having said as much, I am greatly relieved that he got Borked and never sat on the Supreme Court.
It is puerile to expect Mr. Trump to do anything except impede and obstruct in any way possible the Russian investigation. It seems increasingly probable that if it continues, he may be exposed as the personal property of Vladimir Putin, and that would be bad for his ratings.
My thanks for Mr. Katyal and Mr. Starr for their efforts.
Dan Kravitz
1
and "Nixon had agreed to them".
It's difficult to imagine that trump would "agree to them". Have you not been listening to trump?
"And if the president doesn't permit a Bork regulation? That silence will speak volumes."
Trump's actions have spoken volumes and yet the Republican Congress have been unable to hear. Trump has refused to condemn the actions of the Russians (in voter influence) and has refused to enforce the sanctions approved by Congress. This action/non action by the president is extremely serious as has been many of his actions/non actions. Yet congress has done nothing. The Bork regulation would have no impact on trump.
No one except a few Democrats really seem to care "just what is he afraid of?"
3
Reducing this to an abstract legal argument that "Congress" (as if it's some vague, non-partisan victim of all of this) does not have appropriate constitutional authority, seems to miss the point. As Paul Krugman points out in his article next door - it's about leadership. He doesn't name them, but McConnell and Ryan could be doing so much more (now there's an understatement) to explicitly and emphatically support Mueller and make it nigh on impossible for the President to do this. Sheesh, they don't even get an honourable mention!
3
The apparent difference with the Nixon investigation was the willingness of the majority of politicians to cross party lines over ethical considerations. What if Trump fires Mueller, replaces him with a “loyal/henchman”, and only then enacts Bork-style regulations. As the current Committees and leadership appear firmly entrenched along party lines, the “Henchman” would likely go unchallenged.
2
I think activities such as issuing modern-day Bork regulations is worthwhile, regardless of whether Trump approves of any. Continue the pressure, watch the negligence continue and evidence against him mount. Sometimes the sin of omission is worse than one of commission.
Please, continue on. If anything it provides some faith in our institutions which we so sorely need right now.
2
Neal K. Katyal and Kenneth W. Starr say that although Robert Bork did Richard Nixon's bidding as acting attorney general during the "Saturday Night Massacre" in October 1973, he helped protect Leon Jaworski, the new special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal, by issuing a regulation that restricted Nixon's executive power. They believe Bork's path could serve as a good example today for protecting Robert Mueller.
But Bork served Nixon loyally by firing Archibald Cox, and believed that Nixon had the right to dismiss the special prosecutor. He was smart enough to resign to avoid being seen as Nixon's henchman. Another fortunate circumtance was that Jaworski served the Constitution loyally, instead of Nixon. In November 1973, when he was sworn in as Watergate special prosecutor, he convinced the US Supreme Court that Nixon was bound to obey a subpoena and turn over 64 White House tapes needed for testimony in the trial of Watergate defendants.
5
When I read these kinds of analysis, well-intentioned I'm sure, I can't help but have a sinking reaction: why are you giving the answers to Trump's legal team?
11
Wishful thinking on your part, Mr. Starr and Mr. Katyal.
Trump, the tyrant-in-chief, believes he can do anything including firing Mueller to get rid of the "Russia thing." Trump is very afraid of Mueller and what the investigation may discover in Trump's background. I look forward to seeing what Mueller uncovers.
52
We agree. Thank you for your comments.
I wish this was a solo piece from Neal Katyal. Because the other is the man who started it all, Kenneth Starr who spent hours and hours and millions of tax-payer money to impeach a President who left a stain on a blue dress. This President only answers to the Russians and has thrown almost every regulation on our country's roster out of the window. Now that this unknown regulation's expiry date is known, Trump and his unscrupulous coterie will leave it expired. And no matter what the Justice Department and the rest of the country thinks, he will use his despotic powers to fire everyone starting with the Attorney General. And as the Solicitor General remains toothless, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Investigation will be just stopped and disbanded. And again Trump gets the bragging rights to be acting within the rule of Law. Trump is using every loophole in our Constitution so that our Constitution looks like swiss cheese. Maybe, our fore-fathers who drafted the constitution never envisaged that such a puppet despot would become President. But our founding father President George Washington seems to be prescient when he delivered his farewell address. Probably he had a nightmare of this Presidency.
30
What a hilariously empty and sanctimonious gesture by Kenneth Starr.
George was right!
Wow... you know that we are all in trouble when Robert Bork is held up as the hero of Watergate. Here's another idea: how about Congress follows the example of Sam Ervin and others in the Senate who actually put true patriotism, honor, and integrity above getting a tax break for Millionaires+ or deciding to investigate the FBI/Justice Dpt. to distract from shallow and temporary political desires.
38
Ha-ha-ha! I appreciate your sense of humor, dark as it may be, because I agree with you that we know we are in trouble when Robert Bork is held up as an example of a penetrating legal mind. My, oh, my--what hard times our nation has come to, when a reality talk show host is so disconnected from reality, and he just so happens to be our president, greased into his position with the assistance of a Russian cartel. We agree. Thank you for your post. We are all facing a heap of Constitutional troubles--
"Unfortunately, legislation by Congress to protect Mr. Mueller is incompatible with the Constitution’s separation of powers."
Why would this violate the separation of powers? The Constitution also provides for checks and balances. For example, the Constitution gives Congress an oversight responsibility vis-à-vis the Executive Branch.
Which prominent voices are urging Mr. Trump to take ill-considered steps? They are prominent but simply not credible: Fox, Alex Jones, Republican hardliners, the Wall Street Journal opinion pages which have been purged of anti-Trump conservatives.
Why in the world would President Nixon have agreed to the Bork regulations? Did he actually agree, or was this merely Mr. Bork saying so on his own initiative? Wouldn't Nixon have been able to overrule the regulation?
So. This would be Trump's assurances for the nation that he will let the investigation continue? How likely is that? After all, he has said any number of times that he wants to undo this or that vital part of our democracy. Mr. Mueller's investigation is no exception.
15
Take a look at this fascinating blog post by Josh Blackman from May 2017.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/could-trump-remove-special-counsel-robert-mu...
Trump can fire Rosenstein who has promised NOT to fire Mueller without good cause. Trump made no such commitment and has the power to fire Rosenstein.
Trump can then order Rosenstein's replacement to sack Mueller.
After all is said and done is not the President free to fire whom he wishes
in the Executive Branch.
Go back to Watergate - Follow the Money -
whomever is involved in this conspiracy did not do so sheerly
out of political righteousness - where there is Trump there is money.
11
Yes. "Follow the money" . . . right on target. Also, wherever Trump is, there is a money trail . . . so, " . . . follow the money . . . " Thank you for your post. We agree.
The intellectual exercise of NEAL K. KATYAL's and KENNETH W. STARR's article assumes that Donald Trump and the GOP still believes in the rule of law. If after one year in power you believe that Donald Trump and the GOP believes in the rule of law I have a bridge to sell you.
34
We agree. The Republican Party is engaging an immense dodge of their legislative responsibilities. It is a very sad day for America. Thank you for your post. Republicans are con artists.
This sounds fine, but again and again people posit that Trump won't do something (such as fire the director of the FBI) or that he will be prevented from doing something because it looks bad or would turn people against him.
He does whatever he wants whenever he wants like an overgrown toddler or a third world dictator. His base and the GOP Congress support everything he does no matter how heinous, vulgar, self-serving, childish, or treasonous.
Hopefully Mr. Mueller is integrating protections for his investigation, ensuring evidence remains intact, that duplicate reports are archived and cannot be tampered with, and that other investigators such as state attorney generals can prosecute if need be.
Trump is not restrained by reason, law, tradition or patriotism. I don't know if it is a pathology or autocracy but unless he's forced to, he won't sign such a protection for Mueller.
24
Donald J. Trump needs to be removed from office. I hope Mueller can pull it off. If Mueller's investigations are sidelined, there are other means to remove Mr. Trump from an office for which he is so obviously ill-suited. Why, even alone on the emoluments clause issues, Mr. Trump rewards himself and profits daily. He needs to be removed from office. Thank you for your post.
1
Protect Mueller? Why? Mueller and his band of partisan henchmen is grasping at straws to try to deny the election of President Trump. If he succeeds it will be the destruction of democracy in America.
1
Partisan henchmen?
I have heard those words before from President Maduro in Venezuela as an excuse to eliminate the opposition.
Let’s pray it doesn’t happen in America.
2
Spoken like a true Trump supporter. Sad that we do not have a President who actually cares more about our citizens, our country and the rule of law than he cares about himself and his Russian collaborators. It's frightening to see the direction this Administration is taking. Senators and Representatives need to take action now to prevent this situation from progressing further. Donald Trump is only our President--he is not a Dictator or an Emperor--he must obey our laws.
1
Mueller is a well respected Republican. He was always a republican and was praised by republicans of all stripes u til he began a legitimite investigation into the Russians manipulating our elections. Why are you so afraid of the outcome?
2
“The country and Congress need assurances that the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation will continue unimpeded.”
That need is reducing as this investigation continues.
Mueller’s re-work of the Obama Administration’s January 2017 findings and actions against the Russians, coupled with the release of the not-so-explosive Nunes memo about Carter Page is surely leaving many Americans wondering when anything of substance is going to come of this.
I get that there was "wrongdoing" but as a country we need to get beyond this and move forward to focus on contemporaneous events such as last week’s massacre in Parkland, Florida.
1
We disagree. The American people can hold more than one thought in their heads. You are correct to say that we need pay attention to the massacre in Parkland, Florida. That attention does not mean that we need erase our concerns with the election of 2016. Mr. Trump, to put it mildly, behaves very oddly. He is highly defensive about the Russian investigations. If he is so very innocent of anything suspicious or wrong, he needs to testify in open session before the American people. If he cannot do so, then, it seems to me, he is the wrong president for these times. A cyber attack was executed against The United States of America. A cyber attack is warfare. It may not seem so to many. However, the destruction of communications within a polity is indeed warfare. We need clarity. We do not need confusion on these issues. To say that we have only one area to place our attention strikes me as very shortsighted. Thank you for your post.
2
We should not allow other devastating events and / or disasters to stop this investigation. We must protect our rights under the Constitution at all costs. Never, never, never give up.
Rule shmool. If Mueller is fired, people need to flood the streets, and stay there. And go after your rep and senators. Remember how that worked with healthcare? Persistence.
21
Oh, please. Let's not say silly things like this. Robert Mueller is a Republican lawman of long standing. The idea that Mr. Mueller has some sort of axe to grind with Donald J. Trump is plainly wrong. As far as Republican Party credentials go, Mr. Mueller's are much finer than Mr. Trump's. Mueller is attempting to get a job done. He is not out "to get" anyone. You may be pleased or displeased by the outcomes of his work. Whatever your emotional reactions to his work, you should be confident that he has fulfilled his duties well. Robert Mueller is a good Republican. Donald J. Trump? I'm not so sure that I would refer to Donald J. Trump as "a good Republican". Thank you for your post. We disagree.
If we are advertising that only in AMERICA we have rights and our power comes from the fact that in America our constitution gives us space to speak-out our beliefs, we need to acknowledge that while what Russia did was wrong, the fact that many Americans can be duped is the real sad state.
It is quite embarrassing to know that they recognized our intellectual weakness and, as a result, got away with it. It really proves we really are exposed to the existence of ignorance within our population.
10
It would be great if Trump went along, but I have a feeling he won't. Can Rod Rosenstein create comparable rules without Trump's consent? And can he hurry up?
12
I doubt that Robert Mueller needs to be protected. If he is fired or dismissed, while we as a country will survive and the sun will come up in the morning. However, we will have lost something great and unusual, namely trust, in the government we have supported for over 240 years. What else holds the country together?
5
Tom: many of us have already lost trust in the government. Have you read how popular Congress and the President are?
Kenneth Starr is a former protector of athletes accused of sexual abuse and a former expander of his office's powers in order to find something which to bring down a president of the opposite party, thereby politicizing an office that should be nonpartisan and had been nonpartisan under Jaworski and Cox. He should not be commenting on these matters without having his ethical history noted. His name on the article will increase its appeal to many Republicans, but this is actually pandering to people who have a long history of double standards and letting partisanship override objective and fair judgment.
We honor people by seeking their advice and counsel when their history casts doubt on their judgment or ethics, because many people misremember or refuse to face up to this history. So we talk to Kissinger about Vietnam or Cheney about the Middle East, and the day will come when we talk to dubya about the national debt and keeping the economy healthy. This conveniently allows leaders to evade having to deal with their mistakes and learn from them.
30
We should note that if Mueller’s champions prevail, his may become the ONLY sacrosanct job in America apart from federal judges, and that includes Trump’s.
But, no worries. I was one of the first to suggest in this forum that the president fire Mueller (and to date one of the very few), but that was shortly after he was appointed. Then, it would have been a principled stand against these cops who seek to play in a political milieu, and NEVER fail to be used like barnyard animals for political purposes – and, no, present company is NOT excepted. However, after all that has been done and that has come out, it’s simple political suicide to axe Mueller. The president allowed him to start burrowing – and all we may get out of it is weak beer and destroyed lives, but nothing remotely like cahooting with Russkies – instead of nipping this “special counsel” nonsense in the bud.
That all written, the authors’ counsel on adopting Bork’s direction is patently absurd. It effectively allows a Star Chamber to be established with no accountability on Mueller’s part. “Extraordinary improprieties”? In whose eyes? Chuck Schumer’s and Nancy Pelosi’s, no doubt, because they’re unquestionably non-political and only want to discover the truth about where Trump is to be hanged and where Melania decides to bury his remains.
Bork was the third guy in Justice to whom Nixon turned to fire Archibald Cox for the unforgivable liberty of demanding Nixon’s tapes, on which was found the “smoking gun” (proving obstruction of justice) that caused him ultimately to resign the presidency, three inches in front of impeachment articles. He was following the president’s orders in the absence of any language in Cox’s appointment memo that protected him from the wrath of a son of Whittier writ large. So he provided the language to be sure that yet ANOTHER superlative U.S. Supreme Court candidate wouldn’t later be targeted for revenge for the firing by Teddy Kennedy.
Trump hasn’t fired anyone, and has cooperated with Mueller on all matters, not even claiming executive privilege on any question.
Far from making Mueller’s or anyone else’s job sacrosanct, Trump’s Justice Dept. should draft legislation for Congress to consider to spare us in future from these “special counsels”, “independent counsels” or Muellers by any other title, and cease this official license to conduct political witch hunts.
So not having the ability to appoint an independent investigator for possible malfeasance will prevent playing politics??
4
Are you suggesting that we simply let them all run amok. that Nixon should have been allowed to finish his term, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people should vanish from the earth?
