Mueller will have access to his tax returns if he requests them.

The rest of your post goes without saying, but it's this first line I don't get. If they were "fine" on their face, he would've released them immediately. There is zero chance they don't contain things he's terrified of people finding out about.

To borrow a phrase from Comey; Lordy I hope he has access! Because if so, I think we're gonna be okay. Once released, it's just a matter of time before he's forced out of office.

I don't think even the Trumpers know for sure. Because if he could fire Comey for any reason, then why does he need letters from the AG and DAG to give himself cover that he's doing it for cause?

Historically Trump isn't known for having a sense of indebtedness. I'd say he's known more for being a stiff. So while he may owe for past dealings, my guess is that Russia has something over on him at the present. Similarly, I doubt his loyalty to Flynn runs too deep. I think its more likely that Flynn holds the key to some damaging information about Trump.

It's half right and half wrong. It is correct that the president has the legal power to fire the FBI director. It is not correct that he is allowed to obstruct justice. So if firing the FBI director obstructs justice the problem isn't the firing of the FBI director, its that the obstructing justice part. Or at least this is how I understand it.

Right, the President has the authority to fire the FBI Director. But if he does so corruptly, then that is obstruction of justice. Which is grounds for impeachment (although unsure/doubtful if this R Congress does anything unless poll numbers fall further) and possible indictment (which is an open legal question).

Are you sure about this? Source?

I thought the IRS in the US does not share its information with any other branch of the government.
People in the IRS won't leak anything, because it's very traceable and highly illegal. Also, they don't have any friends so they don't have anyone to talk to if they do want to leak it.

If, by "deep state", we mean a broad group of decent people, many with extensive experience in government, whose mere existence has the effect of upholding important political norms, then I guess I am a fan of the deep state.

The Office of Special Counsel isn't really like a branch of government.

Mueller has the authority to request them and if a judge believes he has reasonable grounds to review them, then they will be released to the investigation. They will not be released publicly and I doubt they would be leaked, but Mueller would have them for the purposes of his investigation.

"Deep state" is conspiratard nonsense that somehow made its way from the fringe derposphere into the mainstream derposphere. Newt is garbage.

Ok that makes sense. So the letters from the AGs were to give himself the cover for OoJ, but then he blew it the next day in the interview and the tweets.

Working for Trump must be really fun.

It's a technical point distorted to seem like a real point. Sure, the president can technically fire the FBI director for any reason; it's a thing within his power. However, some of those reasons might also constitute obstruction of justice, whether criminal or, if that's not possible (there are informed debates about the issue), then in a way that would be criminal if it could be criminal, which would rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor and be impeachable.

It's this kind of narrow, technical point that has led to a string of losses for the travel ban in court. The president has almost plenary power to restrict immigration, but he cannot do so for an improper reason, such as religious discrimination masked as concern for public safety.

People think law is all technicalities, but as often as not there are exceptions when attempts are made to use such technicalities to achieve an improper end. Like you can sell your house and give the money to a friend, but not if you did so to avoid creditors.

They are likely embarrassing on their face, but you need to dig another level deeper to find the criminality.

Is the POTUS immune from criminal charges for here though? If so, is that just for crimes committed while POTUS?

Isn't impeachment really not tied directly to specific crimes and that's part of why there's no punishment other than removal from office that can result? POTUS can be impeached for essentially nothing or perhaps not impeached (or immune from other prosecution) for serious crimes?

Didn't he basically say during the campaign that it would hurt him politically to release them?

A stunning 50% of the CEOs, business execs, government officials and academics surveyed at the annual Yale CEO Summit give Trump an "F" for his first 130 days in office.

The survey, released earlier this week, found that another 21% give Trump's performance a "D" so far. Just 1% of the 125 leaders polled awarded the billionaire an "A."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/15/inve...vey/index.html

CEO of Smith Wesson was probably the A rating guy, possibly some coal power company

derposphere is my current favorite word

To me he doesn't show them for one reason only. He is not anywhere near as wealthy as he likes to portray.