Q. - which of the various crimes that Trump/Kushner/Manafort are most likely to have committed can be tried at the state level? If you conspire in NY with a foreign power to interfere with a federal presidential election can that be a state crime? How about money laundering?

Also, note that:

I take this to imply that removal of the SC by the AG would not terminate an inquiry. The inquiry is initiated because it is "warranted," and there are rules regarding termination of the SCs investigation, but they do not include that a (presumably new) AG finds the appointment of a SC, as a general matter, inappropriate. So, say the SC's were arrested for embezzlement of the SC's Office budgetary funds--this would likely lead to his removal but it would not terminate the investigation.

Do you have any opinion / take / advice if Trump fires Mueller? Your posts about the absurdity and spinelessness of the GOP's probable response are amusing in some horrifying way but also not insightful. Not that you have any responsibility to a ****s and giggles poker politics forum, but you do have a better perspective on history than me and most others. I think I can safely speak for the forum in saying we would be interested in what you have to say.

Obv, since you chided me for appearing to downplay Comey's firing, you must think of firing Mueller as a huge deal.

Probably most of them. Many (most?) federal crimes are also state crimes, and cases can often be prosecuted by either state or federal prosecutors, with perhaps some negotiation and, generally, deference to the feds.

Here are the NY state laws regarding money laundering, which appear fairly extensive:

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article470.htm

Any particular reason Congress was talking about eliminating laws against war crimes last week? I'm curious about a relationship between that and what Putin has been doing to government officials in Russia's takeover of Ukraine.

If Congress does nothing, how many do you think will take to the streets? (it won't be hundreds and it won't be thousands)

OK let me rephrase - which crimes are specifically federal?

Something else to consider. The SC regulations are basically designed with a view toward preventing the president from firing the SC, because it's not unlikely that appointment of a SC would be related to investigating presidential misconduct (though it could be any executive branch entity). Really, preventing that contingency, or even a Saturday Night Massacre, is the motivation behind all the hoops in the law.

Now, some constitutional extremists, such as John Yoo and Deshowitz, who believe in unbridled executive power checked only by impeachment, would probably argue that the regulations are themselves unconstitutional. However, this is an extreme view held by a distinct minority of constitutional scholars, and almost no one in Congress, who believe that the president has a legal and constitutional duty to "faithfully execute the laws." (Art. II, sec 3: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”")

I understand the sentiment, but it's not so black and white. I agree that virtually every member of the GOP Congress is spineless. Few, if any, will ever oppose Trump for the right reasons, no matter what happens with Mueller or his investigation. But even spineless people act in their own self interest. The constituency for each GOP member of Congress is different. If it becomes more disadvantageous politically for a particular GOP member to support Trump than to oppose him, then that member will jump off the train. The political threshold for jumping off the train varies depending on the member, or more specifically, the political leanings of that member's constituency.

"The great majority of criminal prosecutions are state prosecutions, for violations of state law, in state court. However, just are there are state laws against engaging in criminal behavior, there are also federal criminal laws, passed by Congress. At least in theory, federal criminal laws are tied to some federal or national issue, such as interstate trafficking in contraband, federal tax fraud, mail fraud, or crimes committed on federal property. Some criminal acts are crimes only under federal law. But many criminal acts, such as bank robbery, are crimes under both federal and state law and may be prosecuted in either federal or state court."
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...ral-crimes.htm

(Just noticed this web page was written by a cute girl I hung out with in law school.)

Yes, firing Mueller would be a huge deal. I don't know what will happen if he fires Mueller; I do think there's a chance it might be the final straw and he might get impeached. I rate the likelihood low, maybe 20%, but I think it's extent.

Having said that, I was imagining a world where that DOESN'T happen, Trump fires Mueller, and the GOP isn't moved to act by the firing itself. In that world, the leaks won't matter a bit. If Trump can survive the political fallout from the firing and the GOP can plausibly hum along without too much damage, then the leaks -- while they might satisfy the press and the public's curiosity, and give liberals and the left yet another thing to hang their hats and pin their hopes and dreams to -- those won't matter at all.

I realize I'm probably just a pessimist, but I see a lot of talk like this that I'm not really sure is deserved.

We don't actually know that much about Mueller, right? I get he has a good reputation, but there are a lot of people in Washington with 'a good reputation' that really haven't done **** when it comes to Trump. I'm not sure I buy the narrative that Mueller is going to be some above-reproach true patriot that will sacrifice everything for true justice.

Fine. But if the GOP can survive the political fallout from the firing, it's hard to see how they won't be able to fade the political fallout from the leaks. The potential firing of Mueller is transparently bad and obstruction, contradicts tons of GOP Congress members who have flattered Mueller as responsible and the final arbiter of this matter, and if GOP members of Congress can shape public opinion to the point that they convince their member constituencies it's either no big deal and/or it's troubling but not enough to do much, then nothing that leaks will move them either. The leaks are going to be far easier to spin as debatable, of questionable veracity, inappropriately gathered and distributed, and partisan chicanery.

In the end, this kind of objection is pedantry: I agree, the political threshold for jumping off the train varies depending on the member, or more specifically, the political leanings of that member's constituency. That's understood by basically everyone. The point is entirely wrapped around the political threshold. If the thresshold isn't broken by the firing (unquestionably out of bounds and transgressive of norms), it won't be broken by the post-hoc leaks which will just be explained away as sour grapes or inappropriate or anonymously sourced, etc. etc.