11
I don’t see that Trump is afraid of anything, nor do I see that Mueller is in jeopardy. But what makes his special counsel peculiar is that it was sold on the pretense of being a counter-intelligence probe (for which, frankly, his team is not well-suited), not a criminal investigation (for which no specific crimes were ever alleged.) Essentially, it has been left to amenable grand juries, whether investigative or screening, in a Trump unfriendly venue to decide the difference.
2
Mueller was given wide purview and discretion in his investigation, and with good reason methinks.
Please stop making stuff up. The order appointing Mueller specifically authorizes criminal proceedings. In addition. the regulations have the special counsel as a US attorney. (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel)
Exactly what does Trump have to worry about? The guilty plea of Mike Pence? No problemo. George Papadopoulos's guilty plea? Fuggetaboutit. The impending guilty plea of Rick Gates---Paul Manafort's right hand man, who in turn was Trump's campaign manager? That guy? They got nothing. I believe Alfred E. Neuman said it best. "What, Me Worry?" FYI Mr. Neuman is a fictional character.
Excellent piece. I did not know this. It is an excellent solution. Thank you.
7
"Just what is he afraid of?" The question is now seemingly endlessly repeated. Friedman writes about it again in the Times. I'm cynical enough about things to think that Katyal's idea is too rational and effective for Trump to accept. Thus, the question will continually be asked, until the truth, as it inevitably does, will come out. I just hope to live long enough to experience it.
18
Too early to focus on the 25th because the Republicans are focused on the 22nd. If 45 goes now, Pence can only run once. (3 years of 45's remaining term plus 4 years equals 7). If they wait until 2/2019, Pence can run twice (2 years of 45's remaing term pkus 8 years equals 10.) Do not try to tell me that this can't happen, because Trump. There will not be a straw breaking the GOP's back unti 2/2019. In the meantime, focus on getting people registered and voting for 11/2018 and making your voice heard on whatever issue you find comelling.
24
Trump will never assure the public that the Mueller investigation will continue for a simple reason: he is guilty. Of colluding with a hostile power to influence our election, of money laundering and of obstructing justice. Trump knows this, Mueller knows it. Mr. Mueller, to his enduring credit, has bypassed the unlikely support of Congress, and the unthinkable support of Trump, by indicting the Russian operatives and front organizations in the election meddling. With this brilliant stroke, Mr. Mueller has closed an escape hatch Trump has long coveted, that there was no underlying crime committed and, therefore, no further need for investigation. To the contrary, Mr. Mueller has laid bare the need for his investigation to continue with these indictments.
Fortunately for our democracy, Mr. Mueller did not wait for protection from an irresponsible Congress or a compromised executive. He has staked the survival of his investigation to his own methodical legal instincts. Thank you, Mr. Mueller.
81
Exactly. Well said!
Hooray for Mueller and his professionalism.
12
With this brilliant stroke, Mr. Mueller has closed an escape hatch Trump has long coveted, that there was no underlying crime committed and, therefore, no further need for investigation..."
As I read about the (impending) premature end of the Trump_Presidency...I'm reminded of the sense of claustrophobia I sometimes experience when, (on the 'U-boat.net' site), I read the 'details' portion of various U.Boats- / skippers- / crews-histories, etc.
Obviously...'LOST, W/ALL HANDS' is a frequent listed fate...
For me, the philosophical difference is...most or all U-Boat crews (mistakenly), believed they were engaged in a 'patriotic' duty! Mr. Trump has NO, SUCH philosophical issues!!
Trump's America is like...an (Afghanistan) poppy field, where the farmers have been replaced by the addicted, who've just been released to harvest, distill, 'N, enjoy the 'product'!
"In one swoop, President Trump could assure the public that he will let the investigation continue."
Clearly the prospect of Trump doing that is extraordinarily unlikely. I guess the whole purpose of this piece is to present an absurd enough scenario to waken the few people who read a newspaper but still remain comfortable with a demagogue president who has exhibited little understanding or respect for the rule of law.
A special thank you to Kenneth Starr for his four year long investigation into the Clintons and their investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation, which in the end found no wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons. The rule of law triumphed.
15
The continued preoccupation with an event that hasn't transpired is odd. It is akin to those who continue to speak of collusion even after the Special Prosecutor says no Americans knowingly worked with the Russians. Whether something hasn't happened or something didn't happen seems not to matter - the drumbeat of the anti-Trump movement goes on.
The report does not say that anyone colluded, not that no one colluded.
To an intelligent person there is a big difference.
10
The indictment says nothing of the kind. It says nothing whatsoever about, for instance, the hacking of the DNC and distribution of its emails, nor about Trump's use of them. It speaks solely to the impersonation of Americans by Russians. In that context, there may have been only dupes. But Trump Jr.'s emails, by themselves, offer evidence amounting to proof of collusion by members of the campaign with known Russian actors claiming to be a part of the Kremlin's assistance to Trump's candidacy. We haven't yet seen direct proof of Trump's involvement. Yet. But the circumstantial case continues to strengthen.
By the way, you might want to look up transpired. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Something that happens now can transpire later.
2
Trump fired Comey, Yates, and Bharara while they were investigating Russia and forced out others. He ordered Mueller fired months ago but McGahn threatened to resign.
This isn't abstract. Trump is threatened and is obviously guilty, most likely of money laundering for Russian mobsters. He is acting desperate.
2
Republicans need to stand up and very clearly state that they will not tolerate interference or undermining by the president of the Mueller investigation (by Rosenstein or then Mueller being fired) and that the consequence of such interference with the Dept. Of Justice would be considered obstruction of justice and would lead to impeachment proceedings of the president.
21
And if even a small plurality of them were decent people, not bought-and-paid-for corporate shills, out to re-create the Gilded Age for their owner-operators, it might happen. Unfortunately, however, the indications are that such a virtuous group of GOP congresspersons does not exist.
11
"If President Trump cannot agree to an investigation modeled on what Richard Nixon agreed to, the question will linger: Just what is he afraid of?"
That question already lingers, and has since Trump fired Comey.
23
The only way to protect the Mueller investigation from interference is the threat of a general strike if Trump fires Mueller.
If Trump fires Mueller, Americans who believe in the rule of law must walk out of their workplaces, their schools, their homes to stop the economy until Trump bows to the rule of law. That move alone will tell our representatives in Congress how important this issue is.
In one swoop, we can reverse Trump's interference by taking to the streets. In one swoop, we can join the patriots who founded this country and prevent the demise of our democracy.
19
Jeremy, "the patriots who founded this country" are responsible for Trump's victory despite his considerable loss of the popular vote.
Harvey: "The patriots who founded this country" are absolutely NOT responsible for trump's victory. The Electoral College has become corrupted, and as such must be done away with. The patriots who founded this country are now turning over in their graves...over, and over, and over.
1
Nice thought Jeremy , but do you think Trump cares about any strike ? He couldn’t care less . His money comes from abroad and quite possibly Russia so why should he care ? He only cares about himself.
1
As of December, 2017, we have spent $7M to indict 13 Russians for posting misleading things on facebook. Even if the Russians did all that they aret alleged to have done, the effect on the election would have been negligible. No one is alleging the the Russians actually changed votes, or actually wrote Hillary's emails. I sincerely doubt many Americans voted for Trump because they had read bad things about Hillary Clinton on facebook. What I do know, is that if even one of the 16 attorneys or dozens of agents investigating the Russians had been freed up to to investigate Nikolas Cruz, a very great tragedy might have been averted.
2
The purpose of the Russian interference was to magnify the division in the country that already existed. They did things which I have no doubt did that. It wasn't that they were just trying to help Trump. They also aided Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders in ways to inflame both left and right. Of course they did not help Hillary Clinton because Putin hated her. The issue is that the Russians are engaging in warfare against the United States by sowing division and Trump is actively trying to stop investigation. It worked beyond Putin's expectations. Who is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic?
7
If the warning that the Miami office of the FBI had been passed up to HQ someone there MIGHT have been able to make a difference. Or not, because Cruz had committed no crime and neither Florida nor Federal law provides any basis to hold him or to confiscate his guns. What I know is that there is no logical or practical connection between the Russia investigation and the shooting in Florida and that the argument presented here is 100% bogus.
2
Chip: It is nonsensical to think that the FBI does not have enough personnel to investigate more than one crime or criminal at a time! What happened was that SOMEONE in the FBI dropped the ball by not following up on the tip about Nic Cruz, or passing it along to the right personnel. This did not happen because any other crimes or any other criminals were being investigated. It would be a very sad thing indeed if the FBI were only able to concentrate on one thing at a time! They have enough personnel to do otherwise. Tragically, somewhere the tip about the dangerously murderous Cruz went by the wayside. It is a horror.
2
I'm not sure I understand why are the special counsel regulations adopted during the Clinton administration not still in effect?
4
They are: 28 CFR 600. The Independent Counsel Act (that Starr was under) was always scheduled to expire.
Were it not for far too many reactionary social views Bork probably would have been a pretty fair SCOUTUS judge. Among Life’s Little Ironies is Anthony Kennedy being nominated and approved.
My favorite Borkisms all concern the 2nd Amendment. The last one is priceless:
(1989) “(It) guarantees the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms”.
(1991): “The National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people’s right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that’s not the original understanding.”
(1997): “The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.”
Starr, on the other hand, was presiding over a partisan witch hunt...
21
Sounds good. But with this Congress so sharply divided a consensus -the general agreement of the parties? the majority?- would be hard to come by with the leaders, chairs & ranking members likely voting according to party line resulting in a deadlock. There is no doubt that would create rancor and enmity especially with the mercurial Mr. Trump. Nevertheless, if men and women of good will were of a mind to agree to the Bork regulations it would be an honorable and reassuring signal to the nation. Hopefully our leaders would take that to heart and if these regs needed to be implemented, these representatives of the people would put country before party.
4
The founding fathers, and probably nobody ever, including the man himself, thought that a non-patriotic citizen could overcome the electoral process and rise to the highest office. The constitution does not account for this current reality.
(In case it is not obvious, a non-patriotic citizen is one who would champion an enemy state over his own government and constitution.)
The circumstance is compounded by majorities in both the house and senate being equally inconceivably complicit with a non-patriotic president.
The supreme court hasn't been brought in yet. By the time it is, if it is, the court's majority may also be complicit by virtue of a non-patriotic president's appointments confirmed by a complicit legislature prior to any hearings beginning.
America's only hopes may live in a mid-term election that we already know will be compromised by this same enemy state and, so far, no American executive or legislator has either the desire, will, or power to effect any change to this reality.
26
Dexter,
One does not overcome the electoral process just because the candidate
you do not approve of wins.
2
Except gerrymandering, voter suppression.
1
John Brown: The electoral process is corrupted when an abject con man and criminal is installed by the Electoral College as president, even though they were PROHIBITED by law from installing a mentally unfit person into the presidency. But they didn't care, because they were partisan and corrupt. So now we have a thieving, foul president and administration in place that seeks to destroy the country (by bleeding it dry, and selling it off in pieces) and millions of the citizenry. THAT is something to overcome. We would like to overcome criminality, immorality, constant lying, malicious and cruel legislation and policies, and abject stupidity. We do not want The United States of America to be destroyed by the caprice, malice, and greed of a bunch of uncaring, entitled, ignorant, tyrannical oligarchs. If you want to see the demise of our country, that is your choice, but those of us who do not wish to see the end of democracy as we know it, will try with all our might to OVERCOME the crime syndicate that calls itself the GOP.
1
you can hope for unicorn, too, but President Trump does not seem the type of man who would ever do anything to close off an avenue of denial and escape for himself. his. ain goal is self preservation. he looks and acts desparate.
Nixon, for all his flaws, was trained as a lawyer and had a lawyer's understanding of the rule of law; Trump is not a lawyer and, despite his long history of thousands of lawsuits and countless contractual imbroglios, his attitutude about the law seems to be to use it as a bludgeon when that's in his interest, to use it as a way to weasle out of responsibilities (mainly financial) when that's in his interest, and to use it as a delaying tactic, again, to further his own interests.
to some, the law is supreme; to Trump, it's a tool he can use, and always and only Trump reigns supreme.
he sees himself not as an equal American citizen like everyone else, but as someone special and specially priveledged, like a king.
41
Actually you have NO idea how he sees himself. But liberals are able to form opinions without having any facts.
Bork would definitely win a best beard contest !! The AG thing didn't work out, but theres always Schweppes!
3
I'm sorry, but no one should place any stock in Kenneth Starr's pontifications about the law, given that his career is bookended by two instances of egregious unethical misconduct:
- He's the father of the "politics of personal destruction," which laid the foundation for the ongoing partisan dysfunction of the Republicans in Congress that has led to our current mess. (In fact, that term was coined in his honor!) His blatantly partisan witch-hunt to find anything, ANYTHING, to take down a sitting president is the direct progenitor for all of the Republicans' disgustingly divissive strategies since the 1990s. What started out as an investigation into land deals (which turned up nothing) morphed into an investigation into FBI clearances (which found nothing), which then morphed into an investigation into travel funds (which found nothing); he finally "got" Bill Clinton for lying about a consensual sexual affair. And the Republicans are now complaining about "prosecutorial overreach" by Mueller?
- Ironically, decades later, he was fired from his job as President of Baylor University because of his mishandling of sexual misconduct procedures at his college.
Starr is as much of a hypocrite as the rest of the Republican miscreants. His new-found faith in the rule of law are vain attempts by him to polish his own forever-tarnished legacy.
68
I'm seventy and that's the way I remember it.
18
I'm eighty eight and that the way I remember it as well
6
Yes. Just what is the president so afraid of? We think the President does protest too much about the Mueller investigation. If he has nothing to hide why is he continually tweeting about it? Something is fishy. Trump is not subtle. He is constantly revealing his hand. Why did he wait a day before Tweeting about the Russia investigation's indictment of the Russians? Did Trump have to wait for instructions from the Kremlin before responding? Do we have a traitor in the White House who is afraid of what dope the Russians have on him that they may reveal at any time.? This wound is festering and Trump is allowing it to putrefy by refusing to openly condemn Russian interference in the American electoral process.
15
Actually he has condemned interference. Where have you been?
Partisan nonsense. Our system works fine. Bork's "reward" for his dereliction of duty was a Supreme Court nomination, which was rightfully denied him.
10
vandalfan,
We might not be in the mess if Bork had rightfully been appointed
to the Supreme Court.
1
The first question that should be on everyone's mind is either did the Russians implant a chip into Trump's brain while he was there doing whatever he does with women urinating on him - perhaps he was drugged (sad) - The American people must require therefore a medical examination that not only includes brain scans for chip-implants, but also psychological evaluations - with all results made public.
