#ProtectMueller Demonstrations Hit Cities Across the Country

Led by activist group, Public Citizen, protesters demand Trump's acting attorney general, Matt Whitaker, recuse himself.

At of the time of this writing, one of the top trending topics on Twitter is #ProtectMueller.

On Thursday evening, quickly organized demonstrations were held in Washington, D.C., New York, Boston, and other cities, with more planned for Friday, around the nation.

The purpose of the demonstrations is to demand Donald Trump’s new acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, recuse himself, and that steps be taken to protect special counsel Robert Mueller and the Russia probe.

A list of events hosted by the activist group Public Citizen listed dozens of events in smaller cities in nearly every state Thursday night as demonstrators protested what many thought to be an effort by the president to begin shutting down the Russia investigation.

Protests Thursday came hours after Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake (R), himself a frequent critic of the president, vowed to force a vote in the Senate on bill that would codify Justice Department regulations stating that only a senior DOJ official can fire the special counsel.

Whitaker, who previously served as former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ chief of staff, mapped out a step-by-step plan for choking the Russia probe into oblivion, while appearing on CNN in 2017.

Many find the president’s quick move to replace Sessions with a loyalist such as Whitaker to be troublesome.

And probably not Constitutional.

As of Thursday, along with the demonstrations, 18 state attorney generals have signed a statement, also asking that Whitaker recuse himself from overseeing the Russia probe.

There are several going on near my area on Friday, so stand by. I’m probably going to drop in and talk to a few of those in attendance for myself.

Comments
No. 1-7
Susan_Wright
Susan_Wright

Editor

@MTNJACKET Dry your panties. Nobody is using Public Citizen as 'an authoritative reference.' If you could locate a 3rd grader to help with reading comprehension, you'd see that they were simply part of the story. They're behind these demonstrations. For instance, in this sentence: "Jack ran over the cat with his car," is Jack being used as an authoritative reference on running over cats, or is the sentence simply pointing out that Jack was who ran over the cat? When you figure it out, it will help with the reading of the posted article.

MTNJACKET
MTNJACKET

I know many of the authors and commenters on this site have no use for President Trump and have abandoned the Republican party. They also have replaced conservative principles with religion. However, it is a stretch to use the Public Citizen as an authoritative reference for a political philosophy. One look at their web site and their board of directors should be enough to turn off anyone who still has any conservative beliefs.

DavidMKern
DavidMKern

Susan, Trey (not Troy - my mistake) Gowdy was a former federal prosecutor and a member of the "House Oversight and Government Report Committee" who did not run for reelection in 2018 because he wanted to return to his private legal career. Wikipedia has the following quote in Gowdy’s article: "According to Politico, during his tenure in Congress, Gowdy was "considered one of the GOP's most versatile and skilled legal experts, owing to his background as a federal prosecutor."

Upon further reading, I also found this comment in the Blaze that indicates that although the office of AG is not directly mentioned in the US Constitution, there is a clause that authorizes general offices that requires the advice and consent of the Senate:

According to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution: “…and [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint, Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

The legal issue regarding a temporary appointment of an AG is that there are two contradictory laws, that could govern whether an AG appointment is legal:

  1. The Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (VRA)
  2. U.S. Code, 28 USC Sec 503 (quoted in my first post, issued in 1953)

The issue is that there will likely be a court ruling to decide which of these conflicting laws takes precedence in determining whether Trump has the legal right to appoint Whitaker as acting-AG, which is not a permanent appointment, but a temporary one that will end when a permanent AG can be approved by the Senate.

While it is hypothetically true that Trump (or a Trump loyalist) could do a lot of things, my argument is three-fold:

  1. A future hypothetical action does not deserve gathering together huge mobs to protest something that Trump has repeatedly stated he has not interested in doing.

  2. Because there are conflicting laws that may cover Trump’s legal right to appoint Whitaker as acting AG, we should let the proper court authorities decide the legality of this appointment, rather than allocating for mob rule.

  3. Even though as President, Trump has always had the legal right to fire Mueller, it doesn’t mean that it would be political suicide for Trump to do so, as it would probably lead to his impeachment.

Susan_Wright
Susan_Wright

Editor

@DavidMKern I dont know who Troy Gowdy is, but just because Trump hasnt fired Mueller doesnt mean he wouldnt hire a loyalist to do it.

DavidMKern
DavidMKern

To @ForAllAmericans : Mueller has not been fired and Trump has repeatedly stated that he has no intention to do so. Consequently, it is premature to assume that this is Trump’s intention with appointing Whitaker as acting AG. Although Trump has the legal authority to fire Mueller, this doesn’t mean he wouldn’t suffer severe political consequences from doing so (such as a successful impeachment rather than a bogus Democratic lynching attempt). Given that the Senate still has a number of Republicans who are certainly not pro-Trump, he would be politically stupid to fire Mueller, as this would almost certainly trigger a serious impeachment process.

I think a more likely scenario is that Whitaker was appointed to deal with serious challenges of Rosenstein’s actions by conservative House Members (such as the Freedom Caucus and Troy Gowdy, among others). It is also possible that Whitaker was appointed to insure that the justice department releases documents previously subpoenaed by various House committees. As a conservative Christian, I am 100% in favor of seeking the complete truth. But the key issue to me is that as Christians and/or Political Conservatives, we should always push for the complete truth, and not only in cases that support our unique political views. Partial truths benefit nobody and they are certainly are not Godly.