To the extent it's ultimately a political and not purely a legal issue, Trump is not well positioned. He's unpopular by any historical standard, he's alienated many in Congress, specifically and generally, and Pence is an acceptable replacement for most Republicans.

The issue is that the dynamism in the GOP, to the extent there is any, is with Trump and his supporters. If 25% of the standard GOP electorate did not show up on election day, then it would be a historic bloodbath. The GOP is riding the tiger, and sometimes you get eaten when you ride the tiger.

Even if the likelihood of impeachment is 20% in case Trump fires Mueller, isn't there an additional option of Congress installing their own special investigator (I'm not sure about the terminology here, but I think I remember having read something like that).
Seems like that would be the strategy Republicans in insecure districts should go with: appease people critical of Trump while at the same time not as infuriating to Trump supporters.
That will of course depend on how Trump reacts to it, so maybe it will just delay the intra-Republican civil war for a few days.

We actually know a whole lot about Mueller, though you may not. Both parties agreed to pass a law so he could serve longer than 10 years as FBI director.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller

Mueller does not need to sacrifice anything for "true justice", much less everything. He's already sacrificed a couple $M/yr just to take the job. Many of his team have also sacrificed $1M/yr or more to work with the special counsel's office.

OTOH Congressional districts are highly gerrymandered, Trump right now still controls a high percentage of approval from GOP voters, and very deep adoration from a high subset of that population, and all of the calculations of GOP Congress members who might feel betrayed by Trump, simply dislike him, etc. and who see Pence as an acceptable alternative -- they have to worry about highly aggressive partisans penalizing them for the perception they betrayed Trump.

So I think you are not calculating Trump's political position well. He is in a bad position to drive home a big consensus and change the fabric of the country or get big legislation done, I can buy that. But he seems very well positioned to continue to keep the GOP Congress in line.

You can tell both of what I say above is a better description of the reality because it's exactly what we're witnessing: GOP is struggling to govern and deeply unpopular but unable to constrain and corral Trump.

I'm sure it will be lots. I will be one of them.

And then, after a while, everybody will go home. Just like last time. There is very little appetite for serious protest in the country, because serious protest requires sacrifice and most people aren't personally affected enough by any of this to risk jail or get pepper sprayed or lose their job or whatever.

Who are the population of people who would be initially disastified with firing of Mueller, willing to listen to an explanation of why that might be at all justified such that Trump should continue to be President and wants to see what comes next, and then ultimately satisfied by the GOP promising to wage their own investigation with their own prosecutor?

That has to describe like zero real people. It's not a meaningful compromise if it's incoherent.

I agree with you that firing Mueller should be "unquestionably out of bounds" and that constituencies should assume that any such firing was for illicit reasons. But in the real world, I think that the content of the leaks, and the certainty of the proof of misconduct, would be relevant, at least for some people.

This is obviously the correct answer. Which is why I've been banging the "waste of Democrats time to focus too much on this" because you're either having to thread a very, very precisely needle to really drive Trump out of power and penalize the GOP; failing that, everyone decamps for partisan corners, perhaps some damage but nothing lasting.

The better issues are ones that are personal to people and threaten their livelihoods and well being. That's health care, not Trump scandals up to and including Russia.

Trump and Putin May Have Met More Times Says Russia’s Sergei Lavrov
This is coming from an experienced diplomat and likely spy, trained to always choose his words very carefully, usually in service of some ulterior goal.

Firing Mueller is already proof of misconduct for anyone willing to entertain the notion Trump can be guilty of misconduct.

Anything that leaks will never meet the threshold you keep holding up but simply isn't coherent. As I said, there is basically no one who tolerates the firing but is moved by the leaks. This is just repeating this:

...which describes ~no one.

While I think Trump has done impeachable things, especially relating to financial matters, and regularly demonstrated general incompetence, I do think a good faith argument can be made that he's not yet done anything impeachable. If he hasn't, then there is no profit in slagging him as a GOP congressperson, no matter what one believes.

However, if conduct that is very widely regarded as impeachable comes to light, I think he will lose support, both publicly and in Congress. At best, I think it is almost certain that the House flips in 2018 if Trump fires Mueller and, say, 33% of Republican voters (including those "independents" who generally vote Republican) defect from Trump or stay home.

If he fires Mueller and the GOP retains the House in 2018, then I'm moving to Mars, because that would mean the human race is a lost cause. I am no great proponent of the Wisdom of the American People, but I think the burden is on the "sky is falling" crowd to argue their portents of doom are actually plausible and not just a symptom of their general dissatisfaction.

Some people are willing to gobble up any story about a political witch hunt, Mueller exceeding his mandate, etc., that passes the red face test, but they would be offended by anything that met their standard of proof for actual collusion.

They are the same people who tend to blame crime victims and give police the benefit of the doubt unless they can see evidence of misconduct with their own eyes. But once they see the video of Ray Rice knocking out his girlfriend, they would be happy to draw and quarter him in the town square, because "now we have proof."

In other words, they set the bar for proof absurdly high, but they are extremely Old Testament when that burden of proof is met. You can insist that this group is a null set, but I certainly feel like I know people in this category. IMO, a lot of people in the GOP have some version of this mindset.