His flip-flopping on decisions and belligerent tirades and mood swings - simply are not those of a sane person, or at least the qualities fit for the president of the United States entrusted with protecting liberty, justice and freedom for all people. And we must consider the nuclear launch codes - one tirade too many, Trump and a few sycophants with poor judgement, could literally destroy the evolution of thousands of years of human civilization and the planet itself.
12
You recommend that "Trump’s Justice Department should issue modern-day Bork regulations". We'll see that when pigs fly.
9
Do you really think that Trump will agree to this this 'assurance'? While previous presidents have been patriotic men with varying degrees of flaws, this is very different. The case of the current president is akin to a blundering, but nasty mafia don being made head of the FBI and tasked to protect the very group of investigators that are building a case against him. It is not in Trump's interest to protect Mueller. In fact, if he doesn't use his powers of pardons, he could very well be the first US president to be going to jail, during or after his tenure. If Trump is smart, he'll start firing his investigators willy-nilly. Start pardoning people willy-nilly.
Prayers aren't much good at protecting us from gun violence. We can only hope that prayers will keep Trump dumb.
11
Is there anything we have seen of this president that would lead us to believe he would endorse a Bork regulation? He has been trying since the day he took office to get out from under this Investigation, this "Russia thing," once and for all. The last thing in the world he would ever agree to is curtailment of his power to remove a replacement special counsel. And he would not give a flying fig what the rest of the world thought about it.
10
No. It won’t go that way. This will not end with Trump walking to his helicopter and waiving goodbye. He is going out kicking and screaming and taking everyone he can down with him.
The President is a Russian Asset.
He is not just a bad president, or a corrupted politician. He is compromised by a foreign power. The Republicans that have enable him know it.
“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump....Swear to God.” McCarthy
“This is an off the record . . . No leaks! . . . All right? This is how we know we’re a real family here.” Ryan
“That’s how you know that we’re tight,” Scalise
“What’s said in the family stays in the family,” Ryan.
His Republican enablers have accepted Russian money through the NRA, and they know when Trump goes down, they go down too. This is going to be a fight to the end.
17
The Russian indictments themselves, though not intended to do so will provide a very formidable bulwark against further attacks again Mueller's investigation. How are Fox News and Trump's cronies going to spin this to continue their assault on the investigation?
Trump's attorneys openly admit their chief concern behind their being terrified of Trump being interrogated by Mueller are inevitable perjury traps. How are these indictments going to play in Republican circles that up to now have been so ignorant and blindly refusing to look deeper into clowning behavior coming out of the White House? The small crack in Trump's base and Republican support just got a lot wider, and the pressure will continue to build.
4
Well put, but - elect a clown, expect a circus. Not sane, functional governance.
17
What planet are you two gentlemen living on?
I respect and applaud your effort, but Trump would never ever play along with your proposal. Never ever.
The government is likely going to have to try and lock Trump up after the investigation is completed, assuming his guilt is alleged.
Lock him up!
11
Do the writers really believe that President Trump is capable of understanding this proposal, let alone adopting it and following thriugh?
12
Perhaps this cannot be legislated. But I don't think this "solution" would work.
I think our legal system is moderately well equipped to continue and perhaps due process can be relegated to Eric Schneiderman, New York's Attorney General.
Certainly, Mueller seems to be going about due process in a way that cannot be erased. Can grand juries be overriden by a dictator? Perhaps, but I have hope that Trump and his enablers have not yet dismantled our democracy to that extent.
11
Why didn't Mr. Katyal codify the so-called Bork Regulations when he was head of the Solicitor General's office in the Clinton Administration? Mr. Katyal drafted the special counsel regulations that governed the appointment of Mr. Mueller. Was he, Mr. Katyal, trying to hide something twenty years ago?
This proposal sounds like a lame Trojan horse. Katyal and Starr are both Trump adversaries. Making a grandstand proposal in the NYT that they know full well isn't going to go anywhere, and then claiming that Trump is hiding something because the current solicitor general ignores their unsolicited opinions, is political claptrap. Reminiscent of the Representative from California.
Guessing that the authors wrote, exchanged and edited the piece before Mr. Trump’s weekend Tweets, I wonder if they would like a do-over.
6
I don't get it. How can an acting AG put a limit on a presidents constitutional authority over prosecutors when not even Congress can do so, according to this article?
And, isn't there some version of the so called Bork regulation in effect right now since it has been said many. many times that only Rod Rosenstein can fire Mueller and not the president?
1
I still don't think Bork should have been appointed to the SCOTUS, but regulations, like his, should be issued as soon as possible. I think Sessions may still have a modicum of loyalty to his country, and a sense of propriety, even if he is a sad, out of step racist.
3
Good luck with President "If It's Bad For Me, It's Bad For America." And with the "What He Said" GOP leadership in Congress.
Your last paragraph assumes that Trump is uncomfortable with shame, BTW. My objection, your honors...assumes facts not in evidence.
9
The way to protect Mueller is to put the "we, the people" back into the equation. Instead of slumbering through the worst administration in the history of the country--with no close second--citizens can start paying attention, educating themselves about the issues, affirming that there is real news and truth and facts (and supporting the journals that give us that) and becoming active participants in our democracy.
Contact every elected official from local to national ones and demand that they support Mueller's investigation. Explain that you will not be voting for them at midterms if you do not start hearing vociferous condemnation of what happened in this election. Personally, I have written to every single member of the Congress and explained why I think they are guilty of aiding and abetting a crime and that I intend to work and vote to hold them accountable if they don't start taking this seriously, and I did so months ago when Watergate prospectors noted that just the June meeting at DJT Towers constituted, ipso facto, evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
The "But but but there's no there, there!" crowd has been served. We cannot waste another minute appeasing those who have something at stake in pretending nothing happened. It did. It's time we insisted on accountability.
A nation of zombies that sleepwalks through criminal terrain deserves whatever is coming. We don't. Contact Congress. Vote. Protest. It's time to prove we're better than this. We are.
28
What is President Trump afraid of? That's the big question. His behavior is truly strange. Not only does he talk about firing Robert Mueller and ending the Russia investigation, but he also refuses to criticize Russia for anything. He refuses to put sanctions in place that the Congress overwhelmingly voted for. He praises Vladimir Putin. There is only one explanation I can think of. Russia has something big on Trump. I wonder if they have a way to bring down The Trump Organization.
20
I respect both writers, especially Prof Katyal, this piece ignores the fact that this administration is like no other in recent history. Do you honestly think Trump would agree to this proposal?
14
This is a critical chess move on the front page of the nation's newspaper.
Former US special prosecutors, both of them apparently Republican, line up against Trump firing Mueller, and use as their argument the regulation that the former Republican nominee for Supreme Court, Robert Bork, authored.
Meanwhile schoolchildren are about to march on Congress...
The net draws tighter, but now the bigger question: Will there be enough in it to end the figurehead and his apostles in our current national nightmare?
By the thrashing and noise Trump is putting up, one would think that he thinks his presidential survival is at stake.
My fingers crossed...
Prayers and thoughts,
I send
"There must be some way out of here," said Bob, the joker to the thief,
"Because most of us know,
that we deserve
some relief..."
this has got to end
16
From this piece I take the following:
1. The legislative protections (for Mueller) that everyone is talking away are "blue-sky" thinking, and probably unconstitutional.
2. The "modern-day Bork regulations," which this piece proposes, are rooted in precedent and constitutional.
3. This administration might not go along, but, even if we tried and failed to put Bork-like regulations in place, that would show us all where this administration stands -- that it values itself more than the rule of law.
Why not give it a try? Some say ... Because this administration is so obviously shameless and corrupt that there's no need to even think about it. But that's fatalistic, and it plays right into the hands of those who defend this administration on the grounds that it's being victimized by biased mainstream media coverage.
On one side are people so delighted with Trump that they defend his every action and tweet. On the other are those staunchly critical of Trump.
In between are some who aren't sure, but definitely want America to stand for something besides fake-macho posturing and short-term material prosperity.
For our country's sake, all of us should be willing to run with the rule of law.
If doing so can reveal what Trump is about with respect to the Mueller investigations, let's have faith that most of our fellow Americans will, in the end, prefer the rule of law to the rule of Trump.
5
Yeah, good luck with Trump agreeing to anything that will put limits on Trump. Maybe if you labeled the regulation "Keep President Trump Great for All Time" it might have a chance because its unlikely he would read much of it. An opening paragraph detailing his greatness, then buried in legalese further down the restrictions. If he signs it before his attorneys read it.....
12
I commend this thoughtful piece that focuses on the means of resisting Trump. Too often in the zeal to repudiate Trump, we may be causing as much damage to our democratic system as Trump is doing directly.
Apparently, Nixon believed that the crimes including obstruction under the specific circumstances of Watergate were not enough to force him from office. As a result, he allowed the Bork regulation to proceed.
Today, with Trump, the likelihood that he is of a similar belief is nil. He probably knows a lot more than has so far been reported, which, in the view of many, is already enough to force him from office.
Thus, his continual tweeting and distraction-inducing behavior is the growing crescendo in each successive day's news coverage as Mueller's investigation proceeds. Under these circumstances does any rational observer honestly think Mueller will be able to take his quest to conclusion? We'll see.
3
Imagine a US president is financially a captive of the Russian moneyed men. Who in turn are in the pocket of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Now imagine where this scenario leads America to: Is this America still a leader of the free world? Are America's allies in Europe and Asia and free democracies around the world willing to accept a highly compromised country as their leader?
Under such circumstances would they, or even should they, be willing to share their top secrets or intelligence coups with Trump's White House or his chosen minions in charge of our own intelligence gathering and investigative agencies?
Then, too, what acts of omission and commission on part of Trump's White House would we consider as truly in favor of America's interests and which ones would be subject to question and suspicion as being carried out for the advantage of our main adversary on the world stage, Russia?
Finally, ask yourself if these questions and suspicions have arisen, is it worth the risk to let a man like Mr. Trump continue as our President? For me, the question answers itself. When the fate of the entire country, our entire nation is at stake, the fate of an individual should be of little relevance or consequence. Mr. Trump needs to Go - Forthwith.
17
If such a regulation is passed, then I wholeheartedly agree that it goes to show that - pardon the pun - the Rule of Law trumps Trump.
2
The maneuvering to render a Bork regulation would be ideal. The odds are long, otherwise this solution would already be in play.
3
"In one swoop, President Trump could assure the public that he will let the investigation continue."
Mr Katyal and Mr. Starr, you've outlined the solution - and the problem. Trump's only hope is to delegitimize the investigation - he has no (self-) interest in doing so.
1
Such a reasonable solution. Perfect, really, except...when has Trump ever shown a hint of reason? He almost makes Nixon look like a decent president.
5
Today's prize for wishful thinking. What we have to hope is that Mueller has spread his evidence around to state prosecutors and others. Let them pick off a Jared and the fun will begin. Given all the tweet lunacy of the past couple of days lord only knows what Trump will do.
8
While I deeply respect both authors, I think they have underestimated what is going on in congress. The majority of Republicans in Congress have clearly demonstrated they place party above ethics and the rule of law. DT knows this (and/or possibly has something incriminating on Nunes and Ryan--since he has no ethics I don't put this past him) and will stop as nothing to wield power, so even if Katyal's and Star's suggestion was implemented DT would just ignore it. The most impeachable president in history is not likely to get impeached because of the corrupt Republicans.
9
Great process but it requires a perfect storm of sense against nonsense. Instead, count on Mueller and Rosenstein to be able to ward off the fleas with evidence.
2
President Trump, many in his cabinet and in Congress knows that Presidency and such constitutional positions in electoral politics is very temporary. Presidency is only for 8 years, at best. But guys know that they will live longer- probably much longer, if not ever, than just 8 years. And then those foreign collaborators in Russia, China and our own Wall Street sharks would be far more beneficial and for life as they have no term limit if proven useful to them. But they will help only if you help them, particularly when in power.
So, it would be naive to expect Trump, many of his Cabinet colleagues and other such "best and greatest" Congressmen (mainly in GOP) to continue to do what they do best- bid for someone with wealth and influence than for increasingly poor and helpless American citizens. They can survive, or die, on fake news, false hope and ignorance (by either politics or religion or, mostly, both).
We need to make America democracy AGAIN- hopefully during and after November 2018!
4
Nixon was forced out when the Supreme Court ruled that he had to turn over the tapes. Nixon then concluded that his position was no longer tenable, and he resigned in the face of imminent impeachment.
.
Here, there have been repeated opportunities for GOP leadership in the House and in the Senate to put country ahead of party. There is no hint that any significant number of Republicans are likely to do so, still less to support anything even vaguely resembling impeachment.
.
Further, this morning the NYT reports speculation that Kennedy, J., is being edged out, presumably so the GOP can install a more predictably supine replacement before decisions pertaining to the Robert Mueller and the Russia Inquiry can reach the court.
.
Everything the GOP does is directed toward squelching the Russia Inquiry.
.
None of it would be possible without at least the tacit acquiescence - if not worse - of Republicans in Congress.
8
Katyal and Starr must be very frightened that those surrounding the President would support the firing of Mueller. This in turn terrifies me.
Those in positions of influence and power need to tell the President that his only way out of this mess, of his own creation, is to let Mueller do his job, and, if he,Trump, is telling the truth (a big assumption), determine that no matter how high up in the Trump campaign collusion existed, it did not reach the President.
2
After reading all these comments, it seems clear that we can't depend on either Trump or his minions in Congress to "do the right thing." They invariably do exactly the opposite. Trump can't afford to lose any congressional support -- especially when it comes to the investigation by Mueller -- and his supporters in Congress can't afford to have their master in the White House weakened or even appear to be weakened. Appeals to ethics or morality or patriotism have had, and will have, exactly zero effect on them.
The only sure recourse we have is to commit our all -- time and money -- to taking back the Congress next November. If we can't even do that then the situation is surely desperate.
12
I'm afraid he will start war before then and declare Marshall Law. The republican flunkies will then let him use our American troops to control an outraged populace. Fascism respects no laws or boundaries.
All these suggestions for Trump to act in the nation's interest assumes that he is innocent and thus wants all the facts to come out. What if he isn't? And his actions to date suggest the strong likelihood that he is in fact guilty of something, something nefarious or extraordinarily embarrassing, something worse than "shooting someone on 5th Ave." If he's guilty, there's almost no doubt that a constitutional crisis looms in the not very distant future, and then we'll see who is a genuine a patriot and who is just another political partisan.
2
A thoughtful and needed solution to allay the anxiety about the Executive Branch. Sadly, though, I believe we must realize that such expectations- measured, thoughtful and intelligent- will be ignored by our President whose disdain for our Constitution and the country are eclipsed by the black hole of his ego.
