There is talk that President Treason will try to fire Mueller this weekend.
Supposedly he wants Sessions to fire McCabe for being a witness against President Treason before McCabe will vest for his pension. The idea is Sessions will be made to fire McCabe, then Sessions will be fired and Scott Pruitt announced as his replacement. Pruitt will be ordered to fire Mueller.
Or perhaps Sessions won't fire McCabe and the President will fire Sessions over that, then get Pruitt in and order him to fire Mueller.
My first reaction is that we need Pruitt at EPA. If he leaves, they'll have to get another EPA head confirmed and that might not happen till Democrats are in charge. Pruitt is the brightest spot in the administration imo. I don't want to endanger what he's done there.
Pruitt can be moved from EPA to Justice without a new confirmation they say. But they're wrong (see Business Insider article below). Pruitt WOULD have to go through a new confirmation.
But even if Pruitt could get in and fire Mueller:
1) There will be some time gap, allowing Mueller to push out or unseal additional indictments
2) All the indictments released so far and any new ones wouldn't just vanish. Nor would the guilty pleas go away. Ditto for the confessions and testimony that implicates President Treason and his team. The President thinks so, but to quote his former Secretary of State, the President is a F'ing Moron.
3) Presidential pardons won't save those indicted or who have already pleaded guilty. Even without Mueller, various state AG's, especially NY's, have evidence from Mueller already and state crimes can't be pardoned by a President. State prosecutions will be a layup because legally acceptance of a pardon constitutes and admission of guilt.
There's a huge flaw in the theory that Trump could replace Jeff Sessions with Scott Pruitt
Allan Smith
Vanity Fair reported Wednesday that President Donald Trump was considering replacing Attorney General Jeff Sessions with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.The publication initially wrote that Pruitt wouldn't have to face a confirmation hearing.He actually would.And that hearing would prove to be brutal.
So there's a massive flaw with the idea that President Donald Trump might oust Attorney General Jeff Sessions and replace him with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Pruitt, contrary to some initial belief, would have to face a Senate confirmation hearing. Such a hearing would prove to be brutal if Pruitt was tasked with replacing Sessions, who has caught Trump's ire because of his recusal from the Russia investigation being run by special counsel Robert Mueller and overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
On Wednesday, Vanity Fair reported that two Republicans in contact with the White House said there have been discussions that Trump could replace Sessions with Pruitt, who would not be recused from the Russia probe.
Vanity Fair initially wrote that Pruitt would not be subjected to a confirmation hearing since he was already confirmed to his post as head of the EPA, but soon amended the story to note that Pruitt would indeed face another Senate confirmation.
The publication added a line claiming that Pruitt "would presumably have a good shot at passing a Senate confirmation hearing."
But with a slim majority in the Senate and questions about how he would handle oversight of the Mueller probe, Pruitt would be in for one of the toughest confirmations in recent memory.
businessinsider.com |