6
This article outlines one more avenue of convoluted political maneuver--nothing more. Mr Starr's forte. The entire premise of the Special Prosecutor is based on the thought that no one trusts the government to do it's job. If that isn't an excuse for hijinks, don't know what is.
Mr Starr was given instruction to investigate a real estate deal gone bad, which led him to interrogate a twenty something about her sex life. High drama if her secret lover is the President of the United States, i suppose. The democrats weren't too happy about all that at the time, but think a Special Prosecutor is a great idea now. These people are looking for a bridge to buy.
Neither Sam Ervin nor Joseph Sirica were creations of the moment. They were guys doing their job. And Bork? Yeah, under the pressure of very extenuating circumstances he did his job.
I’m not sure he Mr Starr, who investigated Clinton leading to his impeachment, who was criticized for having conflicts of interest in the case, who came from the opposing party and had rather extreme conservative views at the time, give us advise on a regulation that trump will never accept. Will Trump’s refusal make him look guilty of hiding something? You bet. However he already acts guilty and the GOP has allowed him to get away with it.
Mr Muller, a respected career FBI lawyer, comes from the Republican Party now in power, albeit from moderate ideas. The current investigation carries a weight that makes as smile at what caused Clinton to be impeached. He lied under oath about a sexual affair. Don’t forget W refused to testify under oath, and was allowed to.
Even Nixon’s charge did not carry weight near the magnitude of having a foreign hostile nation aiding a campaign by affecting voters, perhaps even votes.
Mr Starr is telling us to respect this Congress?
Sorry mr Starr. Too much baggage in your history. You know Trump will not approve such legislation and that it is unlikely our current lawmakers will do anything about it. Not sure if they will act if we suddenly find a video of Trump inside that famous “dirt on Clinton” meeting.
Shameful.
2
Nixon broke the law in pursuing his political ambitions, then lied about it.Heel Spurs lies as a way of life.A life spent in the pursuit of money and constant self-aggrandisement to feed pathological narcissism born of self doubt.Moreover, enough Nixon era Republicans were committed to protecting US institutions and the rule of law. Given the differences,Bork offers no roadmap.The only solution to the Trump issue is sufficient dissemination of the Mueller findings within Justice so it cannot be "buried" should Heel Spurs decide to close the investigation down.
3
We certainly do not need Trump's silence on such an eventuality to be asking: "Just what is he afraid of?"
Trump has been acting obsessed with and afraid of Mueller's investigation from the get-go because he knows it will expose the entanglement of his family, business and campaign with criminal Russian oligarchs.
And the reason the GOP Congress won't move to protect Mueller and is colluding with Trump to thwart the special prosecutor is that the Republican Party will be exposed for its own complicity with the oligarchs, criminal activity, and the Trump campaign's collision with Russia.
The stakes are just too high for a Party that places American and Russian oligarchs first, themselves second, and the American people dead last.
The self-procalimed patriots are really just a band of criminals who steal elections, disrespect the rule of law, protect the greedy NRA over High School students and the rest of us, and work incessantly to transfer more wealth from ordinary citizens to themselves and their friends.
6
I think that team Trump has celebrated a bit prematurely with the recent indictments from Mueller. I'm guessing that another shoe is about to drop.
4
Eh, I'm not inclined to take advice from Kenneth Starr.
Where his fantasy ends is with "And if the president doesn't permit a Bork regulation?" But of course he'd not, and the only people who can then take action are the colluding Republican Party, especially Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Trump is obviously guilty - else why his fervent year-long campaign to impugn or eviscerate finding the truth through the Special Prosecuter. Why now the fervent call to pardon everyone whether presently indicted or not -- before there's a single trial and formal findings?
Guilty, guilty, guilty.
5
The solution proposed by Mr. Katyal and Mr. Starr is so good, so balanced and appropriate, that there is very little chance of it’s ever being implemented in the disfunctional political environment we all suffer through these days. On the other hand, if Trump foolishly acts to remove Mueller (a more likely occurrence than the Katyal/Starr solution), that may prove the catalyst to the most unlikely event of all - i.e., unified action by Congress to create a truly bipartisan committee charged with responsibility to complete the Mueller investigation.
2
I'm surprised that Ken Starr and Neal Katyal got their constitutional law wrong in arguing against legislation to protect Robert Mueller. They argue that Congress cannot restrict the power of another branch to fire it's officers; in this case the President's power over prosecutors. But the constitution does permit one branch to place restrictions on another, which is why we have independent agencies in the executive branch, which are protected against Presidential whim. Also the analogy Messrs. Starr and Katyal draw, about the President restricting congressional or judicial hires is also misleading. Those branches do not have unfettered power over their hires or appointments. For instance, Congress cannot fire its appointees who perform executive functions. The law clerks comparison is also faulty. Judges do not have unfettered discretion there, lest they be able to discriminate or abuse their employees. The executive branch would investigate any such occurence. Congress is not proposing to limit whom Trump hires as his research assistants; rather they seek to protect the country from another constitutional crisis (which Robert Bork did not do). Essentially, Messrs. Star and Katyal are arguing that the Ethics in Government Act (1978), which authorized special prosecutors for 2 decades, was unconstitutional. Whatever the merits of that law, their argument that congress cannot restrict the president's power over prosecutors is based on faulty constitutional analysis.
1
Really, now that Mueller has issued indictments to 13 Russians, Trump's ability to terminate Mueller's investigation is severely compromised because, as his advisers would tell him, if he were to fire Mueller, those 13 indictments, already heralded by Rosenstein, would have to be quashed. That, in turn, would reflect back on Trump's ability to govern.
1
This would work if the President was a principled and reasonable person who cares about the value of law. Does anyone think this is the case? What if Trump has committed criminal acts and feels he could be eventually caught if the investigation continues? Do you think for a second he will allow Mueller to "carry out his job" without interference. Why would he let the investigation continue? Trump knows his past actions as well as the methodical work of Mueller. He's not giving up, and smart enough to know he needs to do everything possible to avoid getting caught. Squashing the investigation is just one of those things.
3
Its hard to believe that Trump would agree to such regulation unless, like Nixon, he were absolutely forced to, so its hard to see this as a solution.
Just what is he afraid of? I'm not sure, but he clearly is afraid of something.
2
Sounds interesting but what would be the leverage that would get Trump to agree to this? In Nixon's case, it looks like Bork extracted this agreement from Nixon in exchange for Bork firing Cox. It's as though Bork said "OK, Mr. President, I'll get you off the hook this time rather than resign like the others, but only on condition that you agree that you won't/can't do this again."
What am I missing?
1
All of these "what if" suppositions do not serve the ongoing investigation. Mr. Mueller is running a tight ship devoid of leaks and should be held in the highest esteem for the work he is doing now. Should he be removed in the unlikely circumstance, the meticulous findings of the reports he leaves behind will be passed on to his successor and hopefully be carried out with due diligence. Have faith in him and the process. The truth will prevail.
3
Drumpf will never permit a Bork regulation.
It’s wishful thinking that he would.
His enablers will not judge him when he doesn’t permit a Bork regulation.
The only course of action, and it may very well come too late, are the midterm elections placing a democratic majority in both houses— also an unlikely outcome.
1
There is far too much expectation that Mueller alone will save our nation--thus all the talk about how to best protect Mueller. Congress already has the power to conduct it's own investigations, though it currently is intentionally slow-walking because Republicans have bowed to Trump. The real answer is far simpler--Democrats must win back the House and the Senate in November, then all the talk about how to best protect Mueller becomes moot. Remember that Trump lost the popular vote, and about only 40% of Americans currently support him. He continues to lose the support of women--especially swing suburban women--and recent Democratic wins in special elections are showing the wave that is coming. All YOU need to do is go out and vote, and get everyone else to go vote, too.
4
While I find the comparisons between Watergate proceedings and the current scenario very enlightening, unfortunately there is a very big difference between now and then. In the 1970s, it was still possible, it seemed, for most Americans, as well as politicians in Nixon's own party, to simply face facts once it was irrefutable what had happened. By contrast, today, through various means, members of the president's party, and many of his supporters, blatantly hold a twisted mirror to the facts.
4
Without agreeing with Mr. Katyal and Mr. Starr that replacing a fired special counsel is beyond the power of Congress or the power of the Supreme Court, the fact remains that Donald Trump is extremely unlikely to fire Robert Mueller directly and probably would not fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein without extraordinary cause.
A more likely scenario involves having Attorney General Jeff Sessions temporarily rescind his recusal on some contrived grounds. Sessions would then fire Rosenstein and replace him with a malleable Deputy, who then would fire Mueller or severely restrict the scope of Mueller’s inquiry.
That action by Sessions would probably be deemed a breach of agreement by a bipartisan majority of the Senate.
In the meantime, indictments already obtained by Mueller’s team and the guilty pleas received could not be ignored or unilaterally dismissed by a Trump/Sessions cover-up effort.
The presiding judge in each case would need to concur. Moreover, state attorneys general would still be free to proceed on violations of state laws regarding bribery, money laundering and fraud.
Donald Trump may be able to buy a little time, but it won't be much time. There also may be more indictments obtained and pleas received in the very near future, which would require Trump and Sessions to do even more unraveling.
If Trump is prohibited from firing any newly appointed special counsel under the "Bork regulation" by its requirement that such termination can take place "only with a 'consensus' of the House and Senate majority and minority leaders, and the chairmen and ranking members of the chambers’ judiciary committees," it seems to me there is still a separation of powers argument Trump could make, albeit a weaker one than if Congress acted directly in the matter by passing its own legislation preventing termination.
What I find puzzling is Mr. Katyal's apparent admission that the special counsel regulations he drafted in the Clinton administration and that now govern the appointment of Mr. Mueller are unconstitutional. While I disagree, it would be helpful if he explained his change of thinking.
Meanwhile unless Mr. Starr also questions the constitutional authority of his own"investigation" under the Independent Counsel Act, perhaps the whole problem can be obviated by utilizing that legislation to protect Mr. Mueller. If it has been repealed or has lapsed, Congress can renew it. Of course as long as Congress is controlled by Trump enablers Ryan, McConnell and the rest of the Republicans, Mueller is likely to remain vulnerable. That fact alone constitutes a scandal of historic proportions given Trump's to fulfill his sworn pledge to protect and defend America from its enemies, domestic and foreign, especially Vladimir Putin and his oligarchical cronies..
1
One quote stands out:
"And if the president doesn’t permit a Bork regulation? That silence will speak volumes."
And I may simply suggest that the silence is already deafening. And may I also suggest that Trump and his political operatives will stretch the definition of extraordinary improprieties to exclusively serve their own interests.
For the above reasons, I consider this op-ed to be a well meaning euphemism. It illustrates a more fundamental point- Democracy thrives not only because of laws and institutions, but also the morality, ethics and integrity of those who serve. And, because in the case of Trump and his supporters these are completely absent- ruin is inevitable unless the political and criminal justice system can respond effectively.
2
Interesting legal gymnastics.
But it has a weak punchline: "Just what is he afraid of?" That is to say, If Trump refuses to allow a Bork regulation, he will be seen to be hiding something.
I have no training in law, but geez, hasn't Trump's guilt been glaringly obvious almost every day of his presidency? And are his actions not shouting obstruction of justice? We don't need an exercise in the Bjork regulation to see another guilty action; just wait for his next Tweet.
And, much as I/we admire and respect Robert Mueller and hold our collective breaths in anticipation of his findings (should they be released to the public), we cannot expect the special prosecutor to make up for Congressional inaction. According to many legal experts, there is already sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice to begin impeachment hearings in Congress. These hearings are the responsibility of Congress, not the Special Prosecutor. In Nixon's case, the special prosecutors (Cox then Jaworski) came late on the scene. Sam Ervin was already holding televised Senate hearings on Watergate.
We don't need to evoke Bjork; we need to awaken Congress; it has been woefully inadequate in its obligation to hold the Executive branch in check. Congress is AWOL.
2
And in what universe will the obstructor-in-chief support a regulation that will allow the work of the special counsel to continue?
My husband and I have agreed that if Trump fires Mueller, one of us will hold down the fort here and the other will get on a plane and fly to Washington DC to join other demonstrators in the streets.
2
Trump won't agree to include the legislation on any decision to fire Mueller and he doesn't care about the optics. The same goes for GOP congressmen who have done Trump's bidding by attempting to block the investigation and/or attack those involved in the investigation as a motive for Trump to fire Mueller. Congress needs to pass a bill that, if Trump fires Mueller, Congress will appoint him and his team as their own prosecutor. Alas, this won't happen because the Republican majority wants the investigation stopped.
1
Robert Mueller is doing a pretty good job of protecting himself.
The surprise indictments/plea deals/secret interviews have hit like bombshells. His team of outstanding prosecutors has Trump back on his heels.
The indictments last Friday sealed Trump's fate. We crossed the point of no return last Friday night.
If Trump has Mueller fired, it's political suicide.
If the investigation continues, it's going to be like death by a thousand paper cuts. Mueller will continue to methodically expose Trump.
The will of the people is too strong. Trump has only about 35% of the country behind him. He is on the high wire right now with no safety net, and there's no way he gets to the other side without falling.
3
First problem: I don't believe anything Mr. Ken Starr has to say. I let his record in public and private life speak for itself.
2
"That silence will speak volumes" Don't the authors see that the silence is already speaking volumes?
They are reasoning here that the way to solve the problem is to hand the power to a person who has already shown us all we need to know, and has barely suffered consequences. So, at the end of this, Trump says no. Do the blind leaders of the other branches, and the voices on Fox news all of a sudden do an about face and point to his silence? If that will be the case, why not now?
Trump's silence is beyond obvious already. He is silent with regard to relationships with rich Russians, with Putin, with his permanently "audited" taxes, with his business affairs, with sexual affairs (Mr. Starr- one for you), with Wikileaks, with theft of emails, and his unexplained relationships with people like Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulous and others.
And then the nearly treasonous type of silence of omission, as he attacks our press and our legal institutions but does not speak for the people against a hostile disinformation attack. Doesn't the man get security breifings? What is he hiding?
And there is a silence protected by a team that abets him. The daily dissembling by the likes of Ryan, Huckabee-Sanders, Nunes, Pence, Cohen, to name just a few. Silence is also the powerful dissembling of truth instead o speaking the truth, by Fox, by his Tweets, and by daily lies.
So, what part of silence is not already obvious? What will change?
2
Here, I thought, was a very insightful comment by Paul Krugman: "The biggest threat to the integrity of our democracy today is in the Oval Office." Trump either needs to be neutered, or better yet, removed from office.
The authors of this article state: "In one swoop, President Trump could assure the public that he will let the investigation continue."
I assert that in one swoop, Trump could assure the public that he has nothing to hide financially by releasing his tax returns for the last 10 years.
5
Then, it appears that the silence has already spoken.
While the general reader (self included) may just be learning of the Bork regulations right now (again, self included), it is not as though the federal register is a closed document and Watergate a small footnote of our history. Any number of better situated individuals in the Justice Department, Congress, the Senate, the State Department, the you-name-the-department knew of Mr. Bork's regulations.
But it has been a year. If Mr. Trump was going to implement such regulations, the time was 365 days ago.
As you say, the silence* over that time is instead speaking volumes.
*Note that silence here references only the lack of regulations, not the innumerable tweets, blusters, and misinformation disseminated by Mr. Trump over that time period.
1
It does not matter so much on how any country writes constitution and laws. At the end of the day it's people, who carry out the duties to protect the nation and its constitution, thier collective or, sometimes individual, wisdom and courage that makes the difference.
For me it's also not so much about whether Muller investigation can be completed or what happens to those found guilty. But more importantly, how we develop our core institutions and select people for those.
Just one example. USA as about 25 percent agnostic and Atheists. yet there is not a single Congressman representing that huge population. Our science and technology, our judiciary and many other core institutions are increasingly infected by religious faith and manned by people with fundamentalist attitude. No wonder the quality of our science and technology, our ability to generate wealth is eroding fast. It's amply reflected in our lack of ability to even protect (forget developing) social mobility and wealth distribution etc. and it all affecting our democracy too.
6
The Starr investigation shows how these investigations can go way off track such as on Whitewater and bring the country Clinton's libidogate. Mueller has called his recent indictments of speculative Russian interference which they claim are troubling by their scope but not material to the elections outcome. Trump is an immature dope stupidly given power by the electoral college, not by a victory in the popular vote, has no reason to fire Mueller. The NYTs continues to claim that despite Mueller's conclusion that the Russians stole the election.
1
I suggest the Ken Starr solution: get a Lynda Tripp character to leak grand jury testimony to one of the civil suits against Trump to catch Trump lying then impeach. Oh but then I forget that this republican congress will do anything to protect Der leader and will never impeach.
9
Difficult as it might seem, we need to consider the 25th Amendment. It has merit even if it is a murky and challenging part of our Constitution. Congress: do not pre-judge how it does and does not apply to President Trump until there is a full and fair debate about it.
2
This idea is a total non-starter. Trump will simply refuse to cooperate, and the gutless and ethically weak willed Republican controlled Congress will do about as much they have with regard to the last 1500 mass shootings.
Which, of course, is zero.
8
Your statement at the end of your Op Ed regarding if Trump failed to agree to a Bork like consensus.." what is he afraid of?"... is accurate now. If Trump moves against Rosentstein or Mueller, impeachment is required. Full Stop. Trump does not want the truth to come out, whatever that truth may be (most likely financial impropriety with Russian oligarchs who own him). Explains all of his behavior to date.
13
We keep acting like we're dealing with a normal politician who respects and accepts the rule of law. The Bork solution is a very noble solution and under normal circumstances would be embraced by the President and Congress. Trump isn't Nixon and today's Congress isn't willing to put country before party. This president will not willingly give up control over this investigation. Thankfully Mr Mueller is being protected by Sessions who recused himself and Rosenstein who both respect the law and are allowing the investigation to stay on track.
Trump is becoming more angry because Russian interference means that his presidency will always be seen as illegitimate. He's not used to being questioned or too being powerless. He will continue to lash out and only time will tell if he will refrain from firing Mr Mueller. It's not like his base will care or hold him accountable.
13
"And if the president doesn’t permit a Bork regulation? That silence will speak volumes."
Wasn't he studying the possibility to pardon himself, at the time of the Arpaio affair ? Would he get embarassed tiniest bit if he simply dumped any Bork-like regulation?
6
Nixon's Congress was different from our Congress today. That the Republicans may watch this unbridled, insulting, lying president act this way, without raising their voices, to the exclusion of a very few, makes absolutely no sense. We need to be as courageous as the high schoolers of Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school who are going to Washington DC to ask for a new gun law. We need to make sure Robert Mueller is protected. By every way.
13
OMG! Kenny Starr? The guy who found the gizz on the dress? Tied up $7 Million dollars (which, btway Kenny, made some of us unhappy tax payers) - is it really you? Back from the beyond? Giving us a primer on how to save a good man going after a bunch of bad actors? Not a primer on how to use sex romps to de-rail a brilliant but horny guy with a blabby girl friend? Did Maureen ever send you a thank you for the material for her book? How's the team, by the way? No cover-ups? Do you have the p tape? No one cares.
30
Ken Starr can come back to give advice but the Beatles could never quite get back together. Life is so unfair. There’s still time Liam and Noel.
1
Is this an attempt by Kenneth Starr to rehabilitate his image? Too late for that.
19
1 key word here - “Consensus”. That is where this potential fix, fails, utterly.
7
While this is a great idea, one thing concerns me. As I recall, one of Trump's first Executive Orders had to do with reducing the number of regulations that the Federal Government could issue. For every new regulation, they had to get rid of 2 old regulations. Does anyone know if this Executive Order is still valid?
6
This article is absurd, and not just because we can predict that this typically unpredictsble president would not countenance such a regulation. As I see it the Mueller investigation is not going to solve anything. At best it is a distraction that will keep citizens from focusing on policy issues. At worst it will find that President Trump and some close associates did some things that are impeachably treasonous. The problem with that? Congress won't act on it.
The only activities worth any citizen's time and effort are voter registration now, turnout efforts later in 2018 in Democratic leaning populations in any remotely plausibly swing congressional districts and, for anyone involved with supervising elections, doing their outmost to ensure the validity of the vote count.
20
So, the author hangs his hat on the slim nail of a House "regulation"?
Don't make me laugh. The sycophants in the US House of Representatives are nothing short of quislings for trump, they'll do what ever they can, including repealing that 'regulation', to support the Russian Mole in the White House.
30
This witch hunt needs to end. We all knew of the Russian trollbots from before the election. This has nothing to do directly with Trump and it’s a red herring to distract people from the economic downturn we are about to head into.
4
Koch Inc isn't heading into an economic downturn, Apple just got a big tax break, all the corporate global money and tech guys are awash in cash. And paying less tax than ever, thanks to Trump. Vlad and the billionaire posse are crossing their fingers for even weaker sanctions. That is Yuge! Extractors are getting a pollute for free card. And who knows how much debt Trump owes or to whom? Have you watched the Ivanka Azerbaijan tape? So adorable. Money coming from thugs, gun runners, mafia types is still money! No Collusion. No Corruption. It's all good. Did you load up on for profit prisons stock? Try to Keep Up.
9
Who, other than Trump (who takes full credit for our strong economy, tax cuts etc - except when the stock market goes down - that's not on him) would want to distract from the coming economic downturn. The orange herring is not responsible for the red herring. What he is responsible for is all of his actions and statements since becoming President, and starting well before. Let's let the investigation play itself out and see who is left with some foul-smelling fish on their breath.
1
Sheesh. It is not a witch hunt - have you been paying attention?
Also, the Trump WH is all about distraction. Don’t try to blame others for that.
1
Great idea. Why am I not holding my breath?
11
Mr. Starr:
If you had not made a Constitutional Mountain (and your name) out of a prurient molehill of a peccadillo, I might cut you some slack. Your 'side of the aisle' is slimy and always has been. I applaud Professor Katyal’s tolerance, a hallmark of what I believe to be his ‘side of the aisle’.
In any event, the worst case scenario for this wannabe president is a Presidential Pardon. As aforementioned, your side of the aisle is slimy and always has been. Should they ever be needed, unctuous words of ’national healing’ have already been written.
23
I have nothing of consequence to add, except to congratulate the authors on their proposal and on the unity that they exemplify. The country has a deep need for sanity and unity on matters of principle like the Rule of Law.
22
The authors' assertion that an act of Congress to protect Mueller would be unconstitutional is conclusory and specious. No precedent or legal reasons are given. The Justice Dept's authority to issue regulations is dependent on legislation and so the proposal doesn't seem to solve the problem. Under our Constitution no man, even the President, is above the law, and this inherently requires that the President not be in control of investigations into his behavior. Moreover, it could be argued that a special counsel is an adjunct to the Congressional power of impeachment in order to determine whether "high crimes" or "misdemeanors" have occurred before impeachment proceeding are considered.
22
No one is more experienced and talented at providing protection than Vladimir Putin. Putin's foes end up in hospitals, prisons, mental institutions, urns and coffins. Donald Trump has had nothing but praise for Putin when he is not being silent. As we learned on Friday in the DOJ Mueller indictments of 13 Russian individuals and 3 Russian organizations Putin is an adept malign modern master of playing and providing partisan political protection and cover in America.
The harsh reality is that as long as Trump is President of the United States while hiding his income tax returns and business records from the American people along with Republican Paul Ryan being Speaker of the House with Republican Mitch McConnell being Senate Majority Leader and Fox News deploys distracting propaganda to support and inflame Trump and his base there is nothing effective that can be done to protect Mueller.
74
When asked about Putin being a murderer, Trump’s chilling response was, “America has killed a lot of people, too.” Trump thinks it iis perfectly acceptable practice to have people killed. He is not far removed - if at all - from Putin.
3
I agree with your comment, but I would suggest that Trump tries to get rid of Mueller, we all need to stand up and protest. MoveOn has a plan.
https://www.trumpisnotabovethelaw.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response
Trump acts guilty because he is. Simple as that. The only question is, what exactly is he guilty of that makes him so scared of Mueller and so self-centered that he would sacrifice our national security and the safety of our electoral process to protect his "legitimacy" as president. His very actions seem to suggest that he is indeed illegitimate and would never have won without Russian help.
123
It truly is this simple. It's time to stop pretending it isn't.
An innocent person does not act guilty. They act guilty because they are. Period.
3
Nixon did not fall from grace because he was a bad president. His fall was the result of his own lack of self esteem. He had the election won, but his own insecurities led to the Watergate break in and the coverup. His own insecurities made him create the oval office tapes that became his smoking gun.
In this, Trump is a reflection of Nixon. (Well, he probably doesn't have much in the way of positive policy for the progress of our nation, but we have survived a lot of presidents who ere incompetent.)
Unfortunately, the Trump insecurity (the one that makes him plaster his name on everything he touches) is really only a short distance from the nuclear button.
26
That was always the really strange thing about the DNC break-in. Nixon would have won in 1972 if he stayed home, if he never spent a day campaigning, let alone had people break the law to gain an advantage over the Democratic nominee. George McGovern never had the slightest chance of winning; in the end, I seem to recall that he carried only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.
1
Breaking into a paltry hotel room gets you impeached, invading an innocent country under false pretenses gets you a second term. Who says America is not great already?
Trump is in hock to Deutsche Bank and a lot of Russian banks.
His casinos were used for money laundering, and I truly think that all his Passthrough LLCs are used for money laundering.
1
The silence will speak volumes? That will count for very little as the Constitution turns to cinders. I'll take that imperfect legislation to protect Mueller over this stunningly naive approach.
45
I have a hard time understanding the logic of this suggestion. If Trump orders the firing of Mueller, the writers seem to suggest that the solution can be found when whoever is still standing (solicitor general?), after Rosenstein's probable refusal and resignation, patriotically steps up and issues a "Bork"regulation and gets Trump to agree to it? This sounds like a fantasy. What am I missing?
75
I believe the suggestion is a priori, meaning it's done now, not after Mueller is discharged. To me, the real question is: why would Trump do it? Perhaps the answer provided by the authors suffices: if he doesn't, then why not?
1
I agree with the doubts of the commenters here, but, even if Trump does close down Mueller's investigation, the truth has already been discovered by Mueller and committee. What is to stop them, if they are fired, from publishing, writing books, telling all? Trump cannot stuff the truth into Pandora's box even if he tries to buy off every single Mueller investigator. Granted: any further indictments or charges will not be forthcoming if he closes Mueller and Co. down, but with his threat of presidential pardons looming over our Constitutional horizon, what difference do those indictments make? We want the truth. We need the truth. We need to focus on changing the way we elect leaders so that we can at least protect our children from crass usurpers of power. Even though we seem to be unable to protect them from getting murdered in school.
Happy Presidents Day all.
31
Although the twit-in-chief may try to pardon all concerned, isn't Eric Schneiderman's ongoing investigation effectively a fall back measure so as to ensure that although pardons may be issued at the federal level, no such safety net would be available to those indicted at that state level?
1
Now that Mueller has established that criminal acts have taken place, obstruction of justice charges would be much easier to prove if the investigation were to be closed down.
One more question: Wouldn't the Trump campaign have seen that some extremely malicious anti-Clinton internet ads were not theirs or from anyone 'associated' with them. Would they not have a legal responsibility to report them? Are there any campaign rules for them to do so?
15
Agree. They should have reported foreign nationals offering “dirt on Clinton”.
Even if Trump did not attend the famous meeting, does anyone doubt he was appraised of the content? The campaign and his family celebrated it.
" Just what is he afraid of?"
The simplest answer is usually the best. He's afraid that his conspiring with the Russian government will be exposed. With that in mind, his permitting a "Bork regulation" will never come about because he can't let it come about. He is waiting for just the right opportunity to dismantle the investigation.
24
Trump will never sign off on this. It goes counter to everything that Trump has said and done up to this point. It is clear that Trump has something that he is hiding and his only course of action is to discredit the special prosecutor.
10
Thus far, the hidden promise of 21st Century politics in the U.S. may be the motivational impact that it affords the Millennial demographic who are our leaders in waiting.
Suffering the consequences of the cultural gullibility that has long embraced corruptive beliefs and practices, the vision, vigor and intellectual integrity of this generation may resolve to put out the trash and clear the way to a restoration of national health.
The Trump era phenomenon may be the key accelerant for the fire this time.
13
Isn't it reassuring to realize that the students who are currently demonstrating and planning more events will be able to vote in 2020! Some might even turn 18 before the midterms this year.
"Yes Virginia, there is" hope for the republic! As Jack Weinberg said all those years ago ... "Don't trust anyone over 30"! I'm betting my money on the newbies.
2
I'd rather see Congress pass a law. The president would need to sign the law, and therefore willingly bind himself when he does so. Whether or not this is Constitutional is something for the court to decide on another day. However, I do not think the court will be very sympathetic if the sitting President who agreed to the law then tries to challenge a law as an "unconstitutional" limitation of his power.
And by the way, there was nothing preventing the Nixon or Bork from changing their mind at a later date and firing the special prosecutor. That would be their executive privilege. There are no teeth in what you propose. Just theatrics - which we all know that Ken Starr is very good with.
13
Part of the solution is in the November elections. It's indelibly clear that the current Republican Congress is a major impediment to the respective independence of our three branches of government, to rule of the law (over politics), and to the good of the Nation. The present condition of the executive branch is a grim joke, a national mistake, and an international embarrassment (at best), one that accepts the other two branches as subservient, the chief function of which is "loyalty".
Leading up to those elections, Congressional Republicans need experience electoral heat. To cite but one example, the conduct of Nunes needs to be completely and publicly exposed, mocked, and challenged both morally and legally; his enabler, Paul Ryan, deserves continued but amplified criticism of his complicity, not only with Nunes but with Trump as well (Ryan won't bring anything to the floor without Trump's prior approval). Above all and more broadly, it must be made clear that supporting Trump has negative political consequences, and that the Mueller investigation, one way or another, will not be thwarted.
Whatever the drawbacks, voting a straight Democratic ticket may be one necessary. step. The basic message? Living by Trump means dying by Trump.
32
Muller does not need any protection.
Who is going to protect the American people and the world from the march toward a new and more dangerous cold war?
8
We must pay whatever price it takes to get Trump out. Never mind how many zeroes.
1
In his column in yesterday’s NY Times, Tom Friedman expressly stated that the greatest threat to our democracy resides in the Oval Office. If that’s correct, and many think it is, preserving who we are as a nation, preserving our constitutional freedoms must circumvent the president and not depend upon him at all. That’s a challenge that’s unprecedented in our nation’s history.
14
If Trump was worried about silence speaking volumes, he would have chastised Russia by now for interfering in our elections. If any other country -- imagine Iran or North Korea -- had been indicted in such detail, Trump would be screaming imprecations and calling for his Red Button.
7
"In one swoop, President Trump could assure the public that he will let the investigation continue. He could reassure Congress..."
He has clearly refused to do so many times. Soundly mooting the premise of this essay. And perhaps more importantly begging the question of why this essay and why now?
If a constitutional crisis is looming is it really the role of the New York Times to manage the public reaction?
6
"Instead, there is another way, firmly grounded in the nation’s history, to provide assurances to all Americans — both supporters and opponents of the investigation — that the rule of law will prevail."
Sorry, Mr. Katyal and Mr. Starr, this quote from your second paragraph is a fantasy, and negates the point of your whole piece. The truth is, there's nothing that will offer Trump supporters any assurances of anything. They simply won't believe any result that doesn't exonerate Trump. They will continue to believe the FBI is out to get Trump, no matter the evidence. Unfortunately, these Trump supporters control both our Congress and our judiciary. Rational thought and the rule of law don't stand a chance until we can throw the bums out.
20
This comment is dead on. But, I suggest it stops short of the unsettling reality that so many crying out for the preservation of our constitutional system and the rule of law are either missing or are afraid to say out loud: the president, the Republicans in Congress, and the voters who support them do not , in fact, want to preserve our government and the rule of law, but rather they want to remake it to suppress any voice that disagrees with them. We must be on guard to not confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable. That we've not seen foreign interference and direct domestic assaults on our values like we see today doesn't mean it isn't happening by design, or that the effort won't continue until the goal is met. Tom Freidman says it's a red alert. Fair enough, but until the public outcry becomes much greater we may never stop this.
3
Perfect! Let's put Trump to the test: Either agree to revive the Bork regulation or explain to the American people why he won't do that. The problem is that Trump is not abiding by his presidential duty to uphold and defend our Constitution and his GOP sycophants continue to insulate him. Enemies foreign? Russia, for one. Enemies domestic? Donald Trump.
7
It would also serve notice to Robert Mueller that instances like what happened with Strzok and Page would seriously jeopardize his job.
What ever insulation Mueller receives must be coupled with an effective reminder that his role is one of "independent" prosecutor and that any skewing for personal or political bias will be both a blow to the credibility of his efforts and his tenure in office
3
The best way to ensure Trump doesn't interfere with Mueller would have been an in-force Special Prosecutor law. Unfortunately, Ken Starr's own massive overreach of his authority (in order to determine whether the Clintons had bilked the US taxpayer out of $10,000, he ended up spending over $40 million and came with nothing more than Clinton lying about getting his pole smoked) ended that law.
He is the LAST person who should be lecturing the nation on special prosecutions.
36
I think you can guarantee that Trump will not agree to permit the Bork regulation. That is a given.
So let's move on and decide what to do next.
And more importantly than any of this, what are we going to do so we don't find ourselves once again at the hands of a lunatic and no way to stop them? Every presidential candidate the GOP mounts is worse than the last. It's been a straight downhill slide since Nixon. If nothing else that should scare the bejeezus out of anyone.
15
It's becoming quite obvious what Donald is afraid of. But we'll have to be patient.
If the executive can't be hemmed in by Congress and Congress can't be hemmed in by the executive, why can't Congress pass a resolution that confirms if Robert Mueller is terminated for political reasons, then Congress will appoint him to an independent investigation with full access to the FBI files and staff he has available now?
That is, if Trump interferes, Congress will hire Mueller to complete his job.
17
Sounds great, but Trump will never agree to it.
6
Dream on. Trump's Justice Department. Repeat that, and try to imagine Sessions listening to Katyal and Starr.
13
Okay, but was Mueller's appointment kosher to begin with? There needed to be evidence of criminality Prior to the appointment. Rosenstein's was incorrect and his mistake has been allowed to run because no one knows how to unwind it. So after gazillions of billable hours Mueller solves the mystery: "The cook did it!" And then end-up indicting a gaggle of no-names working in a troll factory setup to make a ton of money spoofing internet ads.
2
Robert Mueller and his team are not paid via "billable hours." Like every federally employed attorney, they receive salaries.
1
"And then end-up..."? This is not the end. It is just one (major) outcome. Manafort's indictment, too, was labeled the end and "exoneration" by the Trump supporters. It is not over until it is over.
1
True if this were the end. But the Flynn bomb has not yet dropped!
The central thrust of the argument presented here is that the Bork regulations were legally desirable because Bork included the legislative branch without provocation thus avoiding the thorny legal issues presented by separation of power. The Executive Branch was not overstepping its bounds because Congress was involved. Stop me if I'm mistaken here but couldn't the opposite compromise also exist?
Forget the difficulties of political reality for a moment. Couldn't Congress legislate protections for Mueller in a way that requires White House involvement thus side-stepping the constitutional problem in the same manner as the Bork regulations? Actually, one could argue the Executive Branch is already involved in any legislative solution seeing as the President holds veto power. Katyal and Starr's solution may very well work but they're ignoring the underlying problem.
Whether enforced by regulation or legislation, the President is unwilling to allow special protections for the special counsel to exist. That's exactly the reason we need protections for the Mueller investigation. There's no capacity within the White House to act responsibly and the Republican majorities in Congress are complicit in that decision. Otherwise, we wouldn't be debating solutions as there would be no problem to solve.
12
It would be fascinating and edifying were one or more op-ed replies published from other prominent constitutional lawyers e.g. Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Tribe, David Boies, Ted Olson come to mind. Perhaps we could have a national seance and get input from Bork and Scalia. Or maybe, as part of his penance for having kept the investigation of the Russian interventions secret, we could hear from President Obama. In addition, the NYT Linda Greenhouse and NPRs Nina Totenberg will likely weigh in in the next few days.
None of what they might say will faze Trump, who appears to truly believe that the whole thing is "fake news". I would also bet that when Bork told Nixon about his plan, Nixon saw the handwriting on the wall if he again exercised his Presidential authority and fired Bork. At that point he had the choice between resignation and impeachment. John Dean had told Nixon that the cover-up of Watergate was "a cancer on the Presidency" 6 months before the Saturday night massacre and testified at the Senate Watergate committee 3 months before. Also, isn't it interesting that there is apparently no written or taped account of Bork's confrontation of Nixon?
10
Trump doesn't believe it's "fake news," he merely wants us to think it is.
3
And all too many of us believe him.
Trump is afraid that public opinion will turn so sharply against him that the republicans in the House and Senate will find their long lost courage to investigate him seriously. When Tom Friedman writes, as he did in yesterday's Times, so strongly against the incompetence of Trump and the clear and present danger he poses to the nation because Trump likely is either so far in bed with Russian financial interests or so under implicit blackmail by the Russians for taped interpersonal improprieties that he cannot protect the United States from Russia, the time for Congress to act has arrived.
21
This is a useless proposition in the current circumstances. There is no Bork anywhere in sight at the moment. The Attorney General is corrupt, The president is corrupt. The leadership of the house and senate are corrupt. And, the majorities in both the house and the senate are republicans, which by definition means corrupt.
In short, good people, we are in very perilous waters. Waters in which the ship of state,what is left of so-called democracy in the United States, and the American people are in grave peril.
The real answer here is for there to be a movement that sweeps the fraud of modern conservatism from politics in the United States. This must in clue landslide in the 2018 election that sweeps out republicans from office at all levels. For this to happen, new candidates and voters must step forward.
There also is the prospect that trump will be indicted, impeached, and thrown out of office. This will be helpful, but Pence is waiting in the wings.
So, the 2018 elections, in my view, represent our best immediate hope. This is, assuming, Russian interference can be stopped.
Finally, it may well be time for the American people to take to the streets in massive numbers. Americans who are independents and progressives must also open their pocket books to counter the massive amounts of money being dumped into our elections by the likes of the Koch brothers and their friends.
39
How can two past public officials, with Solicitor General office experience, fail to discuss the different proposals in Congress?! One of them even includes judicial, not Congressional, review of a firing of a Special Counsel...
Doesn't Congress have the right to pass legislation pertaining to the appointment of an independent counsel or Special Counsel?! They did so in the past.
That's another missing piece of the story here.
They also ignore the reality that Nixon was willing to agree to these Bork guidelines because of the political reality he faced and, perhaps, even because he knew a Ford pardon would be in the works. It also is Bork's word Nixon agreed to it, and Bork may have bee engaging in some post hoc cover up of his own immoral complicity in the firing.
Finally, one has to have serious doubts in any case about a column that *extols* Robert Bork — who was a far right judicial Neanderthal — and was co-written by Ken Starr — an out of control investigator who displayed an unhealthy, prurient interest in Clinton's consensual sexual activities and went well beyond the scope of his charge.
Let's get follow up columns by the congressional cosponsors of the different protect Mueller bills and some learned analysis by constitutional law authorities, not these two!
24
Okay.
Now read another of today's NYT op-eds, "How Does Trump Stack
Up Against the Best —
and Worst — Presidents?," and trust your own eyes and ears on Trump's 40 corrupt years in the public eye, and try to imagine Trump doing ANYthing that will intentionally aid or support Bob Mueller's investigation.
35
I am laughing so hard at the proposal the Trump would support such regulations that I may have a heart attack. I will sue the NYT if that happens, for not providing a trigger warning against palpably ridiculous proposals that could induce laughing fits that last days or even weeks endangering the health of readers.
27
And I’m laughing simply at such a reaction. Please don’t drop dead.
"And if the president doesn’t permit a Bork regulation? That silence will speak volumes. If President Trump cannot agree to an investigation modeled on what Richard Nixon agreed to, the question will linger: Just what is he afraid of?"
And the question will linger and linger, because there will be no further process by which to proceed. Great idea...
24
This is what Trump should do, but he will never ever do it. He has no interest in "assuring the public that the investigation will continue", or assuring Congress or Mueller himself that he can carry out his job, and he certainly doesn't care about the men and women of the Justice Department, or have any "respect for Congress" — or any respect for anyone or anything once his sensitive ego gets bruised. Plus, it is more and more apparent that he is hiding something very big and very nasty.
Articles like this pointing out the right thing to do will not influence a man like Trump. They only serve to remind us that the person currently in the Oval Office is totally ignorant of the Constitution, unconcerned about the integrity of the office he holds, lacking any shred of basic propriety, and incapable of even pretending to act like a president.
96
It is really obvious that Putin has some hold on Trump. He has been folding like a lawn chair on everything Russian. Where are the sanctions a big majority of Congress voted on?
Trump can't even read a presidential briefing; he needs it in bullet points or read to him.
I hope all his staff who do not have security clearances are knocked out.
51
If it is so obvious, then why hasn't the evidence been confirmed even to a high degree of probability.
You are letting your biases bling you to the situation where your assessment is getting ahead of the facts.
There are many of us who call that "jumping to conclusions".
4
I thought owls could see in the dark.
1
And even more who call it ' blindingly obvious."
Uh, haven't we already reached the point of "what is he afraid of?" Even Trump's supporters know he's got plenty to fear from a real investigation - they don't care. The Republican party might have already destroyed themselves - if not, they're awfully close. Goodbye Republicans!! You only have yourselves to blame.
This began when Mitch McConnell told the nation that the Republican's #1 goal was to make Obama a one term President - a more important goal than doing what's right for America!
133
I agree. But I think this all began with Newt Gingrich. (and he is still here folks)
Gingrich started us on the path that we are now on with his devil’s bargain with the tea party. And wasn’t Ken Starr somewhere there too? And John McCain et al.
These legislators set our now imperiled democracy upon this fractious path that the Russians have capitalized upon.
Why would any supporters of Trump lose faith in him because he does not support something proposed by a third-tier official? That is not a practical way to protect Mueller and the issue is clear enough without it.
10
If Trump has no intention of firing Mueller, why would he need such a "regulation"?
I am sure that Trump understands...and surely his legal team understands this...that his best chance of putting this measure behind him is to allow Mueller to exonerate him.
And far too many people have informed Trump that he is NOT under investigation, so he as a certain degree of confidence that that will remain the case.
What are y'all gonna do if Mueller punts on indicting Trump or anyone in his campaign for other then "technical" charges for actions that occurred outside of the campaign and transition organizations?
Are you going to accuse Mueller of whitewashing? Claim that Mueller stole the election from Hillary? Complain that Mueller is making a mockery of our justice system and our democracy?
Sorry to have to tell you this...It's going to be FUN to watch.
3
Owl, if Trump has already attempted to fire Mueller, why are you asking whether protection are needed?
Trump is obviously fearful of Mueller -- presumably because he knows that the investigation will not exonerate him.
1
Big if there, Tobias.
Making unreasonable assumptions again?
Or, is that "still"?
1
Trump will not support a Bork regulation. He knows he can get away with anything and everything he chooses. His aim is to become our permanent military dictator.
This will happen unless Congress impeaches and convicts him.
Congress will not act until we demand that they do. So GET BUSY, constituents!
67
I agree with everything you say except for the claim that "his aim is to become our permanent military dictator."
Rather, it seems to me that his aim is neither more nor less than to "win." To be on TV in photo-ops where he is showing a "thumbs up" with people who are in the midst of dealing with a horrible tragedy. To stand in front of cheering crowds, including from time to time, really huge parades. To have the richest friends and get his face on the cover of magazines, and have the very best TV ratings--better than anyone else's, ever. To never have anyone contradict him; the SHOW THEM ALL that they underestimated him and they were all WRONG AND FAKE and HE is the BEST EVER.
This was why he ran for President, and now that he has it, he has no idea what to do with it. He doesn't want to do any of the actual work; he's in way over his head.
I suspect the idea of being "permanent military dictator" is a nightmare for him, but so is the idea of stepping down in any way, losing an election, or doing anything other than just keeping up the fantasy till he gets to retire, after two glorious terms, at almost 80 years old, and return to his gold-plated apartments and his world golf empire. He didn't think this through.
2
Hmmm....Military dictators don't insist that Congress make the laws and set such things as immigration policy...
Me thinks you are being a bit hyperbolic.
But, what else is new?
If the collective political will exists to enact such legislation, then it probably isn't needed. It would signal that congress would be ready to impeach with sufficient proof, and Trump would be well aware of that before legislation made it to his desk. At the moment no such will exists, the leaders of the GOP have a stranglehold on congress and the democratic process, and are choking the life from them.
60
I think it is save to assume that Congress, any Congress, would be willing to impeach Trump with sufficient proof.
The question then becomes whether or not the Senate will convict.
Whatever crime or misdemeanor that is alleged is going to have to meet that amorphous standards of "high".
2
A nice history lesson, but carrying out a plan like this under the current executive "leadership" along with a congressional leadership that has long ago abdicated all responsibility for solving the nation's problems is fantasy. For Trump and his buddies McConnell and Ryan, doing what's good for the country would not play to their base, so don't expect anything to get better. Immigration, guns, foreign relations with our allies, North Korea, the Middle East -- there will be no progress. It benefits them to have the whole country off balance, lurching from one emergency to another. These people feed off chaos. This is the legacy of the people who elected this monster to the presidency. Enjoy!
106
"Mr. Katyal, drafted the special counsel regulations in the Clinton administration that now govern the appointment of Mr. Mueller." if so, then why were the Bork protections not included in that new regulation?
30
Now why do we need a regulation enjoining the President from doing something he has no intention of doing? The Mueller investigation has in effect exonerated President Trump, is apparently investigating Hillary's funding of the discredited dossier and in a machiavellian way adds credibility to Mr. Trump's accusation of a "witch hunt "as the investigation drones on and on without finding and evidence of collusion on the part of the President. Liberals need to put away this emotional drama and fantasy of impeaching the President.
7
The notion that "the Mueller investigation has in effect exonerated President Trump" is a fantasy on your part. This is the first round of indictments, and none of the evidence has been released even on these charges. The investigation continues. Maybe it will turn up something substantive on Trump, maybe it won't. But your statement is like saying that because you didn't find your keys in the first place you looked that proves that they were stolen.
2
Well, that's one way to look t it.
Fact : Trump told the white house counsel to fire Mueller. The council threatened to resign and Trump backed off. Mueller's indictments of 13 Russians & 3 Russian companies proves that Russia meddled in our election! This is no "witch hunt." That act, combined with Trump's admission on national TV that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation, & various other nefarious actions is probably going to result in obstruction of justice charges for Trump.
Collusion isn't a crime. Mueller isn't even looking for collusion. . He's looking for conspiracies, which ARE crimes. Did any American, part of the Trump campaign or not, act in a manner that fits the definition of conspiracy?
An innocent man would WANT this investigation to continue & not call it a witch hunt. An innocent man would want to be vindicated by Mueller. He keeps lying & telling the world he's has been vindicated when, in fact he has not! Hillary committed no crime by paying for opposition research any more than the republicans who first paid for that research. Why don't you call them criminals, too?
No one know what the results of the investigation will reveal in the end. Just as we cannot predict whether or not Trump will be impeached. Those are two separate things. In case you haven't noticed, Trump lies a lot! A rational person can't trust him when he says he won't fire Mueller. Trump supporters need to stop ignoring the facts. Yes, I know. You have alternative facts which by definition are lies.
2
The imperative questions are: Just WHAT is he afraid of? Or WHAT is he Hiding?
If Trump is innocent, why is he consistently acting like he is guilty?
23
That's a political question, not a legal one. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the investigated party.
The same argument used against the bills pending on congress would also apply to the proposed regulation.
Though scholars debate the point, some argue that limits imposed by congress and/or the judiciary (the bills pending in congress) on the power of the President to remove executive branch subordinates, and especially prosecutors, is unconstitutional.
Giving the power to say "no" to Trump's removal of Mueller to a Justice Department regulation (the Katyal & Starr proposal) does not make it any more or less constitutional than giving congress and/or the judiciary (the proposed legislation) that same power.
Thus, if it is in fact unconstitutional for coordinate branches (congress or the judiciary) to say "no" when Trump tries to remove Mueller, how could it be constitutional for executive branch subordinates (within the Justice Department) to do the same?
If anything coordinate and coequal branches have more constitutional power to check the President than do executive branch subordinates.
Moreover, when he rejects the regulation Trump would simply claim that it is unconstitutional, and would have enough con law scholars on cable news backing him up to make it sound plausible.
Would that "speak volumes"? It would have zero impact. Some obscure proposed Justice Department regulation, and the even more obscure debate over its constitutionality as a rationale for its rejection, simply would not register with the public, or even with Republicans in congress.
9
Isn't "the question" of what Trump is afraid of lingering now? It seems a stretch to expect Trump to accede to a Bork-like regulation that would keep him in the crosshairs of Mueller's bombsight. Nixon had the reaction to his firing of the Special Prosecutor behind him when Bork provided the new regulation. He had a new attorney general and a more friendly (he though) Special Prosecutor. Nixon thought he could bury the White House tapes. Trump's level of comfort may be similar to Nixon's was at the time of the Bork regulation. The reason for that is that Nixon was guilty, and there seems a better than even chance that Trump is also guilty.
9
Actually, based on what Mr. Mueller's investigation has bought out to date, there seems to me a much better than even chance that Trump is innocent. But by the time Mr. Mueller is ready to concede that, Trump's presidency will have been mired in this witch hunt (yes, that is the correct phrase, but I don't think Trump ever used it in connection with Russia's involvement in the situation so much as he did to describe what was being done against himself, the elected president of the U.S.) for so long that it will have ruined his presidency. But, of course, that has been the primary goal of Democrats, Leftists, some Republicans, and most certainly anything that lives and breathes at the New York Times since November 9, 2016. Maybe we need a special investigation of the New York Times as a prime contributor to all of this. Certainly, there has been no evidence of journalistic impartiality in evidence from them since the day Trump declared his candidacy.
I see that Joe Pearce has drunk the kool aid. Investigation of the NY Times? As in, let's see if we can muzzle the free press? Shall we put Fox into this mix?
The key phrase in Mr. Pearce's silly remarks is in the first sentence: "to date." This means that the evidence is still accumulating, and all has not been revealed. This show is not over. In the meantime, the U.S. is suffering under the aegis of a very flawed leader.
1) Worth a try; nothing to lose. But we all know that Trump wouldn't agree.
2) Congress has been dictating Executive Branch do's and don't for ages,
rarely (if ever?) challenged in court (e.g.financial sanctions against foreign
gov'ts that can only be done by Treasury). The real reason the GOP
controlled congress hasn't protected Mueller has little to do with
'constitutional concerns', but rather to send a signal to Trump to fire him.
3) Regardless whether protective measures for Mueller are taken, he needs to
be careful whenever he crosses a street, or goes outside - FSB agents have
successfully killed many, and Putin likes to leave his signature (e.g. the
Litvinenko polonium murder in London in 2006). Also likely that many of
Trump's NY gangland contacts would be happy to Trump a favor.
7
Messrs. Katyal and Starr: it won't work. In your own words, "...it would be a sign of respect to Congress — showing it that the president wants to bring its members into the decision-making fold on this most sensitive of questions." Stop right there. Since when does this "president" respect Congress? He has attacked members of both parties since he declared the "American carnage."
"And if the president doesn’t permit a Bork regulation? That silence will speak volumes. If President Trump cannot agree to an investigation modeled on what Richard Nixon agreed to, the question will linger: Just what is he afraid of?" It's a question that was asked most eloquently by Thomas Friedman in these pages today. The doubts persist, however, not because of the executive branch, but because of the legislative, and they are based on partisan ideology.
You both have noted that the present constitution of Congress seems quite dis-inclined to litigate this "should he or shouldn't he?" The fact of the matter is that the Republican majority on Capitol Hill is quite aware of the damage that Donald Trump is doing to our nation--hourly, if not minute-by-minute. But he is a useful tool for them--and their donors. The national interest(s) don't matter so long as the oligarchs have power over all three branches. Mr. Trump won't be president forever--he's replaceable--but with a new, firm, permanent bedrock of top-down plutocracy in place, this "temporary" situation is quite tolerable to the GOP.
25
As is generally his habit, I am sure that the President has read this sensible article and tweeted his approval. Later today (at the latest), in his eagerly efficient way, it is likely that the President will receive a draft Bork statement from his well-staffed Administration protecting Mr. Mueller from the man making the statement.
Fearless is this President's middle name. When each day he makes a decision or takes an action that elicits a collective smiling "Wow!" from us, his minions, our confidence in his willingness and ability to do the right thing swells and should probably be looked at by a doctor.
The chief enjoyment in reading this article has been my fantasy of Donald Trump's private life subjected to the Ken Starr treatment.
Who could possibly be anxious with the American political system that runs on donor money and is leavened by conspiracy theories of various national provenance? As we rush to create a WPA on our southern border while our bridges and roads crumble and become unsafe, we can revel in the certainty that our President, who thinks only of what's best for America, is working his thumbs to the bone to keep us safe from foreign interference.
Remember, the notion that Russia interfered with the recent election is laughable, and if the FBI hadn't devoted nine of its eleven agents to investigating that nothingburger the nation would not be racked by gun massacres. QED, Sparky.
This is a wonderful time to be an American. Da?
37
This proposal presumes that the President cares what his opponents, the "fake media", and history think about him. The question "Just what is he afraid of?" has already been out there for months. It would appear that he is terrified that the Mueller investigation will reveal that he is guilty of serious wrongdoing. His dilemma is the same as Nixon's: do nothing and be found out or stop the investigation and hope to get away with it. Given that choice, and in light of recent revelations and the Presidents current behavior, it seems obvious which path he has chosen.
10
Trump has shown no interest in firing Mueller. Yet all these concerns keep surfacing. Why on earth is that? Nothing tangible is contributed by worrying about Mueller. Yet, how long must this go on? Over a year, and nothing found. Exoneration is all we have. It’s plain to see that the U.S. government colluded with the Democrats so as to affect the outcome of the election. Ten FBI and DOJ officials fired so far. Several worked for Mueller. That does not build trust in what Mueller is doing.
1
What about the "unitary executive" theory so beloved by the right, including the conservative justices on the Supreme Court? As I understand it, the "unitary executive" theory claims the President's Constitutional powers over the executive branch cannot be limited by mere statutes or regulations. If so, how could a regulation such as Bork's be valid?
1
Who knew?! Thanks for reminding us about the expired Bork regulations. It would seem to work today and allow Special Prosecutor Mueller to work unimpeded. You two wrote President Nixon signed off on this regulation. I do not see 45 signing off. Any act or words meant to check his power, be it legal or verbal, he ignores or insults. Even if he signs on to something like the Bork regulations, he has proven himself to be not a man of his word, and I see him violating the regulation with the excuse cooperation with the regulation delegitimizes his election. Once again ego and narcissism will negate sound reasoning and policy.
6
Questions would linger? Trump wouldn't care. He is quite unlike Nixon existing within his own moral universe. Worse, many of his supporters would accept a complete end to the investigation on the same grounds Trump has given: it is a distraction.
7
For Trump, if he is guilty, it is probably better to remain silent and let that silence "speak volumes" than to have Mueller find the guilt and remove all doubts.
9
The real problem is the Constitution does not allow Congress to prevent the President from dismissing anyone in the Executive Branch he wishes. Remember: Trump thinks he can fire judges and Justices, Representatives and Senators as well, and goes into a torrent of rage when he cannot.
The tenuous legal blocking of Presidential firings goes back to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, which failed, in part because of that.
The Founding Fathers really only gave Congress 3 powers in this regard: to establish agencies and departments that the President would staff, to approve or deny his appointments, and, as a last resort, for the House to impeach him and the Senate to judge.
Unfortunately, it's hard to imagine the House Judiciary Committee, led by Goodlatte, even THINKING about considering Articles of Impeachment. And no matter WHAT atrocity Trump committed, King, Gohmert, Jordan, Gaetz, Labrador, Farenthold, and Goodlatte and probably several others would block. Only the spineless Speaker could move them to it, which he won't. So we won't see it considered until January--if the Dems take over.
Even then, Nancy Pelosi is congenitally against impeachment, which is why the Dems need a new leader.
All that leaves is precedent and the tenuous but clever net these 2 experienced Soliciters-General propose. But how to force, convince, or downright trick Trump into accepting it? That's the problem.
6
Thanks to Mssers Katyal and Starr for this insight to Bork's solution during the Watergate years. Mr Bork's reputation is elevated in my eyes as a consequence. Such an action would help unify Congress and by giving equal power to the minority party would give the feckless GOP some spine... or at least an excuse... to stand up to this President.
3
The authors are living in La-La land if they think Trump will even contemplate the solution they are proposing.
18
To the authors: thank you for your service and for explaining the Bork regulation, of which I had never heard. As I understand it, a regulation modeled after Bork's would have to be initiated by someone in the Trump administration – it would require Mr. Trump to give assurances and Mr. Sessions to act. So, it’s not exactly a matter of “permitting” a Bork regulation – the ball is in their court, and they can do nothing at all. Thank you for pointing out that Mr. Trump has options, but we are dealing with a president who won't give even weak assurances that he won't stop the investigation and his sycophantic Attorney General. Robert Bork was at least smart.
6
Such naiveté from otherwise well respected legal minds. Trump doesn't give a fig about the rule of law or morality and isn't about to start. And the part about speaking volumes, well where have they been for the last year or two?
27
"Just what is he afraid of?" The question is not rhetorical. It does have an answer. Donald Trump is terribly afraid that he will be declared an illegitimate president. We are getting ever closer to that moment.
The recent indictments and the revelations of the high degree of interference by Russia cement the obvious conclusion; Donald Trump knew all too well that the election was won only because of the high level of interference of Russia. Furthermore it is inevitable that there will be revelations of collusion by members of his election team and Mr. Trump's family members as well.
Donald Trump is the most reviled president in the history of the United States. Trump acts like demagogue and would be dictator. Trump has no respect or even understanding of the rule of law, the separation of powers and the U.S. Constitution. He believes he can make rules and law by his own fiat. Trump does not understand his responsibility to uphold the Constitution. He has failed to protect and defend the United States.
Donald Trump is an illegitimate president and his presidency is coming to an end. That is what he fears.
When his own collusion is revealed I look forward to seeing him in prison stripes. The next challenge of building a wall that Trump will face is the wall of prison that he himself has built.
18
"If President Trump cannot agree to an investigation modeled on what Richard Nixon agreed to, the question will linger: Just what is he afraid of?"
Read Tom Friedman's column today & you'll find out the answer to that question.
17
A "Bork regulation" is just more legal mumbo jumbo. But the article does sort of stumbled past the actual historic path to protect Meuller. To quote, " Instead, there is another way, firmly grounded in the nation’s history, to provide assurances to all Americans — both supporters and opponents of the investigation — that the rule of law will prevail." This thoroughfare for freedom's feet is citizen action, protest and taking it to the streets. Fire Meuller, and the pitchforks comes out.
5
Maybe a better. Idea is for republicans to face the music and let mueller finish his investigation. The only reason trump wants to fire him is because he is in trouble and wants to delay the inevitable conclusion that he obstructed justice and worked with the Russians to undermine our democracy in return for the presidency, people like that should not be allowed to game the system and the fact that people like Starr who have already abused the special investigation process for their parties political needs are the last people we should be listening to.
15
Makes one yearn for Richard Nixon ! But seriously, why would Trump want to protect Mueller when he has spent months discrediting him on POLITICAL grounds: it is a witch hunt, attempts by democrats so that he can't MAGA, it is a waste of the tax payers' money, it is a distraction from real business (and even led to the deaths of school children in Florida). Rule of law? Does Trump's base understand or care about the rule of law? I don't think so. So why should he or the Republicans (who are every bit in this) care about the rule of law? Trump understands how he can flaunt the rule of law: Do whatever you want to do and send a memo to Fox News to spin it for appropriate propaganda. Hold a rally. Inflame public opinion. Besides, who could decent people appeal to? The Republican Congress? The Republican Judiciary? A founding father -- John Randolph of Roanoke -- wrote: "Power alone can limit power." In the age of gerrymandered districts and voter suppression, where is the countervailing power? I would like to see research to create a time line: What a Russian bot/troll said -- and when -- and what the Trump campaign said and when did they say it. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the same themes were used by the Russians and the Trump campaign. Let us see if a time line suggests causality/collusion. We, the people, are going to have to help the Mueller team to save our democracy.
20
Do not expect anything close to integrity from Trump or from the GOP
Give control of Congress to the Democrats in November.
15
Its unlikely Trump would ever agree or allow such a regulation - recall he wants primarily to end government regulation of all sorts. What is he afraid of? Like all creatures of the dark who are afraid of being exposed for the crimes committed that until now have been hidden, this president will fight to keep from having his truth known. It is none too pretty - we have evidence enough to corroborate that notion. What I'm afraid of is "to what lengths will this horrid man tear down the world around him to try and protect his self-interest, and whose safety is he jeopardizing?" when this will inevitably happen.
8
Congress? Spare me.
Mueller’s careful, intensive, and very necessary investigation is moving at a snail’s pace. This is normal and expected, but Trump was propelled into office by a segment of the public that expects government to provide results (or in Trump's case, destruction) extremely quickly. Interestingly, the poor and unemployed among these people are the most venomous, but they won’t get much out of him other than a voice for their anger. It was the ‘big’ money of a few who plan to profit mightily that provided the financing, some of whom aren’t even US citizens. And they expect to make more money. Money is a bigger deal in modern America than integrity, capability, fairness, or responsibility for the environment and the future. It’s shameful. These people admire a billionaire who acquired his fortune via inheritance and exploitation, and will cheerfully let our education system and infrastructure deteriorate further and will turn a blind eye while underprivileged kids go without healthcare if they think they personally can get a 10-cent pay raise.
Now we have those who plan to profit off Trump’s presidency pushing the idea that Mueller’s investigation is costing our country too much money. But if you can buy dishonesty, why not the opposite? I’d rather send Mueller a check than finance the campaigns of the bozos running for office in my state, so let’s find a way to crowd-fund the investigation. It’s the American way.
14
Trump has always abided by the wise words of his late mentor, Roy Cohn: "I don't need to know the law, I need to know the judge." The idea that he would approve a federal regulation that would protect Mueller and threaten his presidency is simply wishful thinking.
39
Thank you for a brilliant summary of what happened to many of us who were children at the time of Nixon's undoing. Let us hope for another Saturday night massacre and that better heads prevail.
1
Oh, my god. Have you boys learned nothing over the past year or so?
Trump "could" act Presidential in this situation, eschewing any personal considerations and taking the good of the country and our system of government into consideration? Really?
"If" he remains silent and doesn't do so? Really?
And just what consequence do you think he will face for that failure?
I shudder to think that two former "heads of the solicitor generals office" could be so naive, or fail so utterly to understand the nature of the man in the White House and his Congressional supporters.
Maybe that's part of how we got where we are now.
297
The mere suggestion that this president would agree to this regulation is fanciful in the extreme.
192
"We come at this from different sides of the aisle but share the conviction that President Trump’s Justice Department should issue modern-day Bork regulations."
And, with all due respect, we all know the president wouldn't sign or respect them. How many times do we have to watch the president abuse power before we state the obvious: Donald Trump has, and continues to, take the law into his own hands and Congress does absolutely nothing!
Sure this is a reasoned column. But reason has flown out the window under this administration, where up is down and down is up and nothing--absolutely nothing--is predictable, normal, or rational.
I wonder if these authors even accept the fact that democracy is hanging by a thread, less because of Donald Trump but because of the complicit Congress?
This is what extreme political division means: in an America with two realities, one clearly fake and one objective, the party holding all the power can choose the fake one.
If all this doesn't impel people to vote in November--assuming elections are held--well, nothing will.
341
Nixon was third string at best.
This comment says it all.
Most Americans know that this president is not committed to the rule of law and Congressional Republicans are determined to protect him at all costs. The GOP during the Nixon years was grounded in strict conservative ideology but the party was also responsive to the rule of law and the Watergate scandal's affect on the country. Republicans found no joy in forcing Nixon's resignation but saw their action as a duty to America and the Constitution. Such is not the case today.
464
It sent like Obama was a fan of the rule of law either, using executive fiat to get around laws he did not like.
We've been asking the question since Trump's inception as President - what is he afraid of? So, without agreement from all parties, which isn't looking too promising given Nunes, et al, we're still nowhere in ensuring that Mueller is protected.
70
It is a sad commentary that we have come to a pass where a piece like this even needs to written. Thankfully two legal minds, each with the requisite experience and expertise, have opined and led the way to offset a constitutional crisis. We owe them, and others too, a debt of gratitude -- regardless of party affiliation. Woe to all of us, and American democracy, if we do not follow their lead and advice.
32
If the president blocks the investigation, as is apparent and ongoing, and if the GOP congress fails to protect Mr. Mueller, which is equally possible, what recourse do we as citizens have?
90
The streets.
There were over a million of us in the streets on 20Jan of this year. Those million people, me being one of them, are upset, and not going to roll over.
1. Thoughts and prayers
2. 2018 election
Am trying to figure out how the writers overlook the fact that neither Congress nor the Justice department will act responsibly.
225
Agreed. The argument/proposition that Mr Katyal and Starr put forth assumes that the attorney general, president and congress are willing to make truth and justice a priority which is quite a leap of faith.
45
The Congress has been intimidated by President Trump’s abuse of the bully pulpit, while the Justice Department is under the executive branch and accountable to the President. The resignations during the Nixon administration were brave refusals to follow the directions of te executive branch. President Trump has not kept on individuals who have the moral will to refuse orders which undermine the constitutional balance of powers. Congress, on the other hand, needs only to strengthen its character as an independent branch of government and exercise its power. The Republican Congress is too timid.
4
"Bork codified these restrictions in federal regulations, and told the news media that Nixon had agreed to them."
Do Mr. Starr and Mr. Katyal believe for a minute that Mr. Trump would agree to "Bork regulations"? Do they think the GOP would accept them?
117
The chances of Trump agreeing to the Bork regulations are as close to 0 as one can get. But if Katyal and Starr believe there is any chance he would, I suppose the exercise is worth the effort. IN my view, Trump sees Mueller closing in on him and it is causing him to vent and threaten as he did in his Saturday to Sunday tweet storm when he figured out or was informed that the Mueller indictment of 13 Russians meant that the investigation was getting ever closer to his door.
136
Richard M. Nixon was, after all was said and so finally done, an elected official who was educated in the law, knowledgeable of government and showed a respect for the office most definitively when he resigned as advised by colleagues from his same political party. He reassured the American people and assured the American system of governing by so resigning.
It is difficult to imagine that Donald J. Trump will ever do the same because he so apparently reassures only himself while he assures no one that the office itself deserves respect. The current, same party Congress is complicit in Trump's instability and incoherence by giving him transient political cover, delaying a reckoning with truth that will eventually emerge in the courts and a free press.
I think Nixon would have started WW III before allowing himself to ever being controlled by Russians out to destroy the American system. Trump seems to have no such compunction.
309
Richard Nixon might have been educated in the law, but he and his minions totally misread the fabric of the American people.
Nixon resigned because his position as president had become untenable. Goldwater, Scott and Rhodes told him so when they visited the White House:
www.nytimes.com/1974/08/12/archives/nixon-slide-from-power-backers-gave-...
Trump, like Nixon, has ignored the law on many occasions.
There are, however, no Goldwaters, Scotts, or Rhodeses available to confront Trump.
The nightmare continues.
12
If Trump's ship 'really' starts to sink, I'm fairly sure that just like the Watergate-era Nixon backers, current Republican Trump-backers will behave likewise -- to save their own hides!
1
"I think Nixon would have started WW III before allowing himself to ever being controlled by Russians out to destroy the American system."
Excellent point. Nixon also never had nor cared for money. Pat's plain cloth coat and all that. He would never have had to mortgage his soul to crooks and money launderers to prop up a paper-thin ego.
It takes a real degenerate to make Richard Nixon seem a paragon of virtue in comparison.
2
A very sensible solution indeed. But we live in insensible times - how do these gentlemen propose to push trump to sign anything that goes against his personal interests? Refusal to sign may we'll speak volumes, but what does the self-proclaimed monarch care?
118
Issuing such a regulation would depend on Jeff Sessions more than anyone else; and I doubt he will do any such thing. My guess is that he wishes he'd never left his comfortable, lucrative Senate seat and would like to win it back. It's the best job he's ever had or likely ever will have. He won't do anything that might antagonize the same GOP voters in Alabama who almost sent Roy Moore to Washington.
55
As the Mueller investigation continues to inch closer and closer to the White House, it is more important than ever for the nation to be on high alert should the president look for ways to shut it down.
James Risen's recent analysis is extremely pertinent here:
"But if a presidential candidate or his lieutenants secretly work with a foreign government that is a longtime adversary of the United States to manipulate and then win a presidential election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason."
Our nation's future depends on all of us being willing to go the extra mile -- to actually show that this is important by taking to the streets if necessary -- to ensure that this investigation is not shut down.
228
No truer words have been spoken. The streets...fighting this treasonous group of self appointed “saviors”
With “ friends “like these America will not last long enough for the traitors to spend their stolen $. The new currency will be Russian Rubles.
Based on President Trump's invective against the Mueller investigation to date, it seems highly unlikely that he would allow your proposed approach to be executed. As is so eloquently stated by Tom Friedman in his column today the question is what is the reason for Trump's bazaar failure to implement the sanctions Congress passed?
41
I think you mean "bizarre". Oddly, though, "bazaar" manages to answer the question; I'm with Friedman in leaning toward the money theory.
5
Bizarre, of course, not bazaar!
Clem - Thanks, may have been a Freudian slip! F/S
"Consensus" of the leaders of Congress may be the problem. It we mean unanimous consensus, this would be a good safeguard - if this can be interpreted in any way to mean the majority decides, it would obviously become meaningless in our current situation.
I do like that Ken Starr entertains the simple question: What is Donald Trump so afraid of? Everyone else should be asking the same question at every opportunity.
20
Sounds great, but the HUGE difference between now and then is the Congress. In the days of Nixon there were Republicans with integrity who put country above party. Good luck finding more than one or two in this group of partisans.
615
My thoughts exactly. How do we come up with the patriotic patriots in our Congress to accomplish such a regulation?? Trump is more afraid of Putin than he is of a lingering question on his fitness for office. Putin sure read Trump right when he picked him.
15
Well, yes, Trump certainly could "assure the public that he will let the investigation continue." The only problem is that he seems much more interested in figuring out whether and how he can prevent it from continuing.
314
Nixon saw the political consequences of not agreeing to the Bork regulation. It was a political solution, not a legal one. Trump does not need a political solution, and unfortunately rightly so because his base would be unhappy if he did so. His base will not turn on him, no matter what Mueller turns up. If he runs again and the investigation either finds wrongdoing in his administration or has not been concluded by then, we will no doubt hear "Lock Mueller up" along with Hillary. And absent a strong Democratic candidate to oppose him, we will have another four years of Trump.
16
To this non-lawyer, it seems that the last paragraph leaves us looking into an abyss:
"And if the president doesn't permit a Bork regulation? That silence will speak volumes. If President Trump cannot agree to an investigation modeled on what Richard Nixon agreed to, the question will linger: Just what is he afraid of?"
The silence will speak volumes and the question will linger, but what then? I'm not clear whether that suspicious behavior would be sufficient to start the wheels of impeachment turning, even in ordinary times; and these are times in which the president's party seems determined to prop him up at all costs.
If there is some foreseeable chain of events that would be set off by the president's refusal to be restrained and his subsequent dismissal of the special counsel, I'd like to hear about it.
365
Perhaps a loan hidden in his unreleased tax returns would be that chain of events. Deutsche Bank was the final bank which loaned Trump 250M with money given by Russians in London, then laundered through the Bank of Cyprus. This loan and its history were documented in The New Yorker, over a year ago; the piece was written by an investigative reporter; the article was never challenged by Trump or his organization. Get the tax returns, and the chain of events will follow. Putin has the power to call in a 250M loan to the U.S. President. Think about that.
5
Linda, thanks for your reply.
Now, that's interesting. I ought to have been reading more widely.
I'm convinced that Russia's leverage over Trump has more to do with indebtedness than with the blackmail that has also been suggested, but I didn't know there was money laundering involved.
This is one of many reasons for Trump to be intent on "turning off the burglar alarms", as David Frum has put it.
1